Another puzzling tempo marking
Robert S. Coren
This afternoon we went to hear the Berlin Phil under Simon Rattle
performing the last two Brahms symphonies and some Schoenberg. I was
reminded of something I must have known (since I've known the piece a
long time) but had never taken particular note of before: the tempo
marking on the third movement of the 3rd, which is "Poco
allegretto". Now *that*'s helpful, right? A little bit kind-of-fast?
Could a movement be marked "Allegrettissimo"?
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"People in small towns have beliefs the way caves have bats."
--Ursula LeGuin, _Always Coming Home_
JTEM
David W. Fenton
news:hdq5dq$a52$1...@panix1.panix.com:
> This afternoon we went to hear the Berlin Phil under Simon Rattle
> performing the last two Brahms symphonies and some Schoenberg. I
> was reminded of something I must have known (since I've known the
> piece a long time) but had never taken particular note of before:
> the tempo marking on the third movement of the 3rd, which is "Poco
> allegretto". Now *that*'s helpful, right? A little bit
> kind-of-fast? Could a movement be marked "Allegrettissimo"?
Ack. What would it mean? The second derivative of Allegro -- ????
So, how was the performance?
I was listening to WQXR's stream late last night (c. 2am) while
working on putting up a page for an Access utility I've put together
(http://dfenton.com/DFA/download/Access/FileSearch.html), and they
played a performance of the Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto with Pollini
and von Karajan. Is Pollini a Baldwin artist or something? The piano
sounded awful.
And I realized once again that I really don't like the piece -- it
is horridly mis-shapen with this massive open movement and nothing
much of significance after the slow movement.
The first concerto is a much better piece, seems to me.
Have I told the story about me playing that?
In my junior year at Oberlin I was talking to my piano teacher about
perhaps competing in concerto competition my senior year. I asked
him that if I wanted to play the Brahms 1st when I should start
working on it. His response:
Last year.
It was brutal, but absolutely correct.
He wanted me to play the Bartok 3rd, but I just don't find it all
that interesting (the first two are spectacular, of course, but well
beyond my capabilities). I eventually skipped the concerto
competition and gave an ad hoc recital on fortepiano, playing a
Schubert chamber music recital, including the Bb trio, one of the
violin sonata and the Eb impromptu. I've never listened to the
recording.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Robert S. Coren
David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>co...@panix.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote in
>news:hdq5dq$a52$1...@panix1.panix.com:
>
>> This afternoon we went to hear the Berlin Phil under Simon Rattle
>> performing the last two Brahms symphonies and some Schoenberg. I
>> was reminded of something I must have known (since I've known the
>> piece a long time) but had never taken particular note of before:
>> the tempo marking on the third movement of the 3rd, which is "Poco
>> allegretto". Now *that*'s helpful, right? A little bit
>> kind-of-fast? Could a movement be marked "Allegrettissimo"?
>
>Ack. What would it mean? The second derivative of Allegro -- ????
I can't imagine what it would mean, but then I don't know what "poco
allegretto" means either. Apparently, Brahms did, or at least he meant
*something* by it. There doesn't appear to be wide divergence among
tempo choices for this movement, the usual tempo being something that
I think qwould be adequately described by "andante con moto", or at
least it would have been 75 years earlier.
>So, how was the performance?
It was excellent. Those folks can really play.
>I was listening to WQXR's stream late last night (c. 2am) while
>working on putting up a page for an Access utility I've put together
>(http://dfenton.com/DFA/download/Access/FileSearch.html), and they
>played a performance of the Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto with Pollini
>and von Karajan. Is Pollini a Baldwin artist or something? The piano
>sounded awful.
>
>And I realized once again that I really don't like the piece -- it
>is horridly mis-shapen with this massive open movement and nothing
>much of significance after the slow movement.
>
>The first concerto is a much better piece, seems to me.
Well, de gustibus etc. I like the first very much, but I absolutely
love the second. I note that the only thing after the slow movement is
the finale, which is admittedly rather lighter in tone than the rest
of the concerto, but I don't think that I'd call it "nothing of
significance". And that slow movement is simply magnificent, IMO.
>
>Have I told the story about me playing that?
>
>In my junior year at Oberlin I was talking to my piano teacher about
>perhaps competing in concerto competition my senior year. I asked
>him that if I wanted to play the Brahms 1st when I should start
>working on it. His response:
>
> Last year.
>
>It was brutal, but absolutely correct.
Yeah, I don't doubt it. I don't suppose that even when my technique
was at its peak (which was probably when you were still a toddler at
most) I was within ten years of being able to play either Brahms
concerto.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Don't take life so serious, son -- it ain't nohow permanent."
--Porkypine (Walt Kelly)
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> In article <Xns9CC4D118E15E2f9...@74.209.136.82>,
> David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
[]
> >The first concerto is a much better piece, seems to me.
>
> Well, de gustibus etc. I like the first very much, but I absolutely
> love the second. I note that the only thing after the slow movement is
> the finale, which is admittedly rather lighter in tone than the rest
> of the concerto, but I don't think that I'd call it "nothing of
> significance". And that slow movement is simply magnificent, IMO.
I do agree with David on the last movement, but I don't think the
opening movement is misshapen (if that's what was meant.) The last
movement is not bad IMO- I don't know that Brahms really ever wrote
terrible music, but it seems so unconnected to me to the rest of the
work- and that is less a trait of his. But, the first three movements
easily compensate for my quibbles. Other works which do this for me
include Schumann's Piano Quartet and Quintet- particularly the latter.
When I was still doing things like playing concertos, the first concerto
was in my repertoire. It's a majestic piece, pardon the pun. Wish I'd
learned the 2nd, but hey ho. I didn't learn Rach 3 either. :)
[]
> >In my junior year at Oberlin I was talking to my piano teacher about
> >perhaps competing in concerto competition my senior year. I asked
> >him that if I wanted to play the Brahms 1st when I should start
> >working on it. His response:
> >
> > Last year.
> >
> >It was brutal, but absolutely correct.
>
> Yeah, I don't doubt it. I don't suppose that even when my technique
> was at its peak (which was probably when you were still a toddler at
> most) I was within ten years of being able to play either Brahms
> concerto.
I think the main challenges in the 1st are more for the mind than the
technique. The 2nd holds larger technical challenges IMO.
--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
www.davidhorne.net (email address on website)
"[Do you think the world learned anything from the first
world war?] No. They never learn." -Harry Patch (1898-2009)
Robert S. Coren
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9CC4D118E15E2f9...@74.209.136.82>,
>> David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>[]
>> >The first concerto is a much better piece, seems to me.
>>
>> Well, de gustibus etc. I like the first very much, but I absolutely
>> love the second. I note that the only thing after the slow movement is
>> the finale, which is admittedly rather lighter in tone than the rest
>> of the concerto, but I don't think that I'd call it "nothing of
>> significance". And that slow movement is simply magnificent, IMO.
>
>I do agree with David on the last movement, but I don't think the
>opening movement is misshapen (if that's what was meant.) The last
>movement is not bad IMO- I don't know that Brahms really ever wrote
>terrible music, but it seems so unconnected to me to the rest of the
>work- and that is less a trait of his. But, the first three movements
>easily compensate for my quibbles. Other works which do this for me
>include Schumann's Piano Quartet and Quintet- particularly the latter.
Well, it was generally true in the Classical period -- and that's
where Schumann and Brahms were getting their models from -- that
finales were looser in structure and lighter in character than, say,
sonata-form first movements (the Beethove 9th is an outlier in pretty
much any category you care to name). Well, OK, Brahms didn't generally
follow that pattern in his symphonies.
Interesting that you should mention the Schumann Quintet, about which
I feel rather the same way. Likewise, and even more so, for a lot of
Schubert's great works, like the string quintet, the last two
quartets, and the big late piano sonatas.
>When I was still doing things like playing concertos, the first concerto
>was in my repertoire. It's a majestic piece, pardon the pun. Wish I'd
>learned the 2nd, but hey ho. I didn't learn Rach 3 either. :)
If I had ever been in a situation where I was likely to engage in the
necessary time and effort to learn a big virtuoso concerto, I would
not have been likely to waste it on Rachmaninoff as long as Brahms was
available.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Aric has a booming voice like yours -- and a lot less discretion."
--Mike Thomas to me, on the subject of disturbing the neighbors
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> In article <1j99mi2.ehz5mq1h10neoN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Xns9CC4D118E15E2f9...@74.209.136.82>,
> >> David W. Fenton <XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
> >[]
> >> >The first concerto is a much better piece, seems to me.
> >>
> >> Well, de gustibus etc. I like the first very much, but I absolutely
> >> love the second. I note that the only thing after the slow movement is
> >> the finale, which is admittedly rather lighter in tone than the rest
> >> of the concerto, but I don't think that I'd call it "nothing of
> >> significance". And that slow movement is simply magnificent, IMO.
> >
> >I do agree with David on the last movement, but I don't think the
> >opening movement is misshapen (if that's what was meant.) The last
> >movement is not bad IMO- I don't know that Brahms really ever wrote
> >terrible music, but it seems so unconnected to me to the rest of the
> >work- and that is less a trait of his. But, the first three movements
> >easily compensate for my quibbles. Other works which do this for me
> >include Schumann's Piano Quartet and Quintet- particularly the latter.
>
> Well, it was generally true in the Classical period -- and that's
> where Schumann and Brahms were getting their models from -- that
> finales were looser in structure and lighter in character than, say,
> sonata-form first movements
That's not the same as being less substantial though, which is what I
feel is the case in the ones I mentioned. As I wrote, it's not bad music
per se, but not of the same quality as the others.
> (the Beethove 9th is an outlier in pretty
> much any category you care to name). Well, OK, Brahms didn't generally
> follow that pattern in his symphonies.
>
> Interesting that you should mention the Schumann Quintet, about which
> I feel rather the same way. Likewise, and even more so, for a lot of
> Schubert's great works, like the string quintet, the last two
> quartets, and the big late piano sonatas.
Gosh, I would definitely not say that of the G major string quartet (the
musical language is inextricably linked to the rest of the work after
all) and with the Quintet and the D minor, I also disagree.
>
> >When I was still doing things like playing concertos, the first concerto
> >was in my repertoire. It's a majestic piece, pardon the pun. Wish I'd
> >learned the 2nd, but hey ho. I didn't learn Rach 3 either. :)
>
> If I had ever been in a situation where I was likely to engage in the
> necessary time and effort to learn a big virtuoso concerto, I would
> not have been likely to waste it on Rachmaninoff as long as Brahms was
> available.
I've never understood that perception of Rachmaninoff. I deeply believe
you lose something if you don't get his music (what's not to get?), but
I don't want to spend too long on a soapbox...
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:43:32 +0000, d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne,
> _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> [---]
>
> >When I was still doing things like playing concertos, the first concerto
> >was in my repertoire. It's a majestic piece, pardon the pun. Wish I'd
> >learned the 2nd, but hey ho. I didn't learn Rach 3 either. :)
>
> I think that's the one which serves as a bench-mark for all the others
> in learning difficulty. I heard it played by Leif Ove Andsnes with
> the NDR Sinfonieorchester in the Laeiszhalle in Hamburg in March. In
> an interview he gave on that occasion, LOA said that it took him about
> a year to master it fully.
It's up there. Bartok 2, Prokofiev 2, also very strong candidates. I did
learn the 1st movement of Bartok 2 when I was a teenager, but never
performed it (or any of the others- I love all of them) alas.
David W. Fenton
news:1j99mi2.ehz5mq1h10neoN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk:
> I think the main challenges in the 1st are more for the mind than
> the technique. The 2nd holds larger technical challenges IMO.
By far! People are scared by the octave trills in the 1st, but they
just aren't that hard (or course, I spent years working on daily
technical exercises to acquire the ability to trill reliably on the
4th and 5th fingers of both hands). The 2nd is impossible for me
because the reach is way bigger than my small hands can fake. I can
fake it in the 1st (and in other Brahms and Schumann pieces with
intervals beyond a 9th in one hand), but in the 2nd, it just isn't
practical.
No loss to me, since I'm not fond of the piece. And certainly no
loss whatsoever to anyone else to have the privilege to *not* hear
me play it!
David W. Fenton
> Interesting that you should mention the Schumann Quintet, about
> which I feel rather the same way.
I just don't see it in either of the Schuman works. Compared to the
Brahms 2nd Concerto, neither has the outsize heavyweight opening
movement, nor the incredibly contrasting lightweight final movement.
They are much more of a piece throughout, overall, much less serious
than the Brahms.
Or so it seems to me.
Robert S. Coren
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting that you should mention the Schumann Quintet, about which
>> I feel rather the same way. Likewise, and even more so, for a lot of
>> Schubert's great works, like the string quintet, the last two
>> quartets, and the big late piano sonatas.
>
>Gosh, I would definitely not say that of the G major string quartet (the
>musical language is inextricably linked to the rest of the work after
>all) and with the Quintet and the D minor, I also disagree.
Maybe it's not a matter of being "less substantial", but I find those
Schubert finales to be somehow unsatisfying. The D minor and G major
quartets and the C minor sonata, in particular, get into this
obsessive 6/8 rhythm that just wears me down afte a while. (They also
Schubert's sometimes unfortunate tendency to seem to say "Wasn't that
great? Let's do it all again!")
>> If I had ever been in a situation where I was likely to engage in the
>> necessary time and effort to learn a big virtuoso concerto, I would
>> not have been likely to waste it on Rachmaninoff as long as Brahms was
>> available.
>
>I've never understood that perception of Rachmaninoff. I deeply believe
>you lose something if you don't get his music (what's not to get?), but
>I don't want to spend too long on a soapbox...
Well, as I said at the beginning of my reply to David F., _de
gustibus_ etc. But we do it anyway.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"I often postulate with high structural coherence."
--Jeffrey William Sandris
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
> In article <1j9ak6z.1olvq1x1rr503mN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting that you should mention the Schumann Quintet, about which
> >> I feel rather the same way. Likewise, and even more so, for a lot of
> >> Schubert's great works, like the string quintet, the last two
> >> quartets, and the big late piano sonatas.
> >
> >Gosh, I would definitely not say that of the G major string quartet (the
> >musical language is inextricably linked to the rest of the work after
> >all) and with the Quintet and the D minor, I also disagree.
>
> Maybe it's not a matter of being "less substantial", but I find those
> Schubert finales to be somehow unsatisfying. The D minor and G major
> quartets and the C minor sonata, in particular, get into this
> obsessive 6/8 rhythm that just wears me down afte a while. (They also
> Schubert's sometimes unfortunate tendency to seem to say "Wasn't that
> great? Let's do it all again!")
I agree they're somewhat obsessive. That's one thing I like about them!
>
> >> If I had ever been in a situation where I was likely to engage in the
> >> necessary time and effort to learn a big virtuoso concerto, I would
> >> not have been likely to waste it on Rachmaninoff as long as Brahms was
> >> available.
> >
> >I've never understood that perception of Rachmaninoff. I deeply believe
> >you lose something if you don't get his music (what's not to get?), but
> >I don't want to spend too long on a soapbox...
>
> Well, as I said at the beginning of my reply to David F., _de
> gustibus_ etc. But we do it anyway.
I have a knee-jerk reaction when Rachmaninoff is brought up- lots of
composers seem to have a default 'dislike' of him for instance- never
got it myself. I suppose there's something about the extraordinary
melodic gift, astonishing harmonic ear and exquisite sense of structural
balance that some people don't like. :)
Robert S. Coren
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> If I had ever been in a situation where I was likely to engage in the
>> >> necessary time and effort to learn a big virtuoso concerto, I would
>> >> not have been likely to waste it on Rachmaninoff as long as Brahms was
>> >> available.
>> >
>> >I've never understood that perception of Rachmaninoff. I deeply believe
>> >you lose something if you don't get his music (what's not to get?), but
>> >I don't want to spend too long on a soapbox...
>>
>> Well, as I said at the beginning of my reply to David F., _de
>> gustibus_ etc. But we do it anyway.
>
>I have a knee-jerk reaction when Rachmaninoff is brought up- lots of
>composers seem to have a default 'dislike' of him for instance- never
>got it myself. I suppose there's something about the extraordinary
>melodic gift, astonishing harmonic ear and exquisite sense of structural
>balance that some people don't like. :)
I don't hate Rachmaninoff; I just think I'd rather spend my time on
Brahms.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"At least the craters on my asteroid look nice." --BBC
David W. Fenton
> I have a knee-jerk reaction when Rachmaninoff is brought up- lots
> of composers seem to have a default 'dislike' of him for instance-
> never got it myself. I suppose there's something about the
> extraordinary melodic gift, astonishing harmonic ear and exquisite
> sense of structural balance that some people don't like. :)
This is exactly the way I feel -- I have always found his music
extremely well-crafted as well as deeply felt. It seems to me that a
lot of people hold his popularity against him, as though the fact
that the unwashed masses like it must mean that it can't possibly be
good.
My bet is that if there were some way to pass off his music as by
some obscure composer from the former Soviet Union, he would be
hailed as a genius.
ailuropoda melanoleuca torontonensis
> My bet is that if there were some way to pass off his music as by
> some obscure composer from the former Soviet Union, he would be
> hailed as a genius.
this is post 11, of 15 at this point, and they're nearly all about
classical music. The discussion of tempi has drifted, but not by
much. eight levels of response, and virtually zero thread drift?
good heavenly days.
manly gobsmacked panda
JTEM
d4g...@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:
> I have a knee-jerk reaction when Rachmaninoff is brought up
Yeah, and it's grass that makes cows "Mooooo".
Les Farnell
>
> I don't hate Rachmaninoff; I just think I'd rather spend my time on
> Brahms.
A few months ago the ABC (that's Aust, not Amer) did a listeners' poll
of favourite symphonies. They then played the top 100 over a single
week. End to end, I realised that nearly everything within a few decades
of 1900 sounds like a variation on a single symphony: Brahms, Bruckner,
most of Dvorak, Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Elgar, to a certain extend
Tchaikovsky. I was glad when Mozart popped up, to clean out the ears.
LF
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
Les Farnell
> Les Farnell <ur...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Robert S. Coren wrote:
>>
>>> I don't hate Rachmaninoff; I just think I'd rather spend my time on
>>> Brahms.
>> A few months ago the ABC (that's Aust, not Amer) did a listeners' poll
>> of favourite symphonies. They then played the top 100 over a single
>> week. End to end, I realised that nearly everything within a few decades
>> of 1900 sounds like a variation on a single symphony: Brahms, Bruckner,
>> most of Dvorak, Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Elgar, to a certain extend
>> Tchaikovsky. I was glad when Mozart popped up, to clean out the ears.
>
> If they're variations, then bring them on.
>
What puzzled me was, why did the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony make the
top five? Yes I expected it to be in the list, but not that high.
When they'd counted down to 50, I was pretty well able to fill in
the remainder, give or take the odd Mahler or Shostakovich - I wasn't
certain how many of each would be voted in. However, I didn't pick
Strauss' Alpine Symphony.
LF