Beethoven Quartets
AMH
Beethoven Quartets? I have very little chamber music, and though it
might make financial sense, I am too intimidated to buy a complete set.
I am considering one of the Philips Duos sets of late quartets by the
Quartet Italiano, or a recent disc of two of the late quartets by the
Hagen quartet on DG.
Vaneyes
Op. 18 w. Takacs Quartet (Decca).
Regards
Paul Ilechko
I would start with the middle quartets, as they are more clearly
"Beethovenian" than the early op. 18 works, and not as complex as the
late quartets. The Takacs Qt. do a really nice job in these, much better
than their relatively overbearing trampling of op. 18.
If you really want the late quartets, my favorite sets are the Yale and
Hungarian ones. I would stay away from the Italiano, don't know Hagen.
For Op. 18 I like the Budapest and Turner quartets.
However, for a sheer value for money proposition it's hard to beat the
complete Vegh quartet set on Music and Arts. I've seen this very cheaply
on overstock.com
MIFrost
I believe there is a "sampler" disc of the Emerson Quartet playing
different works from throughout the whole cycle. I think it's intended
as a lure to get you to buy the whole Emerson set so it's fairly cheap.
MIFrost
wkas...@comcast.net
AMH wrote:
I would recommend any of the Hagen CD's without hesitation. If you
have any interest in an HIP approach, there's a fine CD on Harmonia
Mundi of the Eroica Quartet playing opp. 74, 95, and 135.
I agree that the late quartets may not be the best place to start, and
would also agree that the Takacs set of four of the middle quartets
would be another great choice.
Bill
wkas...@comcast.net
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> However, for a sheer value for money proposition it's hard to beat the
> complete Vegh quartet set on Music and Arts. I've seen this very cheaply
> on overstock.com
I found their intonation problematic, to put it mildly. I can't
remember where I bought it, but my copy of the Suske's complete
traversal cost about the same, and is a much safer recommendation, I
think.
Bill
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
>
>>However, for a sheer value for money proposition it's hard to beat the
>>complete Vegh quartet set on Music and Arts. I've seen this very cheaply
>>on overstock.com
>
>
> I found their intonation problematic, to put it mildly.
In the early mono set ?
wkas...@comcast.net
Paul Ilechko wrote:
Yes; I've never heard their stereo set, in part because I've been told
that the intonation is even worse...
Bill
Paul Ilechko
Well, I guess I must just be less sensitive than you are :-)
MrT
The Hagen is fine, and I would also highly recommend single disks by
the Petersen Quartet and the Skampa Quartet. These are Rolls-Royces of
contemporary quartet playing: you won't be disappointed. There are many
choices, old and new. You can get some fine complete sets for very
cheap, something I would recommend: Hungarian, Berg, Vermeer, Suske.
Best,
MrT
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:1142363056.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I'm a longtime fan of the Italiano, but I've had much pleasure lately from
the Talich.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
Ronit
first got into chamber music...I think it's a great intro to
Beethoven's quartets.
Richar...@gmail.com
op. 74 and 95; both are instantly enjoyable IMO. The Quartetto
Italiano's CD used to be available, and they play both of them very
well, certainly the strongest readings of their cycle.
Some of the cheaper complete sets are worth considering. The Alban Berg
Quartet's EMI box has a great set of op.18 and the later works are well
if not definitively served. And what's definitive? Once you are hooked
you will find the search through the later quartets never ceases.
Marc Perman
<wkas...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1142366834.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I found the mono Vegh set well enough played, but more understated than I
cared for.
Marc Perman
jrs...@aol.com
I think the middle quartets are a great place to start (I imprinted on
the Italiano and never regretted it), but I started with the late
quartets (the Hollywood and the Pascal, and loved them both) and
grasped the wonder of this music right away, so it doesn't really
matter.
What matters is that you sample from early, middle and late.
Beethoven's transformation over the years was extensive. You wouldn't
consider yourself versed in the Beethoven symphonies if you heard just
the 1st and 2nd. Nor would you have any idea what the 3rd was like if
all you'd heard was the 9th. Treat the quartets the same way. I
strongly urge you to get a cheap set and get over the "intimidation".
Quartets are not any harder to love than symphonies, nor are they any
more "serious." They are generally more intimate and easier to grasp.
--Jeff
John_H...@msn.com
the musical architectural craftsmanship of Beethoven; they all are
available in the inexpensive Dover Reprints; the same publisher also
has reprinted Joseph de Marliave's book on the Beethoven's Quartets (a
bit dated, 1928; but still illuminating). I grew up with the stereo
Columbia's of the Budapest Quartet for early and late quartets - the
Guarnieri and the Juilliard for the middle quartets; later picked up
the 1935 ca versions of the late quartets as performed by the Busch
Quartet; have some other versions but can't get to the top of the
cabinet at present; try to find the Bernstein version of Mitropolous's
orchestration of Op 131 and Bernstein's arrangement (DGG liner notes a
bit unclear about accrediting the arrangement) of Op. 135 (with Vienna
Phil on DGG 435 779-2; the Op. 131 was also available on video; it is
stupendous); Mahler's orchestration of Op. 95 was available with
Jeffrey Tate and the English Chamber Orchestra (EMI CDC 7 49931-2).
These latter performances are on cd. The late quartets are where to
start! The Furtwaenger and Scherchen performances of the Grosses Fuge
are also worthwhile seeking out.
hauser
david...@aol.com
Middle, and Late Quartets, and, while individual CD's are available,
many fine recordings have never made it to CD on a single CD outside of
a set.
I understand why M. Vaneyes recommends Op. 18, why Mr. Ilechko
recommends that you start with the Middle qtets. If you were only
going to start with a single quartet, I'd recommend the last quartet,
No. 16 in F major, Op. 135. It's very compact by either Razumovsky or
Late Qtet standards and very amiably approachable as well as a terrific
piece, but I'll be damned if I know which single CD incarnation of same
to recommend.
The Op. 95 Middle Quartet is also compact but not just in the sense of
"comparatively modest" and "relatively short," as is the case with the
Op. 135, a piece in which Beethoven pokes a bit of fun at the intensity
and seriousness of manner that are typical of him: Op. 95 is
appropriately nicknamed the Serioso, and the material in it is
intensely concentrated, even exceptionally so by Beethoven's standards.
Whether that makes it a better or worse introduction to the quartets,
I can't say. But either the Op. 95 or the Op. 135 are, by the clock,
shorter quartets than any of the other Middle and Late Quartets. The
Razumovsky's and Late Quartets are all, with the semi-exception of Op.
135, extraordinarily ambitious pieces.
-david gable
Brendan R. Wehrung
My only complete cycle is Quartetto Italiano, which I like. The BMG club
has the late and early (6 of each) plus Op. 58 and in sets. Would these
be a useful supplement, and if I had to choose just one, which is their
best work?
Brendan
Vaneyes
I had QI for a lotta years, especially enjoying the Middle. Dabbled
with pieces of others during, finally making a fresh break to ESQ.
Takacs is the only addition since, providing even "newer" LvB glimpses.
Takacs, an even set much like ESQ, gets the starting position. Both
supplement well. I'm looking no further. Two's plenty.
To answer your question, if you're still closely attached to QI, I'd be
reluctant to recommend Takacs as a supplement. These worlds are far
apart in technique, tone, and sound.
If you don't mind, then from what's available to you, I suggest the
Takacs Late. This might be the less-brutal transition, with opposing
Op. 18s in mind.
Regards
Thomas Wood
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns978685042DF...@207.217.125.201...
> "AMH" <alhen...@cox.net> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:1142363056.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Can someone recommend a disc to serve as an introduction to the
>> Beethoven Quartets? I have very little chamber music, and though it
>> might make financial sense, I am too intimidated to buy a complete set.
>> I am considering one of the Philips Duos sets of late quartets by the
>> Quartet Italiano, or a recent disc of two of the late quartets by the
>> Hagen quartet on DG.
>
> I'm a longtime fan of the Italiano, but I've had much pleasure lately from
> the Talich.
I have the Talich set (on Calliope) and have enjoyed it greatly -- and one
might as well begin at the beginning: the Op. 18 quartets are a delight.
Tom Wood
Andy Evans
much I admire the late quartets the one I "like" the most is op 59/1.
I've always thought the first bars of this were pure magic. I imprinted
on the Koeckert Qt but I imagine that's long gone.
AMH
Thanks to everyone for the advice. Economics have won out and I have
ordered a complete set by the Berg Quartet on EMI. It was available on
ebay for less than two full price CDs. I have the Berg Quartet in the
Schubert Quintet, currently my favorite chamber music disc, so
hopefully I will like their Beethoven set.
Bob Harper
(but then, no one does) they are a good, and economical, place to start.
Bob Harper
Larry Rinkel
news:-qWdnUfb45s_s4XZ...@comcast.com...
I can't say I know the Bergs specifically, but at least now you can get to
know these inexhaustible works a little at a time. Among the earlier ones,
#2 in G is very charming and immediately attractive, but all are
interesting. The middle quartets are stylistically more in keeping with the
Beethoven you know from the symphonies, #7 in F (59/1) being as expansive
and groundbreaking in its way as the Eroica. The second movement scherzo
from this quartet is an amazing kaleidoscope where Beethoven seems to be
juggling a dozen themes in the air all at once. Of the three from Op. 59, #3
in C is probably the most immediately appealing, primarily because of its
second movement, an Andante in 6/8 with unusual use of pizzicato and the
harmonic minor scale (don't know if that means much to you, but I can't
think of a better description right now - you just have to hear it), and the
virtuosic, brilliant finale. As mentioned, Op. 95 in F minor is fiercely
concentrated and intense, with a surprise at the very ending that once again
must be heard to be believed.
Just about everyone says to put off the late quartets until last, but not
only did Beethoven grow more spiritual and introspective in these
extraordinary works, but in some ways he also grew more lyrical and
approachable. The folk-like, populist vein that informs the main theme of
the IXth symphony's finale also finds its way into several movements from
the late series that should be as approachable as any of the little
bagatelles Beethoven enjoyed writing for the piano. As David Gable
mentioned, Op. 135 is an immediately likeable piece all the way through and
is quite short, but so are most of the movements from Op. 130, where the 2nd
and 4th movements are simple and immediate, the 5th movement (the Cavatina)
is among the most lyrical of his slower movements; and the 3rd movement, a
kind of proto-Mendelssohnian scherzo at Andante tempo if you can sense that
paradox, is one of those extraordinary inspirations where even Beethoven
surpasses himself in producing a piece where all the instruments are
completely equal, and is the farthest possible antithesis from the
conventional image of Beethoven the Heroic Sufferer.
The longer, more demanding designs of Opp. 127, 131, and 132, as well as the
Great Fugue, may be things you'd want to hold off on because this music may
seem strange at times. The Great Fugue after c. 180 years still sounds more
modern than much modern music. But these may be the richest works Beethoven
ever wrote, and 132 in particular touches territory that is very demanding
emotionally. 127, on the other hand, is sublimely lyrical, with a gorgeous
set of slow variations, and 131 in C# minor has one of the most original but
perfect designs of all. But I wouldn't worry too much if you don't "get"
everything in these quartets immediately, or even after years. I've been
listening to these late quartets for over 40 years, and there are still ways
in which they seem inaccessible and strange, but as Hamlet said to Horatio,
"and therefore as a stranger give it welcome."
AMH
Thank you for the very informative post, Larry. I think I will try the
ones you mention first, rather than listen from 1-16 in order. I am
anxious to get started!
Bob Lombard
"Larry Rinkel" <L...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
news:tgdSf.472$G65...@fe12.lga...
> I can't say I know the Bergs specifically, but at least now you can
> snipped]
Well done, Larry. To contrast your exposition with uninformative
brevity, I'll just say that all of the quartets are a joy to me, except
for "The Harp" and "Serioso", and I still have hope for the latter.
bl
Johannes Roehl
While I like both of these two quartets (although op.74 is not really a
favorite) I was slightly puzzled when another poster recommended these
as starters. I think the "serioso" can be a rather tough nut to crack
(but very worthwhile) whereas the "Harp" could seem rather slight and
lightweight at first compared to e.g. op. 59.
Because it hasn't been mentioned explicitly: the very first quartet, op.
18,1, is one of the most ambitious and original pieces of the young
Beethoven and a great place to begin!
Johannes
Bob Harper
heaven's sake get started! There's not enough time in a lifetime to
exhaust these works.
Bob Harper
Lena
What's wrong with the Harp? Rhetorical question alert; and even if you
answer, I might not have the time to get into a border dispute with you
today. :)
(It's just a more relaxed sort of quartet, apart from a brief flurry in
the middle; but actually it has a fair amount of texturally and
otherwise interesting stuff in it.)
To OP, if still around: the Alban Berg is a very good overall choice.
(All sets have some problems somewhere - and listener preferences are
individual anyway.)
Just so you know: the Alban Berg Qt. tends to emphasize the lyrical,
melodic aspect, which means that they fairly systematically
de-emphasize non-melodic voices. This really isn't a good idea
anywhere in these quartets, I think, but it's especially detrimental in
the late quartets, So you might eventually want to pick up another set
to hear some of the things that are harder to hear in the Alban Berg.
But the ABQ is still a good overall choice, since they have all sorts
of other merits...
As to which quartet to start with - I don't think it matters that much.
One thing to maybe note: Beethoven is fairly bent on original sounds
(you might not get all this from the Alban Berg, though). The early
and middle quartet finales are often great examples; many of them sound
a bit "weird" to this day. If you don't find those movements
comfortable sounding, you shouldn't be thrown off (probably), but might
want to look for another performance. (The most famous weird finale,
the Grosse Fuge, is like any piece tacklable by a novice, if the novice
is a suitable type of person - but the general consensus is that, for
most tastes, it's not the first place to start.)
You might get a book, though. I'd suggest The Beethoven Quartet
Companion, which has brief summaries. I don't think Kerman's book is
the first book to get, because there's rather a lot of analysis. And
worse, there's rather a lot of opinionating (generally, it's better to
supply at least the opinions yourself).
Lena
Lena
[...]
> I can't say I know the Bergs specifically, but at least now you can get to
> know these inexhaustible works a little at a time. Among the earlier ones,
> #2 in G is very charming and immediately attractive, but all are
> interesting. The middle quartets are stylistically more in keeping with the
> Beethoven you know from the symphonies, #7 in F (59/1) being as expansive
> and groundbreaking in its way as the Eroica.
And don't forget the finales...
Just to add a bit: it's perhaps best to not expect anything overtly
symphony-like in the quartets. The emphasis in the quartets is largely
not in overall argument, so to say, and there's much less overt drama
and visceral impact of the hefty sort compared to, say, the 3-5-7-9
symphony sequence.
The visceral impact can actually be very strong in these quartets, but
for me it comes from small-scale events and it does require, perhaps,
somewhat close listening - for example, the visceral beauty is very
often in the interplay of the voices and the timbres. Beethoven's
writing is extremely subtle in this area. (Something like the Heiliger
Dankgesang is a good example.)
[some excellent stuff deleted]
> But I wouldn't worry too much if you don't "get"
> everything in these quartets immediately, or even after years. I've been
> listening to these late quartets for over 40 years, and there are still ways
> in which they seem inaccessible and strange, but as Hamlet said to Horatio,
> "and therefore as a stranger give it welcome."
As Horatio would say: nice footwork, pal. Really.
I'd add, also in answer to Jeff's post about quartets being easy to
grasp. Yes, and no. I don't think "grasping" a piece is the right
idea here. You can always grasp something out of anything, but you
don't grasp these like you might grasp a sausage. The best pieces in
this genre have swaths of elusive, quietly surprising details which
don't yield to activities like that. At most you gradually tame them
by learning the pieces better, but even after they move in and live
with you, they retain a mysterious little radiation.
As Hamlet wouldn't say: nothing is better than that combination of
familiarity and elusiveness. TY. :)
Lena
PS. I'm not with Kerman in dissing Op. 135, or Op. 130 (a very
interesting first movement, and nice slow movement - forget the
Cavatina).
Lena
> Larry Rinkel wrote:
>
[...]
> PS. I'm not with Kerman in dissing Op. 135, or Op. 130 (a very
> interesting first movement, and nice slow movement - forget the
> Cavatina).
Oh yes, and I'm also not with Kerman in designating the late quartets
as founts of unsung lyricism. (The more unsung, the better. :) )
I'm saying this more as a caveat to someone who might misread your
(bloody excellent) post to mean that lyricism is the prime ingredient
in these quartets. If you perform or listen to, say, Op. 127 with
mostly the overall line in mind, you will probably miss out on the
amazing part writing or the considerable rhythmic emphasis.
(As a side thing to those who've read Kerman, who is rather adamant on
this lyricism thing: to me, emphasizing lyricism to the extent Kerman
does is actually a pretty odd point to make. Lyricism certainly
applies to something like the Cavatina, but it's arguably not the main
component of most of the writing here. Also, detours into lyricism
aren't a new thing in Beethoven. Very similar bursts of melodic
emphasis are found throughout Beethoven's output.)
Lena
david...@aol.com
"Just about everyone says to put off the late quartets until last."
That ain't the way I did it. The first quartet by anybody I knew well,
and indeed, the first piece of music that wasn't an opera that I knew
well was the C sharp minor quartet. I knew all of the Late Quartets
before I knew any of the other quartets, and I still know the Op. 18
least well. I do think the Razumovsky's are underrated only because of
the Late Quartets, and they shouldn't be. (I actually had a record of
the C# minor as a little kid and was under the erroneous impression
that the name of the quartet itself was "The Budapest String Quartet."
I still like the idea of its being a Magyar quartet because it is one.)
-david gable
david...@aol.com
"I'll just say that all of the quartets are a joy to me, except for
"The Harp" and "Serioso", and I still have hope for the latter."
I suppose the Harp is the least ambitious of all the Middle and Late
qtets, but that's to condemn with faint and irrelevant criticism. I
think all the arpa-ing pizzicato stuff in the first movement is
terrific fun . . . especially the first fiddles's pizzicato accompanied
final race to the finish line in the coda.
-david gable
Lena
I don't recommend them. There are far better Beethoven sets than the
Takacs', both recent and classic, both in the QI style and not.
The Takacs sound is fairly lean and the playing is competent,
energetic, forward moving and usually poignant, hectic, or otherwise
emotional. Because of the totally adequate competence, you'll hear
much of the score, even if not done in the most perceptive way. So if
you don't have Beethoven quartet tastes refined to the measure, you
might get these. However, I find this set mostly distinguishes itself
by a sort of mediocre goodness.
There is an automated feel to the phrasing and balance decisions in
Takacs. Balance defaults to the first violin too much, as usual. And
though their phrasing can be full of emotional diminuendos and little
breathless pauses, it's simultaneously rather conventional, and it's
conventional in a bad way. (I.e. they coast over places which would
benefit from accents, and put accents in generic and obvious places -
say, to emphasize a sort of a performer-driven emotion.)
Their treatment of the beginning of 59/1 is emblematic - the simple
theme is played for broke, as if it were a prime uttering, rather than
the fairly simple starting point of a big movement. They also take the
first cadence, whose idea is to be slightly fake, totally seriously.
It's not good, unless you don't quite get the ambiguity in the score at
this point.
Op. 59/2/i gives a good look at bad segmentation - the dynamics are
too loud too early, leaving nothing in reserve for delineating the
movement overall, and there is not enough timing flexibility to make
the almost rhetorical slow-fast flow of this movement come alive.
I'd add that, whatever their misses (and I unfortunately think they
have a few), the Quartetto Italiano's Beethoven consist of many much
smarter readings than the Takacs's. Among recent ensembles, Emerson is
insightful, if tonally monotonous, lean, and tense to the point of
being somewhat stressed out. If you like the beauty of the tone and
local phrasing in the QI, you might really like the Petersen. They're
beautiful, and pretty astute, as well. (Their CDs have been at BRO, on
and off, among other places. Europe is also a reliable place to get
them.)
Lena
david...@aol.com
"Because it hasn't been mentioned explicitly: the very first quartet,
op. 18,1, is one of the most ambitious and original pieces of the
young Beethoven and a great place to begin!"
It wasn't the first he wrote: he put it up front within the set
because he was proud of it. It not only wasn't first: there was an
earlier version that he took up and completely overhauled a year after
completing the earlier version, and I think that overhaul was the last
thing he did in completing the set.
-david gable
Larry Rinkel
news:1142554997.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Stravinsky called the finale a "Magyar uprising."
Larry Rinkel
"AMH" <alhen...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1142514896.8...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> Larry Rinkel wrote:
>>
>> I can't say I know the Bergs specifically, but at least now you can get
>> to
>> know these inexhaustible works a little at a time. Among the earlier
>> ones,
>> #2 in G is very charming and immediately attractive, but all are
>> interesting. The middle quartets are stylistically more in keeping with
>> the
>> Beethoven you know from the symphonies, #7 in F (59/1) being as expansive
>> and groundbreaking in its way as the Eroica. The second movement scherzo
>> from this quartet is an amazing kaleidoscope where Beethoven seems to be
>> juggling a dozen themes in the air all at once. Of the three from Op. 59,
>> #3
>> in C is probably the most immediately appealing, primarily because of its
>> second movement, an Andante in 6/8 with unusual use of pizzicato and the
>> the music, and the virtuosic, brilliant finale. As mentioned, Op. 95 in F
>> fiercely concentrated and intense, with a surprise at the very ending
>> that once
>> people
>> who have no sense of humor, but I think the meaning is something like
>> saying,
>> if you take yourself altogether too seriously, sometimes the only way out
>> is
>> to laugh at yourself thoroughly.
>
> Thank you for the very informative post, Larry. I think I will try the
> ones you mention first, rather than listen from 1-16 in order. I am
> anxious to get started!
>
Thank you, AMH, but I wasn't suggesting that my listings were intended as
any kind of agenda, or that my omission of certain quartets was designed to
suggest they were of less interest. It was merely all I had time to write
before I had to leave for work this morning; and had I more time, I probably
would have doubled the length of my post and written paeans to all 17 of the
quartets. I did take the oppotunity in this response to elaborate on some
points I mad this morning.
Larry Rinkel
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142555669.7...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Johannes wrote:
>
> "Because it hasn't been mentioned explicitly: the very first quartet,
> op. 18,1, is one of the most ambitious and original pieces of the
> young Beethoven and a great place to begin!"
>
> It wasn't the first he wrote:
That honor belongs to Op. 18 No. 3 in D. Since as we all know the best
musical pieces are always the ones with nicknames, I have privately
christened this quartet the "Mexican," because the opening of the finale
sounds a bit like the Mexican Hat Dance.
Lena
> <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1142555669.7...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> > Johannes wrote:
> >
> > "Because it hasn't been mentioned explicitly: the very first quartet,
> > op. 18,1, is one of the most ambitious and original pieces of the
> > young Beethoven and a great place to begin!"
> >
> > It wasn't the first he wrote:
>
> That honor belongs to Op. 18 No. 3 in D.
Except for the finale. :)
> Since as we all know the best
> musical pieces are always the ones with nicknames, I have privately
> christened this quartet the "Mexican," because the opening of the finale
> sounds a bit like the Mexican Hat Dance.
Which is wonderful, besides. The finale; I don't know the Dance.
(Thank god :) )
Lena
Larry Rinkel
news:1142552669.6...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'd add, also in answer to Jeff's post about quartets being easy to
> grasp. Yes, and no. I don't think "grasping" a piece is the right
> idea here. You can always grasp something out of anything, but you
> don't grasp these like you might grasp a sausage. The best pieces in
> this genre have swaths of elusive, quietly surprising details which
> don't yield to activities like that. At most you gradually tame them
> by learning the pieces better, but even after they move in and live
> with you, they retain a mysterious little radiation.
>
> As Hamlet wouldn't say: nothing is better than that combination of
> familiarity and elusiveness. TY. :)
What you say reminds me of the way in which Hans Sachs comments on Walther's
Trial Song near the beginning of Act Two in Die Meistersinger:
Und doch, 's will halt nicht geh'n:
Ich fühl's und kann's nicht versteh'n: -
kann's nicht behalten, - doch auch nicht vergessen:
und fass' ich es ganz, kann ich's nicht messen!
Doch wie wollt' ich auch fassen,
was unermesslich mir schien?
And yet it just won't go.
I feel it, and cannot understand it;
I cannot hold on to it,
nor yet forget it;
and if I grasp it wholly, I cannot measure it!
But then, how should I grasp
what seemed to me immeasurable?
>
> Lena
> PS. I'm not with Kerman in dissing Op. 135, or Op. 130 (a very
> interesting first movement, and nice slow movement - forget the
> Cavatina).
>
I'm not sure that Kerman disses 135 or even 130 for that matter, though he
feels 130 is less unified than 131 or 127.
Larry Rinkel
>
> Which is wonderful, besides. The finale; I don't know the Dance.
> (Thank god :) )
>
> Lena
>
You are not obligated to click here:
http://www.janbrett.com/piggybacks/hatdance.htm
Lena
> I've just been rereading Kerman for the first time in years, and I
> don't find him laying that much emphasis on lyricism, especially not to
> the detriment of anything else, nor do I see how "lyricism" is
> necessarily inimical to, say, bringing out inner voices or projecting
> the shapes of Beethoven's rhythms.
Who cares? :) Sorry, but I really don't have time for spurious
arguments today.
> As a member of the asserter's audience, the reader will react to what
> is asserted on the basis of Kerman's experience and say, "Ah, yes, why
> didn't I think of that?" or, indignantly, "Tell me something I don't
> already know." When the asserter is as intelligent and experienced as
> Kerman, the reaction, "Are you crazy?" will happen much more rarely,
> and when it does, you make think twice at why YOU don't see what
> motivated the assertion, even if, in the end, you come to disagree with
> it.
One question: why is a mild joke always so hard to get across in these
quarters? There's such a thing as making a fond sort of fun of things
you like. Kerman is one of those things.
> I can't imagine avoiding Kerman because of the opinionating.
Did I say that? No, I didn't. I think Kerman should be read by
everyone who feels ready for it, including a total quartet beginner,
but this is not a speedy way to a brief overview of the quartets.
(And sorry, but I still prefer to do my own score reading, because at
this point, I'm finding that books usually don't tell me what I don't
know. I don't care what that sounds like, that's how it is and I don't
know how else to put it. That doesn't mean a lack of respect for
Kerman.)
If you feel like arguing about all that too, go argue with someone
else. :)
Lena
Larry Rinkel
news:1142559432.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Larry wrote:
>
> "I'm not sure that Kerman disses 135 or even 130 for that matter,
> though he feels 130 is less unified than 131 or 127."
>
>
> -david gable
>
He does diss the finale of the C major Rasumovsky, but I think he is wrong
about diss.
Lena
Thanks, Larry. If that's the word. :)
Lena
Lena
> Lena, I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing. I was arguing with
> what I understood you to mean by the words you posted because I
> disagreed with them..
OK, David, but please reread then... :)
> You also happened to push, not so much my "Kerman button," as a button
> concerning the charge of "mere assertion," which I have seen leveled at
> Kerman.
> I couldn't resist the opportunity to make an argument against
> what making the charge of assertion asserts: I've been itching to
> make it for years. Of course, you didn't actually use the word
> "assertion,"
(laugh)
> "Who cares [about the issue of "lyricism" ]? :) "
>
> Smiley or no, apparently you do, since you brought it up,
No, it's the wrong interpolation... (Who cares about arguing about
it?!)
The tone in those sentences is generally one of friendly overstatement.
OK, swagger, if you wish. :) I try to festoon the things with enough
smileys to make that apparent, but (a) I don't really like smileys and
occasionally go on :)-purges, and (b) even with all that hardware, the
underlying intention doesn't quite seem to get understood...
May I say, in explanation, that I might have something in common with
Kerman's general overall intentional irritatingness. One thing that's
not intended is harm to anyone, and none of it is done entirely
seriously.
So I actually don't mind Kerman having a few strongly held opinions,
however ridiculous. :) (*) )
(*) TWIMC: here I am making fun of (a) Kerman, (b) of myself and (c)
of any other possible over-opinionated person in the neighborhood. OK?
As for the substance (what substance? :) ) - maybe we can do that a bit
later?
Lena
Lena
david...@aol.com wrote:
> MOI: "I can't imagine avoiding Kerman because of the opinionating"
> VOUS: "Did I say that?"
>
> You wrote, "And, worse, there's rather a lot of opinionating [in
> Kerman's book]," which suggests to me that Kerman's
> "opinionating" is, in your opinion, a disincentive.
This is *not* a serious sentence. There are things about a person's
tone that usually reveal themselves after several years of assiduous
back and forth? :)
(It's also in context of a paragraph which clearly says that Kerman's
book is only not the first book to get, for a typical person starting
out with these quartets. For the obvious reason (also mentioned in
that paragraph)...)
Lena
James Kahn
Me neither. I'm pretty sure the first one I listened to was Op. 132,
and I was (pleasantly) surprised by how accessible it was. "I must
be missing something, isn't this one of the legendary late quartets?"
I remember thinking to myself. I loved it on first hearing, and I hardly
ever enjoy anything until I've heard it several times. I think that what
you'll enjoy first really depends where you're coming from. But they're
all pretty accessible if you like quartet music to begin with. Which is
not to say that they don't repay further listening...
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Larry Rinkel
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142557773.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> As for Kerman's "opinionating," sometimes known as "mere assertion":
> there is no such thing as "mere assertion." It doesn't exist. >
> -david gable
>
Kerman's reputation (insofar as he's got one outside of musicological
circles) for opinionating mostly likely stems more from his book on opera
than from anything he's written on the Beethoven quartets. Scratch any set
of program notes on Tosca and you'll invariably come up with some hissy fit
about the critic who dared refer to that shabby little shocker as a "shabby
little shocker," or who coined a line as nasty as "the orchestra screams the
first thing that comes into its head." I happen to think Tosca is more than
a shabby little shocker, but the outrage vented on Kerman's remarks strongly
suggests to me that he's partly right, and he does much more than "merely
assert" his opinion here; in fact he makes a very cogent case. Elsewhere,
though, as when he writes of Turandot that "no opera at present, not even
Carmen, has so inflated a reputation (and says not a syllable more about
Carmen), or when he says of a scene from Aida that "[it] is in any case the
least satisfactory in the whole opera" without even the slightest
explanation why, he comes close to "mere assertion" and "opinionating."
Larry Rinkel
>
> <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1142557773.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> As for Kerman's "opinionating," sometimes known as "mere assertion":
>> there is no such thing as "mere assertion." It doesn't exist. >
>> -david gable
>>
>
> Kerman's reputation (insofar as he's got one outside of musicological
> circles) for opinionating mostly likely stems more from his book on opera
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ most likely ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Lombard
"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:dvd9f9$l6s$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> Me neither. I'm pretty sure the first one I listened to was Op. 132,
> and I was (pleasantly) surprised by how accessible it was. "I must
> be missing something, isn't this one of the legendary late quartets?"
> I remember thinking to myself. I loved it on first hearing, and I
> hardly
> ever enjoy anything until I've heard it several times. I think that
> what
> you'll enjoy first really depends where you're coming from. But
> they're
> all pretty accessible if you like quartet music to begin with. Which
> is
> not to say that they don't repay further listening...
> --
Op. 18s. I thought they sounded pretty strange, and didn't like them
much. But I had very few recordings to listen to, so those got listened
to again and again. I finally got used to the sound of the instruments,
and then the music got the rest of the way through. Hmm, y'know, they
still sound a little strange to me, and I don't know if it's because
they sounded strange a half-century ago or because maybe he was
consciously trying to do something essentially different than what Haydn
was doing.
bl
Don Petter
You echo my experience. I found the late quartets (The Hollywood LP
set from the library, as it happens) when I was first exploring
chamber music, and classical music in general, and thought how tuneful
and wonderful they were. Since then I have also embraced the Middles,
but never really had much time for the Op.18s - too near the Haydn end
of the spectrum for me.
So start where it suits you, not necessarily where convention says,
but do start right away!
Don.
MrT
was the Op. 130, followed by the Op. 135. In those days, classical
stations actually played this stuff -- usually great recordings: the
Yale, the Budapest, the Juilliard or (sometimes) the Busch. Since I've
always been more susceptible to rhythm and pulse (the interval) than to
melody, I liked these quartets immediately, and they have remained
favorites ever since. In fact, I think Op. 135 is the greatest quartet
by anyone. Another chamber piece that immediately caught my attention
as a kid was the Schumann piano quintet, and another was the Stravinsky
Septet. I still love those pieces. Oh, and the Mendelssohn Octet was
another early favorite.
In time, I bought all the Beethoven quartets (the first set was the
Fine Arts on Murray Hill) and explored them thoroughly. I now love them
all, without exception, though Op. 59 No. 3 doth seem a trifle coarse
in conception, as if Beethoven hadn't totally distilled the essence of
the themes and thus presented them a little raw.
It's interesting to watch my kids react to the Beethoven quartets: my
youngest, who's very musical, declares that the Grosse Fuge rocks,
while my older son, who's into jazz mainly, doesn't enjoy the typically
brusque Beethoven statements. He has even declared that Beethoven is a
poor copy of Mozart, for which leniency is accorded with a frown or
two...
Best,
MrT
Paul Ilechko
> You echo my experience. I found the late quartets (The Hollywood LP
> set from the library, as it happens) when I was first exploring
> chamber music, and classical music in general, and thought how tuneful
> and wonderful they were. Since then I have also embraced the Middles,
> but never really had much time for the Op.18s - too near the Haydn end
> of the spectrum for me.
>
> So start where it suits you, not necessarily where convention says,
> but do start right away!
I also started with the late quartets, but then I started listening to
classical music in general with 20th century works and worked backwards,
and Beethoven's late quartets sound like they could have been written in
the 20th century ! In fact, when I first heard the middle quartets I
didn't like them. Of course, that changed over time ;-)
AMH
I will, as soon as they arrive in the mail! There has been no
consensus on where to start, maybe I'll just pick a random CD on try
it.
I appreciate the book recommendations. It never occurred to me that
there would be a book on the quartets. I do have a handful of books
discussing symphonies and operas that I find useful.
This has been an interesting discussion, and it makes me wonder why I
have put off the Beethoven Quartets, and chamber music in general, for
so long.
Paul Ilechko
> This has been an interesting discussion, and it makes me wonder why I
> have put off the Beethoven Quartets, and chamber music in general, for
> so long.
>
The string quartet is probably my single favorite musical form. If you
like the Beethoven quartets and want to investigate further, consider
the quartets of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms,
Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Smetana, Janacek, Ravel, Debussy, Bloch, Bartok,
Martinu, Shostakovich, Hindemith, Schoenberg, Ligeti and many more.
Paul.
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:1142589864....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> In time, I bought all the Beethoven quartets (the first set was the
> Fine Arts on Murray Hill) and explored them thoroughly.
Those were mine too, followed by the stereo Budapest Quartet cycle.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. ~ FDR (attrib.)
wkas...@comcast.net
By the way, Supraphon is reissuing the late LvB quartets with the
Smetana Quartet as a 3CD set next month. These are the earlier analog
recordings, much admired by many on this newsgroup.
Bill
Steve Emerson
don.petter*remove*@suk.sas.com (Don Petter) wrote:
And mine. I went right to the late quartets (Yale) and liked them
immediately, reacting at that time most to the first one I heard, Op
127, and the Grosse Fuge. "Accessible" wasn't necessarily what I was
after, more just something to catch my interest, and at that point I
probably knew Schoenberg better than I knew Beethoven.
The OP doesn't appear to be exactly unambitious in his (or her)
listening, since (he) states (his) favorite chamber work is Schubert's
D956.
The OP made a good choice in the ABQ; the late quartets, though, are not
the strong point of the set. Something less -- smooth (to name only one
quality) is to my ears more appropriate, so in that one case an accurate
idea of the works may not get formed. (The Yale recordings, just to
throw something at the dart board, are currently very cheap in two
Vanguard two-fers.)
There's a great remark by Susan Sontag in an essay on Antonin Artaud;
she says something along the lines that the unalloyed outrageousness of
numerous modern works of art tends to be obscured and smoothed over by
the endless blanket of rational discourse that gets thrown over them. So
that you'd never surmise the essence of Jackson Pollock, Bartok, Artaud,
Ornette Coleman from what's written about them.
Obviously a performance is not the same as a description, but something
slightly similar happens in the ABQ late Beethoven.
SE.
MrT
<<There's a great remark by Susan Sontag in an essay on Antonin Artaud;
she says something along the lines that the unalloyed outrageousness of
numerous modern works of art tends to be obscured and smoothed over by
the endless blanket of rational discourse that gets thrown over them.
So
that you'd never surmise the essence of Jackson Pollock, Bartok,
Artaud,
Ornette Coleman from what's written about them.>>
Well, ideally one wants the direct experience (but shouldn't the pure
direct experience happen by chance?). In art this is not often
possible, though we all have our chance discoveries (including, often,
the discovery of an entire genre or at least of a composer, painter,
filmmaker, etc.). So let's say you already know some Beethoven, you
know something of the spirit that informs his music, you've discerned
something of his methods... and then you go to, say, the late quartets.
How are you going to experience them directly? Surely you've heard
about them; in fact, that's probably why you've decided to get to know
them. In comes the ABQ or the Smetana, or whoever it is. They're going
to bring their unique dialectic sense and stealth (Smetana), OR their
Viennese tonal allure and superhuman technique (ABQ), OR their steely
discipline and perfect balance (Juilliard), OR their old-fashioned
warmth and mittelerupean melos (Hungarian)... The essence, whatever it
may be, is not accesible directly. In fact, the telling of it IS the
essence while you are listening. Have your heard the story? Yes, in a
sense. Do you need to hear it again? Of course. Maybe the next guy hits
another essence, and maybe the essences are all yours, not Beethoven's
or the performers'. Just some Friday night thoughts, guys. Please
indulge me.
Best,
MrT
Lena
Thank you - the something catching my interest is the one thing I look
for in first contacts with any music. Admittedly it could be a
slightly personal category, though. :)
> and at that point I
> probably knew Schoenberg better than I knew Beethoven.
>
> The OP doesn't appear to be exactly unambitious in his (or her)
> listening, since (he) states (his) favorite chamber work is Schubert's
> D956.
>
> The OP made a good choice in the ABQ; the late quartets, though, are not
> the strong point of the set. Something less -- smooth (to name only one
> quality) is to my ears more appropriate, so in that one case an accurate
> idea of the works may not get formed. (The Yale recordings, just to
> throw something at the dart board, are currently very cheap in two
> Vanguard two-fers.)
>
> There's a great remark by Susan Sontag in an essay on Antonin Artaud;
> she says something along the lines that the unalloyed outrageousness of
> numerous modern works of art tends to be obscured and smoothed over by
> the endless blanket of rational discourse that gets thrown over them. So
> that you'd never surmise the essence of Jackson Pollock, Bartok, Artaud,
> Ornette Coleman from what's written about them.
The thought seems widely applicable...
> Obviously a performance is not the same as a description, but something
> slightly similar happens in the ABQ late Beethoven.
This metaphor of yours really comes way over from the next town, but
since it's in such nice attire, how can anyone not love it?
AYKFTW, I think the ABQ late quartets should be supplemented with
another set - but most of their Op. 131 is very good, and that's not a
bad place to start with that batch of quartets. Their Grosse Fuge is
also not bad at all - not even smooth. :)
(IIRC they falter in Op. 132, though, which is a pity, because that
quartet probably does function very well as an introduction for many
people. It has the minor key aspects and agitation that are somehow
perennially popular, :) and it can be appreciated on many levels -
anywhere from the very immediate emotional reaction to uh sophistry.)
Lena
Dave Cook
Thanks for the heads up. You just saved me the shipping rate from Japan.
Dave Cook
david...@aol.com
"I appreciate the book recommendations. "
I think Michael Steinberg's contribution to the Quartet Companion is
the finest thing he's ever done. On the basis of his remarkably fine
insights in that book, I think he could have written even more
substantially on the topic. I now think he could have been one of the
great writers on music. But the music world needs a few strategically
placed really smart and musical people in odd places . . . working for
symphony orchestras and writing popular books on classical music. But
this is the first time I've regretted that he could only go as far as
he did given the limitations of the genre. He knows the quartets and
very much else inside out, and he notices supremely interesting and
pertinent things about them. His remarks about sonority in the late
quartets alone make him worth reading.
-david gable
Wiener Sänger
music itself.
You can get all of them quite cheaply in an EMI Collector's Edition
box, played by the Alban Berg Quartet. This is the Gramophone Award
winning studio set, not the later 1989 live one, but still very good.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000026D4J/002-1705364-8044829?v=glance&n=5174
-Rajeev
AMH wrote:
> Can someone recommend a disc to serve as an introduction to the
> Beethoven Quartets? I have very little chamber music, and though it
> might make financial sense, I am too intimidated to buy a complete set.
> I am considering one of the Philips Duos sets of late quartets by the
> Quartet Italiano, or a recent disc of two of the late quartets by the
> Hagen quartet on DG.
david...@aol.com
Mr. Emerson writes, paraphrasing Susan Sontag:
"the unalloyed outrageousness of numerous modern works of art tends to
be obscured and smoothed over by the endless blanket of rational
discourse that gets thrown over them. So that you'd never surmise the
essence of Jackson Pollock, Bartok, Artaud, Ornette Coleman from what's
written about them."
I'm not so sure about that. This is anti-intellectual bullshit from
several standpoints. First of all, the average passionate amateur of
classical music--or of literature or painting--doesn't read the kinds
of books that Sontag has in mind, and the tiny minority of people who
do were driven to read them by an analogous kind of passion. (People
like Steve Emerson, whose intellectual curiosity and interest in
aesthetics have lead him to come to terms with so much music and to
read books about art.) Second, just because Sontag regards her mind as
the enemy doesn't mean that everybody's mind is his or her enemy. If
she feels as she does she should practice what she preaches and shut up
rather than hypocritically continuing to spout such sophistries.
Finally, most of the wonderful so-called outrageousness Sontag has in
mind is a function of incomprehension . . . incomprehension even from
early enthusiasts. Do you really want to go back to the period in the
Grosse Fuge's history when it was outrageous, all but universally
considered the demented perversion of a deaf old crazy man, when it was
never played because musicians hadn't come to terms with it musically
or physically?
In the 1950's Harold Rosenberg was enthusiastic about Pollock and may
even have coined the unfortunate expression "action painter":
according to Rosenberg, Pollock's "art" wasn't in the result, in the
pigment on the canvas, but in the process that produced it, of which
the traces on the canvas were just that, mere traces. And what was
this process? Why, the expressive neo-infantile turmoil of the
artist's body, soul, and psyche (but not the mind, that bothersome
organ that no artist should ever be afflicted with) as he struggled
with inner demons by hurling the paint on the canvas like a child
throwing mud pies. In other words, Rosenberg couldn't even see the
pictures, hence the elaborate program he substituted for them.
In the early days Pollock was routinely bracketed with the "abstract
expressionists"--which is fair enough if you're using "abstract
expressionists" as a convenient and conventional label for a diverse
group of painters of roughly the same age with certain shared concerns
working in the USA at the same time--but he wasn't an expressionist.
Whatever the man was, the painter wasn't a latter day American Gustav
Mahler or Alban Berg of the canvas baring his soul in his art, much
less the wounded "performance artist" of Harold Rosenberg's fantasies:
he would better have been described as an abstract impressionist, and
the ultimate sources of the classic poured Pollocks from around 1950
were French.
In short, the outrageousness in Jackson Pollock was a function of
incomprehension: very few people had learned how to see what was
there. And the outrageousness mislead, making it even harder to see
the luminous, lyrical, and decorative paintings that Pollock had
actually painted, the grace in their production.
It hasn't been the "rational discourse"--as usual considered a bad
thing whether you're discussing the Iraq war or painting--of a
dispassionate and plain-speaking formalist critic like William Rubin or
the free thinking of somebody like Robert Hughes, whose B.S. detector
is generally a finely tuned instrument, that has obscured Pollock's
achievement. It was the outrageousness.
Unless, of course, what you're really interested in is not painting at
all but getting down and dirty and having a food fight in the mud where
you don't have to think about anything. That's the infantile level of
understanding at which Rosenberg apprehended Pollock back in those days
when "action painting" was outrageous.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Loved your post Mr. T, except that I'm always surprised that people
don't remark the hyper-expressivity so characteristic of the Juilliard
Quartet at least through the mid-70's when cellist #2 left. You can be
entirely earnest and deadly serious and still be the most anxious and
hyper-expressive person imaginable. The JSQ are not only
hyper-hyper-hyper-expressive, they're more "expressionist" than even
Beethoven was, their expressionism being a post Berg-ian,
post-Schoenbergian, post-Bartokian phenomenon. And their phrasing is
certainly more febrile than any other quartet's that I've ever heard.
The fact that they're also as disciplined and gravely earnest and as
responsible in the musicianship department as any quartet that has ever
existed does not change that.
-david gable
MrT
<<In short, the outrageousness in Jackson Pollock was a function of
incomprehension: very few people had learned how to see what was
there. And the outrageousness mislead, making it even harder to see
the luminous, lyrical, and decorative paintings that Pollock had
actually painted, the grace in their production. >>
Perhaps more to the point: what exactly is outrageousness worth,
artistically speaking? Generally nothing, in my opinion.
Best,
MrT
david...@aol.com
"Perhaps more to the point: what exactly is outrageousness worth,
artistically speaking? Generally nothing, in my opinion."
Exactly. This is part of the dopey but symptomatic inverted rhetoric
of our time. I weary of hearing pop singers described,
enthusiastically, as "outlaws." Or Johnny Cash, who has been
so-described in the reviews for that flic that I refuse to see in part
because I vomit every time I hear about the heroic six months the
actors in it spent learning how to become great musicians. (ha ha ha
ha ha ha)
These people aren't outlaws although what they do is criminal, a
criminality enthusiastically supported by the culture: they're
plutocrats legally exploiting the market. Real outlaws belong in jail
and don't trumpet their status in prime time, and their behavior is not
something enthusiastically applauded. The success of these "outlaws"
is due in part to an inconsistent populist anti-elitism that denigrates
the mind but has no objection to the only elitism that means anything:
the elitism of the elite that knows how to make obscene amounts of
money within a system that overpays basketball and pop stars. (For the
record, I agree with--dare I say it?--Norman Lebrecht that conductors
are overpaid . . . and with the French government, which thought the
million dollars a year Barenboim was already being paid by the
Orchestre de Paris was enough French money to go into his pockets per
annum when he was going to assume joint directorship of the Bastille
for another simultaneous paycheck of similar size.)
-david gable
AMH
Wiener Sänger wrote:
> I was wondering whether your intimidation were to do with cost or the
> music itself.
>
> You can get all of them quite cheaply in an EMI Collector's Edition
> box, played by the Alban Berg Quartet. This is the Gramophone Award
> winning studio set, not the later 1989 live one, but still very good.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000026D4J/002-1705364-8044829?v=glance&n=5174
>
> -Rajeev
>
This is exactly the one that I have ordered. The intimitdation was
mostly with being confronted by all 16 quartets at once (is the grosse
fugue part of a quartet, or something different?), so I was thinking of
buying a single disc or two-fer with a few quartets to start with, but
the low cost of the complete set won out.
Bob Lombard
"AMH" <alhen...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1142708628.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is exactly the one that I have ordered. The intimitdation was
mostly with being confronted by all 16 quartets at once (is the grosse
fugue part of a quartet, or something different?), so I was thinking of
buying a single disc or two-fer with a few quartets to start with, but
the low cost of the complete set won out.
The Grosse Fugue is the original finale to Op. 130. If you only buy one
singleton CD of a late quartet, get the Petersen version of 130, which
puts the Grosse Fugue in its rightful place and the substitute
afterwards. Their playing of that 'real' finale sounds more right-on to
me than any other I have heard.
bl
Larry Rinkel
news:121onap...@corp.supernews.com...
My alternative view is that the so-called substitute finale, a delightful
piece in itself, should remain the ending of Op. 130 (and would never be
heard otherwise). The Grosse Fuge is a meal-in-itself, a huge 15-18 minute
work with four contrasting sections that taken together almost overwhelm all
the rest of the music in the 130.
Many CDs however now do something like the Petersen and let you decide which
version you like for yourself.
Steve Emerson
--Your post does nothing so much as demonstrate Sontag's point.
--FWIW, Sontag would be just about the last writer on earth who could be
described as thinking that the mind is the enemy, or having a general
objection to the rational. You misread the point, which has to do with
what happens when certain kinds of art are subjected to orderly analysis.
--The last item on her: she already has shut up, for she is dead.
--Works like Finnegans Wake, everything Artaud ever did, the painting of
Pollock, the music of Bartok, Ornette Coleman, Les Six, you pick it --
were designed to be disruptive, to throw a wrench in the works, to react
to surrounding and intolerable conditions, to do anything but (loosely
quoting a Creeley remark) -- speak with a voice that proposes that
everything is OK, when everything is patently not OK. What else but
this kind of disruption was going on in the Rimbaud "déreglement de tous
les sens." The outcome of it all is something that has an outrageous
element, and no small part of the value lies therein. --Check out a
text like Artaud's "Van Gogh: The Man Suicided by Society." Then think
about how it connects with even as polite and lucid an artist as Beckett.
--Nobody is saying that Pollock's compositions aren't beautiful. (Yes,
"action painting" was a Rosenberg coinage, btw.) On the contrary. But
you seem to want to make him and his work into something they aren't.
This is not a man who went about painting in some detached, neutral,
Bauhaus-like manner without interest in expression. IIRC correctly,
there is human blood in "Blue Poles," a work he was known to have
stepped in barefoot while making it on the garage floor, after running
afoul of a broken whiskey bottle.
--The past participle of "lead" is "led."
SE.
Paul Ilechko
> My alternative view is that the so-called substitute finale, a delightful
> piece in itself, should remain the ending of Op. 130 (and would never be
> heard otherwise). The Grosse Fuge is a meal-in-itself, a huge 15-18 minute
> work with four contrasting sections that taken together almost overwhelm all
> the rest of the music in the 130.
I agree.
Paul Ilechko
> Exactly. This is part of the dopey but symptomatic inverted rhetoric
> of our time. I weary of hearing pop singers described,
> enthusiastically, as "outlaws." Or Johnny Cash, who has been
> so-described in the reviews for that flic that I refuse to see in part
> because I vomit every time I hear about the heroic six months the
> actors in it spent learning how to become great musicians. (ha ha ha
> ha ha ha)
Great? I never saw anyone come remotely close to saying that the actors
came close to becoming "great musicians", although I do think it makes
sense for an actor who is playing a musician to have some understanding
of what that means, don't you?
> These people aren't outlaws although what they do is criminal, a
> criminality enthusiastically supported by the culture: they're
> plutocrats legally exploiting the market.
Your hyperbole is getting pretty silly at this point.
Bob Lombard
"overwhelm all the rest of the music". It is only necessary for the
performers and the listeners to pay attention to "the rest of the
music", to which the Grosse Fugue is obviously related. The Petersen
Qrt. does their part in this joint endeavor; the remaining
responsibility is the listener's (listeners').
'Buying' the substitute is equivalent to accepting half a loaf.
bl
Larry Rinkel
My post-alternative question to you then would be, how is the Grosse Fuge
"obviously" related to the rest of the quartet? I would say that the
substitute finale, both in scale and character, is more in keeping with the
style the piece has been developing in the 2nd-5th movements especially.
David Wake
> "Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote in message
> news:121p6ge...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> My post-alternative question to you then would be, how is the Grosse Fuge
> "obviously" related to the rest of the quartet? I would say that the
> substitute finale, both in scale and character, is more in keeping with the
> style the piece has been developing in the 2nd-5th movements especially.
Off the top of my head:
- the beginning of the Fugue on unison Gs links with the end of the
Cavatina. (this is also a feature of the substitute finale)
- The G-flat slower section of the fugue corresponds to the second
group of the first movement, also in G-flat.
- The 6-8, B-flat section of the fugue in B-flat is reminiscent of the
scherzo in its phrase structure.
There are many more, I'm sure, described in Kerman's book and
elsewhere.
David
Dave Cook
> I don't recommend them. There are far better Beethoven sets than the
> Takacs', both recent and classic, both in the QI style and not.
This just came in at BRO:
Beethoven, The String Quartets. (Gewandhaus Quartet. Includes Quartet in F
after the Piano Sonata #9 plus former members of the quartet in conversation
with Martin Hoffmeister {includes musical examples})
Add to cart | Price: $ 29.90 | 10 in set. | Country: GERMANY | D/A code: D |
Code: 60139 | BRO Code: 129296 | Label: NCA
Any good?
Dave Cook
Dave Cook
> This just came in at BRO:
>
> Beethoven, The String Quartets. (Gewandhaus Quartet. Includes Quartet in F
> after the Piano Sonata #9 plus former members of the quartet in conversation
> with Martin Hoffmeister {includes musical examples})
> Add to cart | Price: $ 29.90 | 10 in set. | Country: GERMANY | D/A code: D |
> Code: 60139 | BRO Code: 129296 | Label: NCA
Found a Fanfare review:
http://www.fanfaremag.com/archive/articles/28_3/283065.BEETHOVEN_Str_Qrts.html
Dave Cook
Larry Rinkel
"David Wake" <dw...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:m34q1vy...@andromeda.da-nu.com...
>
>
> Off the top of my head:
>
> - the beginning of the Fugue on unison Gs links with the end of the
> Cavatina. (this is also a feature of the substitute finale)
>
> - The G-flat slower section of the fugue corresponds to the second
> group of the first movement, also in G-flat.
>
> - The 6-8, B-flat section of the fugue in B-flat is reminiscent of the
> scherzo in its phrase structure.
>
> There are many more, I'm sure, described in Kerman's book and
> elsewhere.
>
> David
>
Well, yes, but essential to Kerman's approach - and it's a major reason why
I find his book on the quartets so valuable - is that it does not stop at
enumerating harmonic details when it tries to account for what makes a piece
of music feel unified or not. Granted, listeners may feel differently about
different pieces, but against commentators who confidently list harmonic and
rhythmic correspondences of the kind you offer, Kerman finds "he is unable
to learn much from them because they will not talk about aesthetic
relevance" (p. 324). I'm not going to quote at length from Kerman's book
because I presume anyone sufficiently interested either has it or can find
it. But the essence of his argument concerning the finale problem in Op. 130
is that while on the one hand, the substitute finale runs the danger of
sounding trivial, on the other the Fugue in its original position tends not
to resolve the earlier movements of the quartet but to "wipe them out"
(320). Nor do I accept the argument that Beethoven wrote a new finale solely
to satisfy the demands of his publisher. In only one previous work -
Fidelio - did Beethoven respond to external pressure to drastically rewrite
a composition. His response to Schindler's puzzled query about the lack of a
finale to Op. 111 was to say he had not had enough time. And yet here is the
Fugue, the movement among all his movements that caused the greatest
bewilderment at its first performance, the most radical of all his
compositions, a work he felt stood sufficiently on its own that he
transcribed it for piano 4-hands, and the one which, again quoting Kerman,
"orbits in a private musical sphere of its own, needing no other sounds,
needing no other universe" (322).
Bob Lombard
David's argument is bases on demonstrable facts; yours and/or Kerman's
is based on gut feeling. I choose to rely on my own gut feeling in this
matter. I have been playing close heed to my gut for some years now.
Nor do I accept the argument that Beethoven wrote a new finale solely
> to satisfy the demands of his publisher. In only one previous work -
> Fidelio - did Beethoven respond to external pressure to drastically
> rewrite a composition.
The relevance of this guesswork escapes me, but on this probably
irrelevant sidetrack I submit that the 'Waldstein" sonata got a pretty
drastic rewrite.
bl
Paul Ilechko
> David's argument is bases on demonstrable facts; yours and/or Kerman's
> is based on gut feeling. I choose to rely on my own gut feeling in this
> matter. I have been playing close heed to my gut for some years now.
>
Well, given that the GF was originally intended to be the finale, you
would expect that it would bear some meaningful relation to the rest of
the quartet. So, of course, does the replacement, as it also was
specifically written to complete the quartet. However, that is clearly
not the topic of discussion; the real issue is *which* finale, the GF or
the replacement, works best in the context of the whole work. To my
ears, it's the replacement. To me, the GF overwhelms everything that
came before it. As they say, YMMV.
Larry Rinkel
My argument (and Kerman's) is not that "demonstrable facts" are of no
importance, but that they do not prove anything in themselves. Another
demonstrable fact is that a principle motif of the Grosse Fuge is found in
the first movement of the A minor quartet. So what?
Larry Rinkel
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:4857epF...@individual.net...
Indeed, and at today's gas prices I would prefer to end Op. 130 with the
light, lean new finale rather than the huge, massive Grosse Fuge.
Bob Lombard
involved, it is obvious to me that each of us must go with his gut. If
yours tells you to attach that puny finale to your listening experience,
it's fine with me.
bl
Lena
My Beethoven quota is seriously up :) so I'll try to be brief. The
following is all based on my emphases and tastes.
The other set most similar to this: The Suske. (Overall, if I want a
version in this style, I prefer Suske, though they're stagnant at least
in some middle quartet movements.)
Excellent or neutral points:
- Good balance, generally. Ensemble passages have a nice, even,
pleasing sound. Generally competent playing. These are not the most
goal-directed, forward-moving performances.
- Some very nice textural/voicing/sound details.
Bad points:
- Motivic work is not put into a bigger context (18/1/i, parts of 127).
In passages with big melodies, the melodies otoh are given a prominent
position.
- This means: movements can seem to stall/sound stagnant, when there
isn't a melody to hold it together.
- Some movements, melodic or not, don't coalesce much at all (18/1/ii -
the drama is not there).
Bad and good points:
- Rigid rhythmically; bar-lines stick out really a lot. (This is good
in, say, scherzos, but becomes wooden or chuggy elsewhere.)
Could-ideally-be-better points:
- Balances, though generally good, aren't always flexibly adjusted to
the score's events.
The GQ might have made a conscious decision to not play in an
overlinear and pointedly "phrased" way, but if so, I felt they went
overboard. The barlines started really sticking out in non-melodic
passages, because the connections between small phrases weren't
emphasized. (Not that these connections should necessarily be
prominently flagged, but I think they should at least be audibly
present.)
That said, the middle quartets I tried (59/1, Harp bits) seem to work
pretty well here, anyway. The early and late I was not enthused by.
Their 127 had potential, because good balances are very commendable,
but in the end, I just couldn't tolerate the relentless chugginess of
the prominent barlines.
Lena
PS.
Caveat: I've heard all of it, but recently, I went through parts of
the set only (Op. 127, Op. 59/1, Op. 18/1, bits from elsewhere).
Lena
> "David Wake" <dw...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
[...]
> In only one previous work -
> Fidelio - did Beethoven respond to external pressure to drastically rewrite
> a composition.
He did, however, offer to drastically reorder important compositions,
for essentially financial reasons. (Hammerklavier, for London
publication.)
(Haven't we done all this before? :):) )
Lena
Lena
> "Larry Rinkel" <L...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
> So, in view of the ambiguities (or seeming ambiguities)
> involved, it is obvious to me that each of us must go with his gut. If
> yours tells you to attach that puny finale
That very nice puny finale.
> to your listening experience, it's fine with me.
I attach the Grosse Fuge, and then sometimes sweep up what's left, if
anything is, with the other finale.
Oh, how I wish for a long Bruckner thread. Or even a long de Falla
thread. :)
Lena
Steve Emerson
"Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> David's argument is based on demonstrable facts; yours and/or Kerman's
> is based on gut feeling. I choose to rely on my own gut feeling in this
> matter. I have been playing close heed to my gut for some years now.
My idea, wherever in heck it comes from, is that the GF is the only
adequate finale. It is outrageously outsized vis-a-vis what precedes,
but it makes a kind of sense. The earlier movements don't seem to
cleanly cluster in a way that allows a more standard finale to take us
out. The replacement finale is sort of unsuitable non-profound, and also
too chipper to do the job adequately; in my view. Of course there are
endless devices available to performers that can make it a more--or
less--plausible conclusion. Two terrific alternate finales that move us
in that direction: the Fine Arts Quartet's, and the '60s Smetana
recording, which I just recently heard for the first time. (Although
even they argue for the GF instead.)
> > Nor do I accept the argument that Beethoven wrote a new finale solely
> > to satisfy the demands of his publisher. In only one previous work -
> > Fidelio - did Beethoven respond to external pressure to drastically
> > rewrite a composition.
Not wishing at all to impugn, but I'm convinced it's well within
standard LvB behavior to supply the thing for the money. Occasionally I
even think he did the alternate as almost a satire of the more
reasonable, less bleak, better-mannered, more conventional finale that
was wished for; as in Here it is, and stick it up your bourgeois little
derriere. But only occasionally. Even if he did do it for the money, of
course he wasn't going to supply something less than wonderful.
SE.
Raymond Hall
news:1142793375.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Indeedy. Indeedy indeed.
Anyone for Philip Glass and Steve Reich ....or Granados .... or Bruckner,
even if it is Little League Bruckner ...
<g>
Ray H
Taree
Larry Rinkel
>> "Larry Rinkel" <L...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
>
>> So, in view of the ambiguities (or seeming ambiguities)
>> involved, it is obvious to me that each of us must go with his gut. If
>> yours tells you to attach that puny finale
>
> That very nice puny finale.
>
Indeed. Pocket-size finales have their place too. But I do appreciate Bob's
allowing me to go with my gut, as it's the only gut I have. :)
Bill Satterthwaite
Steve Emerson <eme...@nospamsonic.net> wrote:
>In article <121qpdf...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
>> David's argument is based on demonstrable facts; yours and/or Kerman's
>> is based on gut feeling. I choose to rely on my own gut feeling in this
>> matter. I have been playing close heed to my gut for some years now.
>
>My idea, wherever in heck it comes from, is that the GF is the only
>adequate finale.
>The replacement finale is sort of unsuitable non-profound, and also
>too chipper to do the job adequately; in my view. Of course there are
>endless devices available to performers that can make it a more--or
>less--plausible conclusion. Two terrific alternate finales that move us
>in that direction: the Fine Arts Quartet's, and the '60s Smetana
>recording, which I just recently heard for the first time. (Although
>even they argue for the GF instead.)
Listen to the Petersen's alternate before you dismiss it...way beyond
chipper, it's positively manic, with technique that makes most of the
others seem mediocre.
They also do a terrific GF, FWIW.
I'll agree with SE:
david...@aol.com
Mr. Emerson writes:
"Your post does nothing so much as demonstrate Sontag's point."
If this is true, it means my post on the internet obscured the inherent
outrageousness of the art I discussed. I didn't realize this intrinsic
and fundamental outrageousness was so weak I could destroy it merely by
discussing it.
"Works like Finnegans Wake, everything Artaud ever did, the painting of
Pollock, the music of Bartok, Ornette Coleman, Les Six, you pick it --
were designed to be disruptive, to throw a wrench in the works, to
react to surrounding and intolerable conditions, to do anything but
(loosely quoting a Creeley remark)"
I'm not going to go through this artist by artist, but this is
absolutely 100% false in the case of the classic poured Pollocks. As
for Artaud, he was psychologically disturbed and a dangerous a**hole
toward many people: but he was hardly a writer to be mentioned in the
same breath with many of the other artists you mention, despite the few
interesting ideas and insights put forward in the essays anthologized
in The Theatre and Its Double, ideas that he never really managed to
realize himself despite his influence on Boulez, Genet, et al. Nor
have I read anything about Artaud that downplayed the character of
Artaud's pathologically vitriolic attacks on certain of his
contemporaries, on Coleridge, or on all of the greatest playwrights of
the late 19th and early 20th centuries, so how has his undeniable (and
pitiable) outrageousness been hurt by writing and thinking about it?
I'm acknowledging it upfront.
If you're claiming that artworks create a new imaginative order, that
some artists set out "not to reassure but to disturb," I agree with
you, but there's a big difference between the complex imagination of a
James Joyce and the attempt by smaller fry to epater la bourgeoisie.
Finnegans Wake is a great comic masterpiece: I don't see how it
creates "intolerable" conditions, although it will always remain
unreadable and unread by the vast majority of human beings for evident
reasons. People don't fail to read it because it's "intolerable" or
disturbing or so intensely expressive as to be more than most people
can stomach.
The trouble is, the more limited the provocation, the less efficacious
it proves upon repetition. The "provocations" of a Beethoven or a
Joyce have a greater staying power than most dadaist and surrealist
pranks. "Piss Christ" is certainly outrageous. It's also intolerably
boring, the nature of the provocation inherent in it entirely
unoriginal.
"This [Pollock] is not a man who went about painting in some detached,
neutral, Bauhaus-like manner without interest in expression."
These are not remotely the only two possiblities, but when did I ever
say he did? Of course he was a tense, intense, and anxiety ridden
painter. But he was not remotely the action painter leaving his sweat
and blood on his canvases of Rosenberg's fantasies. On canvas, he
wanted to duke it out with Picasso, not with his own psyche. In any
case, I reject the facile equation of art and life. I'm not interested
in the inarticulate and insecure yahoo with a short fuse and a drinking
problem who underwent Jungian analysis but in the painter who was,
finally, for a brief period, articulate with paint on canvas. What
matters is not how he did it or his state of mind while he did it but
what he actually did. In any case, it's possible for a volcanic
personality to be intensely involved in creating art that is not
"expressionist" or volcanic art. (In that sense, Pollock and the
Boulez of yore are very similar cases.) It's also possible for artists
to react violently to misunderstanding of their art regardless of what
kind of art it is, to be misunderstood regardless of whether or not the
art is expressionist.
If you think Pollock bared his guts, or that some such metaphor is
appropriate to those masterpieces of sublimation and transcendence, the
classic poured pictures, I think you're just wrong, and so do the most
interesting writers on his paintings that I've read. (I'm not talking
about his totemic earlier stuff that he painted while he was undergoing
Jungian analysis. He was so far beyond that during the brief great
period. Pollock was also desperate for the approval of others in the
art world whom he respected: he wanted his pictures to be liked and by
the broader the public the better. He did NOT expect the classic
poured pictures to disturb, to be found intolerable, in the sense that
you mean. He wanted to be crowned for his glorious achievement on
canvas and was impatient for the day. Drinking binges like the one
that lead to his death were in part the result of a childish self-pity
experienced because he hadn't "arrived" on schedule with the poured
pictures. And they did outrage, but again, not in the sense that you
mean. They outraged in the sense of "You call dribbling on the canvas
art? My three-year old can do that!")
I know that Miss Sontag is dead, and that what you quote may be quoted
out of context, but . . . either thinking and writing about art are
inherently bad for art or they aren't. My God, people indulge in
"Monday morning quarterbacking" after the super bowl. That's what
people do in the case of subjects that interest them.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
"Great? I never saw anyone come remotely close to saying that the
actors came close to becoming "great musicians",
You must not have seen the nauseating trailers I saw.
"Your hyperbole is getting pretty silly at this point."
The hyperbole that is silly, although routinely swallowed hook line and
singer by a vast public, is the hyperbolic claims to artistry of
no-talents in the media.
-david gable
MrT
Steve Emerson wrote:
>
> Not wishing at all to impugn, but I'm convinced it's well within
> standard LvB behavior to supply the thing for the money. Occasionally I
> even think he did the alternate as almost a satire of the more
> reasonable, less bleak, better-mannered, more conventional finale that
> was wished for; as in Here it is, and stick it up your bourgeois little
> derriere. But only occasionally. Even if he did do it for the money, of
> course he wasn't going to supply something less than wonderful.
I think the subsitute, shorter final movement of Op. 130 is one of the
best things that Beethoven ever wrote, a perfect finale for the
quartet. I think he was right in severing the GF, which can be enjoyed
on its own. CD programming allows for comparison of the effect of both
finales -- I much prefer the shorter one.
Best,
MrT
Paul Ilechko
> The hyperbole that is silly, although routinely swallowed hook line and
> singer by a vast public, is the hyperbolic claims to artistry of
> no-talents in the media.
There is actually quite a lot of artistry outside the realm of classical
music, and if you don't get it, it's your loss.
There is of course even more shit, but there always has been.
Lena
> Mr. Emerson writes:
>
> "Your post does nothing so much as demonstrate Sontag's point."
>
> If this is true, it means my post on the internet obscured the inherent
> outrageousness of the art I discussed.
No, that's not what it means, but forget it...
[...deleting long post on some topic of your own devising...]
Disruptions don't seem to be your main strong point, in general.
Lena
Lena
Raymond Hall wrote:
.
> >
> > Oh, how I wish for a long Bruckner thread. Or even a long de Falla
> > thread. :)
>
> Indeedy. Indeedy indeed.
It's heartening to know that we Beethoven-lovers always stick together.
:)
> Anyone for Philip Glass and Steve Reich ....
As inspiration for non-repetitive posting? OK! :)
Lena