Just curious, what do you people think of this piece?
gross? ;)
(And dark and rich like fudge.)
I have always loved Beethoven's music for string quartet. His musical style seems to fit perfectly for this set of instruments. So, Grosse Fugue is among my favorite Beethoven.
What in particular do you admire about it?
Quote from: E..L..I..A..S.. =) on November 21, 2007, 12:37:52 AM
What in particular do you admire about it?
Timbral aspects. Beethoven is not a great orchestrator imo and I find his orchestral music often underorchestrated and timbrally clumsy (Missa Solemnis and the 6th symphony are exceptions). In his string quartets Beethoven has an amazing timbral balance and "maturity"
QuoteBeethoven is not a great orchestrator imo
Can we stay on subject? This comment will obvious derail this topic so just ignore it ;D
Quote from: E..L..I..A..S.. =) on November 21, 2007, 01:57:10 AM
Can we stay on subject? This comment will obvious derail this topic so just ignore it ;D
Whatever... ...I just find that Beethoven's music for string quartet works excellently in timbral sense. He has the timbral dimension in the music working together with other musical dimensions.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 21, 2007, 02:02:05 AM
Whatever... ...I just find that Beethoven's music for string quartet works excellently in timbral sense. He has the timbral dimension in the music working together with other musical dimensions.
Holy c..p! Note to self: MUST stay on subject.
I find the Grosse Fuge admirable but not lovable. I think he tries to hard, and although late Beethoven usually strains at the traditional forms, here he really succeeds and produces something that is really hard to listen to. I tend to play this far less than the rest of his late quartet works.
Quote from: erato on November 21, 2007, 02:06:21 AM
I find the Grosse Fuge admirable but not lovable. I think he tries to hard, and although late Beethoven usually strains at the traditional forms, here he really succeeds and produces something that is really hard to listen to. I tend to play this far less than the rest of his late quartet works.
I agree, it is one of my least favorite (it has a feel too much is said in 15 minutes) of Beethoven's late string quartet works but still great.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 21, 2007, 01:39:14 AM
Beethoven is not a great orchestrator imo and I find his orchestral music often underorchestrated and timbrally clumsy (Missa Solemnis and the 6th symphony are exceptions).
(http://www.theselfishbastard.com/wp-content/stfu/2.jpg)
I admire the Grosse Fuga enormously, and listen to it often. But, I agree, it is not exactly enjoyable. It is also, in my opinion, one of the very few string quartet movements that is interesting when transcribed for full string orchestra (cf recordings by Klemperer, Weingartner, Furtwängler, Busch, Alsop). When played by massed strings, you lose the sense of struggle that is inherent in the music. But you are also better able to appreciate the fugal writing and the overall structure.
Its a great work. Stravinsky called it "this absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever ... it is pure interval music, this fugue, and I love it beyond any other" The quote is in the Joseph Kerman Beethoven Quartets book which goes on to say that there are records for only 14 performances of the piece up to 1875
<Insert Hyperbole Here>
All I can say is that few pieces of music impact me as strongly as the Grosse Fuge, though in my opinion it must be listened to as the finale of the Op 130 Quartet! I find it best not to try to constrain it to any classical forms (especially since I have very little detailed knowledge of classical form), and just let it go where Beethoven wanted it to. The late quartets are always so difficult to describe, as is my reaction to them! Perhaps I should settle for just enjoying them. :)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 21, 2007, 04:25:13 AM
Its a great work. Stravinsky called it "this absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever ... it is pure interval music, this fugue, and I love it beyond any other" The quote is in the Joseph Kerman Beethoven Quartets book which goes on to say that there are records for only 14 performances of the piece up to 1875
Yes, it's so modern it's scary. But good scary...
Quote from: E..L..I..A..S.. =) on November 20, 2007, 10:29:39 PM
Just curious, what do you people think of this piece?
BTW, if spelling out the composer's complete name is too much effort, you might consider using "LvB" instead of "Beet" .........
Quote from: D Minor on November 21, 2007, 06:27:38 PM
BTW, if spelling out the composer's complete name is too much effort, you might consider using "LvB" instead of "Beet" .........
I like Beet better dude.
It's been my favourite piece of music for several months now.
I listen to it at least 3 times a day. Each time I pick up something new. I love listening to it in any state of mind, high, sedated, normal, manic, suicidal, hypomanic, and depressed.
All you need to know about Beets, Harvard style:
http://www.cooks.com/rec/search/0,1-21,harvard_beets,FF.html
Besides, you might want to chexk your spellyng. It's Grosse Fuge, dude...
Quote from: D Minor on November 21, 2007, 03:08:20 AM
(http://www.theselfishbastard.com/wp-content/stfu/2.jpg)
Lol D Minor you're hilarious :D
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on November 22, 2007, 07:31:55 PM
Besides, you might want to chexk your spellyng. It's Grosse Fuge, dude...
He committed a gross blunder ........
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on November 22, 2007, 07:31:55 PM
All you need to know about Beets, Harvard style:
Besides, you might want to chexk your spellyng. It's Grosse Fuge, dude...
Actually, if you stick to German, it's
Große Fuge
Well, whether you call it a Grand Fugue or horrible fudge ;), I call it one of the great masterworks. Sure, it's challenging; that level of complexity and depth and power and perfection is a challenge for anybody. But it's well worth becoming familiar with.
It's the only Beethoven string quartet movement which catched my attention from the first to the last note on the first listening.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 21, 2007, 01:39:14 AM
Timbral aspects. Beethoven is not a great orchestrator imo and I find his orchestral music often underorchestrated and timbrally clumsy (Missa Solemnis and the 6th symphony are exceptions). In his string quartets Beethoven has an amazing timbral balance and "maturity"
Could you explain how timbre comes into play when you're talking about Beethoven's SQ's / symphonies?
EDIT: What did you mean?
Quote from: 12tone. on November 24, 2007, 08:48:41 PM
Could you explain how timbre comes into play when you're talking about Beethoven's SQ's / symphonies?
EDIT: What did you mean?
I have explained these things before and people tend to disagree with what I say. However, this is how I have understood things myself and this is even logical.
My claim is Beethoven's music was "futuristic" in it's time except for orchestration. Beethoven should have invented the things Berlioz and other 19th century romantic composers invented. Beethoven's ideas had romantic scale but his orchestration isn't there. This is timbrally very clear (to my ears at least) in his large and ambitious orchestral music. The sixth symphony is an exception because it's "pastoral" meaning romantic orchestral timbral effects are not needed (it seems). Also, Missa Solemnis works timbrally very well because it's sacret music, relying on oldfashioned solutions (probably influenced by Haydn's ultra-futuristic Die Schöpfung?). Anyway, with string quartets Beethoven's futuristic ideas don't suffer from undeveloped orchestration. On the contrary, I find the timbral possibilities of a string quartet perfect for Beethoven musical language.
dB,
This problem arises when LvB´s orchestral music is played by great romantic orchestras. If played by a small scale HIP orchester there is no timbral problems, and LvB turns out to be a very great orchestrator indeed.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 24, 2007, 11:45:56 PM
and this is even logical.
Flawless logic. Impeccable.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 24, 2007, 11:45:56 PM
I have explained these things before and people tend to disagree with what I say. However, this is how I have understood things myself and this is even logical.
Nothing you have written about music so far is logical. Logical to you maybe, but that bears little or no relationship to actual logic. ::)
QuoteMy claim is Beethoven's music was "futuristic" in it's time except for orchestration. Beethoven should have invented the things Berlioz and other 19th century romantic composers invented. Beethoven's ideas had romantic scale but his orchestration isn't there. This is timbrally very clear (to my ears at least) in his large and ambitious orchestral music. The sixth symphony is an exception because it's "pastoral" meaning romantic orchestral timbral effects are not needed (it seems). Also, Missa Solemnis works timbrally very well because it's sacret music, relying on oldfashioned solutions (probably influenced by Haydn's ultra-futuristic Die Schöpfung?). Anyway, with string quartets Beethoven's futuristic ideas don't suffer from undeveloped orchestration. On the contrary, I find the timbral possibilities of a string quartet perfect for Beethoven musical language.
That is ludicrous, not logical. Futuristic? What are you thinking? Beethoven wasn't even a Romantic. He despised the music of those of his contemporaries that we today call the Early Romantics. He was a Classicist right to the end. Why should he have "invented" what Berlioz did? He had little or no interest in doing so. His advances in music had little or nothing to do with devising better ways to depict program music, which he despised in any case. Structurally he was the logical continuation and culmination of the Classical Era. "Classical" music is all about simplicity and economy of means, not about orchestral bloat. Isn't Berlioz the guy who wanted the 1000 piece orchestra? Well, that may have suited HIS ideas just fine, but it sure as hell wasn't Beethoven.
I think it would do you a tremendous amount of good to read a book. You can't absorb knowledge about something by mooning in the thin air that you appear to inhabit. I think that the reason you have this self-proclaimed inability to appreciate Beethoven is simply because you have unrealistic expectations. Without context (which you seem to be totally unaware of) and some vague idea of Time's Arrow (which I would hope that you are NOT unaware of, but I'm not sure) you will never be able to objectively evaluate music by anyone at all. Which you have already proved many times over.
8)
----------------
Now playing: Beethoven: Symphonies [Disc 5] - John Eliot Gardiner: Orchestre Révolutionnaire Et Romantique - Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor, Op. 125 - 2. Molto vivace
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 06:37:29 AM
I think it would do you a tremendous amount of good to read a book. You can't absorb knowledge about something by mooning in the thin air that you appear to inhabit. I think that the reason you have this self-proclaimed inability to appreciate Beethoven is simply because you have unrealistic expectations.
As a freethinker, he avoids reading anything that could brainwash him ........
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 06:37:29 AM
Now playing: Beethoven: Symphonies [Disc 5] - John Eliot Gardiner: Orchestre Révolutionnaire Et Romantique - Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor, Op. 125 - 2. Molto vivace
How is it? (viz. Hogwood)
Quote from: D Minor on November 25, 2007, 06:49:32 AM
As a freethinker, he avoids reading anything that could brainwash him ........
How is it? (viz. Hogwood)
It's excellent. Performance, recording quality, tempo choices &c. right on the money, IMO. Damn fine singing too. The orchestration is even adequate! :o
8)
----------------
Now playing: Beethoven: Symphonies [Disc 5] - Rodney Gilfry, Charlotte Margiono, Etc., John Eliot Gardiner; Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique, Monteverdi Choir - Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor, Op. 125 - 4b. Presto, "O Freunde...", Allegro assai
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 07:00:59 AM
The orchestration is even adequate! :o
No! Only the
Sixth Symphony has adequate orchestration ......... >:D
Strictly on topic:
What do you dudes think of LvB's own version for four hands, op. 134?
Quote from: Valentino on November 25, 2007, 07:30:46 AM
Strictly on topic:
What do you dudes think of LvB's own version for four hands, op. 134?
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. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Quartetto David - Cherubini String Quartet #3 in d 3rd mvmt - Scherzo
I used to like Beethoven's music a lot, be it piano sonatas, symphonies, whathaveyou. Now I just find his music annoyingly grumbly. Note that I didn't say GRUMPY.
Take his piano pieces. Compare his chord pounding and fast notes (but fast notes are good) and his apparent lack of a sustain pedal (although I know he uses it) to the music of Chopin and his sustained-washed music. Notes are brought out more fluidly. Fluid is the main word here. Beethoven's music is not fluid. I find it jerky, pounding and just not the slow, fluidity of Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff or any of those.
I know all those people, especially Rach were way off in years but you get the idea.
Quote from: 12tone. on November 25, 2007, 07:56:04 AM
I used to like Beethoven's music a lot, be it piano sonatas, symphonies, whathaveyou. Now I just find his music annoyingly grumbly. Note that I didn't say GRUMPY.
Take his piano pieces. Compare his chord pounding and fast notes (but fast notes are good) and his apparent lack of a sustain pedal (although I know he uses it) to the music of Chopin and his sustained-washed music. Notes are brought out more fluidly. Fluid is the main word here. Beethoven's music is not fluid. I find it jerky, pounding and just not the slow, fluidity of Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff or any of those.
I know all those people, especially Rach were way off in years but you get the idea.
The differences in style in those time periods are not merely incidental. They are crucial to the subject.
I don't necessarily agree with you about pounding actually, that can only be true if the player is not playing in the style specified by Beethoven (he was enamored of legato). So it isn't the music of Beethoven, it's the style of the pianist. That's yet another good reason to listen to a HIP performer like Brautigam. Ignoring for now the elemental fact that the fortepiano is the right instrument, the performance is certainly going to be different, as it should be. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Quartetto Italiano - Beethoven - Bia 840 Op 131 Quartet #14 in c# for Strings 1st mvmt - Adagio ma non troppo e molto espressivo
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 06:37:29 AM
...Beethoven wasn't even a Romantic...
Gurn, I don't want to get deeply into this here, but this is still open to debate. I for one feel that, despite the way LvB despised some of his contemporaries' "Romantic" music and program music (which you, of all people, should realize was just as popular in the so-called "Classical" period), he was in several ways more Romantic than any of them. Certainly the whole Romantic ideal of Artist-as-Hero took Beethoven as its model, and not without reason, for he insisted on the primacy of his own Muse. His high craft does not diminish his Romantic tendencies.
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! :P But it's a great exhaustion. 0:)
Quote from: jochanaan on November 25, 2007, 08:12:28 AM
Gurn, I don't want to get deeply into this here, but this is still open to debate. I for one feel that, despite the way LvB despised some of his contemporaries' "Romantic" music and program music (which you, of all people, should realize was just as popular in the so-called "Classical" period), he was in several ways more Romantic than any of them. Certainly the whole Romantic ideal of Artist-as-Hero took Beethoven as its model, and not without reason, for he insisted on the primacy of his own Muse. His high craft does not diminish his Romantic tendencies.
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! :P But it's a great exhaustion. 0:)
Yes, it's true that program music was popular, ever since the 16th century. But assigning a program to any of Beethoven's music is in the mind of the beholder. Even the 6th symphony had a note from him on the program at the premiere "rather the record of impressions than any actual representation of facts". In other words, it wasn't a tone painting.
And it's also true that the Romantics took him for a model. I submit that he had no control over this, being dead and all...They were desperately in need of a hero and they made one out of him. Not his fault. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Quartetto Italiano - Beethoven - Bia 840 Op 131 Quartet #14 in c# for Strings 4th mvmt - Andante, ma non troppo e molto cantabile - Più mosso - Andante moderato e lusinghiero
Well one might say that early Beethoven is classical and middle to late is romantic. You kind of have to go with Mozart as the highest peak (or composers I guess around his time) of the classical style. That's classical. Then listen to Beethoven's 7th. That's not sounding classical to me :(
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 08:06:50 AM
The differences in style in those time periods are not merely incidental. They are crucial to the subject.
I don't necessarily agree with you about pounding actually, that can only be true if the player is not playing in the style specified by Beethoven (he was enamored of legato). So it isn't the music of Beethoven, it's the style of the pianist. That's yet another good reason to listen to a HIP performer like Brautigam. Ignoring for now the elemental fact that the fortepiano is the right instrument, the performance is certainly going to be different, as it should be. :)
All my cycles seem to pound. I know Fischer seems to. I guess I need a HIP cycle then :( Help!
Quote from: 12tone. on November 25, 2007, 07:56:04 AM
I used to like Beethoven's music a lot, be it piano sonatas, symphonies, whathaveyou. Now I just find his music annoyingly grumbly. Note that I didn't say GRUMPY.
Take his piano pieces. Compare his chord pounding and fast notes (but fast notes are good) and his apparent lack of a sustain pedal (although I know he uses it) to the music of Chopin and his sustained-washed music. Notes are brought out more fluidly. Fluid is the main word here. Beethoven's music is not fluid. I find it jerky, pounding and just not the slow, fluidity of Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff or any of those.
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...
Quote from: donwyn on November 25, 2007, 08:32:05 AM
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.
Quote from: 12tone. on November 25, 2007, 08:28:53 AM
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. :)
Quote from: donwyn on November 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
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?
Quote from: donwyn on November 25, 2007, 08:38:50 AM
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... ;)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Quartetto Italiano - Bia 840 Op 131 Quartet #14 in c# for Strings 7th mvmt - Allegro
Quote from: 12tone. on November 25, 2007, 08:40:40 AM
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.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 08:41:11 AM
Or O'Conor either, for that matter. I don't think he CAN pound... ;)
8)
Is that right? I may have to investigate... :)
Quote from: donwyn on November 25, 2007, 08:49:43 AM
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. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing: Quartetto Italiano - Schubert - D 804 Quartet in a #13 for Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro ma non troppo
Quote from: 12tone. on November 25, 2007, 08:36:08 AM
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...
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 08:56:56 AM
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!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 07:38:07 AM
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.
Quote from: jochanaan on November 25, 2007, 08:12:28 AM
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! :P 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.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 25, 2007, 10:26:05 AM
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)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 25, 2007, 06:37:29 AM
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 25, 2007, 10:26:05 AM
...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. ;D
Quote from: jochanaan on November 26, 2007, 06:40:58 AM
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. ;D
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 26, 2007, 06:58:19 AM
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. :)
Quote from: jochanaan on November 26, 2007, 07:31:46 AM
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.
Ah, suddenly I get why I like the Vienna classic period so much.
QuoteI don't even expect Beethoven to be a master of orchestration because he lived 1770-1827, not 1870-1927
Quote from: 71 dB on November 26, 2007, 08:25:25 AM
Classism is the problematic phase in music history.
Thanks for that,
71dB ........
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on November 25, 2007, 10:26:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 18, 2007, 04:44:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on December 18, 2007, 05:06:57 AM
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2007, 07:30:36 AM
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2007, 07:30:36 AM
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.
Quote from: 71 dB on December 18, 2007, 07:30:36 AM
Romantic orchestration uses loudness better in order to gain sophisticated timbral effects.
Yuppers. Thanks for that nugget,
71dB .........
Quote from: Sforzando on December 18, 2007, 05:14:26 AM
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on December 18, 2007, 04:44:59 AM
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.
I usually listen to the GF at the of the Op. 130. Why? Because the alternative finale sucks, that's why. :P
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 19, 2007, 05:19:47 AM
I usually listen to the GF at the of the Op. 130. Why? Because the alternative finale sucks, that's why. :P
No, it doesn't. :P
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.
Quote from: Sforzando on December 19, 2007, 05:36:04 AM
No, it doesn't. :P
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.
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 19, 2007, 07:01:12 PM
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! :)
Quote from: Lilas Pastia on December 19, 2007, 07:01:12 PM
I don't really like the Grosse Fuge. I think only a man can.
Fixed.
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!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on December 20, 2007, 04:59:09 AM
...Fixed.
Quote from: longears on December 20, 2007, 05:20:57 AM
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? ???
Quote from: donwyn on December 19, 2007, 08:34:05 PM
I don't know that I'd go that far. I'm not a musician but I love the GF! :)
Ditto!