Beethoven 5, ii: Why triplets?
Chris M
movement as though Beethoven had written triplets rather than dotted
notes. Even Harnoncourt gets this wrong which is surprising to me.
Muti and Weil also get it wrong. In fact, Weil actually plays the
first two notes as equal eighth notes, which is really perverse.
I recently learned that cellists at cello auditions who play triplets
usually get canned, so it puzzles me that conductors don't pay
attention to this sort of thing.
-Chris
GMS
Chris is quite right about cellists getting canned at auditions over
this. When the CSO holds auditions, we hear different extremes, ie.
from triplets to double-dotted rhythms. The goal is to play the
rhythm properly, yet be expressive on the short notes. This is
difficult, tho hardly impossible. Chris is also right that a number
of conductors have this passage played incorrectly. I've never
experienced a conductor who has actually asked for triplets and how
the aforementioned maestri allowed this is puzzling to me.
Gary Stucka
Cellist, Chicago Symphony Orchestra
jonathan morgan
> Even Harnoncourt gets this wrong which is surprising to me.
It was surprising to me, too, so I had a careful listen. And if you're
talking of the CoE recording, then I have to disagree. Gentle, legato
playing, but certainly not triplets.
Jonathan
Chris M
wrote:
I'm referring to the CoE recording. If you count 1-2-3 aloud, you'll
notice that they are in fact triplets.
Chris
jonathan morgan
Well, I did say 'careful'. And, thanks, I know how to hear triplets.
And I don't hear them in this recording... I'm as certain on my
opinion as you are on yours, so I doubt that we'll get anywhere on
this... But I wonder if you first got to know the piece in a recording
which slightly overdots the rhythm? Or maybe the very smooth bowing in
bar 2 (though not in bars 4 & 5) is misleading your ear?
Jonathan
ukr...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Well, they do sound similar (and I dug out my Harnoncourt to check).
In this case, since we can't see the conductor, we can actually fool
the ear to go either way on the first entrance. But on the second
time, I definitely don't hear a triplet. On that one, we have the
tempo to help us out. On the third repeat, it definitely does not have
a triplet sound. So I think some are just having their ear fooled on
the first entrance. On the fourth and fifth, it seems even clearer to
me. So I doubt Harnoncourt is messing with us by changing it up.
Do people like his fifth? Maybe I am spoiled with the Kleiber, but I
don;t really like it.
Peter Greenstein
<ukr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193433470.3...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hard to say that Harnoncourt is staying rigidly with one rhythmic
interpretation.
In the opening measures, I hear Harnoncourt phrasing with the slightest
hesitations and distention's. Then add the subtle variations in the use of
legato, well, it's hard to say when it's got a triplet feel underneath or a
straight feel underneath it all. It's somewhat fluid. Sort of a slow Bossa
Nova waltz! Doesn't bother me.
peter
Ulvi Yurtsever
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
> Why do some conductors play the first few measures of the second
> movement as though Beethoven had written triplets rather than dotted
> notes. Even Harnoncourt gets this wrong which is surprising to me.
> Muti and Weil also get it wrong. In fact, Weil actually plays the
> first two notes as equal eighth notes, which is really perverse.
I don't hear Harnoncourt's phrasing as triplets, and never
heard the other two (Weil and Muti). In fact, of the more than
two dozen recordings I have, none that I can recall play
these measures as triplets, although Dorati and Norrington
(London Classical Players) can be accused of smearing the dotted
eights closer to triplets.
Ulvi
ukr...@yahoo.com
> <ukrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree he is doing other stuff there, but I was trying to keep it
simple.
If he has done any video versions, that might help. We would see the
downbeat and it would be clear what he is doing. It's actually pretty
amazing how our ears (and eyes for that matter) can decieve us.
Chris M
> I agree he is doing other stuff there, but I was trying to keep it
> simple.
>
> If he has done any video versions, that might help. We would see the
> downbeat and it would be clear what he is doing. It's actually pretty
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seeing the downbeat wouldn't really help. He would have to be
conducting subdivisions of the beat to indicate what he wanted.
I didn't really grow up listening to one particular recording of th e
fifth and I didn't care much about this issue until a cellist pointed
it out to me.
Jon Alan Conrad
the triplet interpretation, believing it to be what Beethoven wanted
with this notation?
This is a much-argued point, of course; but am I right in recalling
that the "triplet"-type notation for a long-short rhythmic pair (in
the ratio 2:1) wasn't in use yet? So composers would use the dotted
notation, and we in our time get to wonder about what is appropriate
in each instance. (Another obvious case is the first movement of the
Moonlight sonata: do the frequent dotted-rhythm pickup pairs match the
underlying tripets or not?)
Later in this same 5th symphony movement the dotted rhythm does occur
over a triplet accompaniment; should it assimilate then? If it does
then, maybe at the beginning too? (And where does this leave the
auditioning cellists who get docked for performing it that way? I
suppose the answer, as ever, is to know your particular judges and
what they approve.)
I ask; I don't know, and I haven't heard all of the recordings in
question. I kind of prefer the sharper, more note-accurate
interpretation myself, but I have to acknowledge that I may thereby
want something different from what the composer wanted.
JAC
MiNe 109
Jon Alan Conrad <con...@udel.edu> wrote:
> Isn't there also the possibility that the conductor deliberately chose
> the triplet interpretation, believing it to be what Beethoven wanted
> with this notation?
>
> This is a much-argued point, of course; but am I right in recalling
> that the "triplet"-type notation for a long-short rhythmic pair (in
> the ratio 2:1) wasn't in use yet? So composers would use the dotted
> notation, and we in our time get to wonder about what is appropriate
> in each instance. (Another obvious case is the first movement of the
> Moonlight sonata: do the frequent dotted-rhythm pickup pairs match the
> underlying tripets or not?)
I had a similar discussion with a teacher concerning the Op 28 slow
movement. I think the question also affects some Schubert.
Stephen
jonathan morgan
rhythm to a triplet accompaniment seems to be what the composer
intended. There are examples to be found in Brahms Schumann & Chopin
(Howard Ferguson's 'Keyboard Interpretation' cites several). But I
don't think this is the case in B5ii. There are triplets later on, but
it's only the dotted upbeats/pickups which occur over the triplets:
the main theme isn't heard here. A bit later, these dotted upbeats are
heard over demisemis/32nds (bar 82ff). And when the dotted theme does
come back complete, it's over an accompaniment (viola, cello, bass) of
repeated 32nds.
BTW, I'd argue strongly against any assimilation in op 28 ii. Surely
one of the main features of this section is the opposition between
those punctuating dotted outbursts and the intervening triplets?
Jonathan
MiNe 109
jonathan morgan <jonathan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
The staccato articulation weakens that to my ear, as does the
single-sixteenth-note pick-up to triplets writing. Those dotted notes
are already punctuated by the rests.
I don't play the section in clear triplets, but also not in strict
rhythm. Tempo and choice of instrument also play a factor.
The way this connects to the discussion is to ask how Beethoven could
have notated the section to show a consistent triplet feel.
On a strictly subjective level, with so much inequality in the air
(Quantz, et al) I wonder if Beethoven would have expected a performer to
play in strict time.
Stephen
jonathan morgan
> The way this connects to the discussion is to ask how Beethoven could
> have notated the section to show a consistent triplet feel.
By writing with a time signature of 12/16?
> On a strictly subjective level, with so much inequality in the air
> (Quantz, et al) I wonder if Beethoven would have expected a performer to
> play in strict time.
I'm not sure that Quantz (whose Versuch was published in 1752) was
exactly 'in the air' by the time of Beethoven's sonatas. And actually,
that publication date is a bit deceptive: a lot of the content was
inspired by Quantz's studies with Buffardin in the French-influenced
court at Dresden, several years before he started working for
Frederick in Potsdam. (Yes, I'm a baroque flautist...)
Jonathan
MiNe 109
jonathan morgan <jonathan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The way this connects to the discussion is to ask how Beethoven could
> > have notated the section to show a consistent triplet feel.
>
> By writing with a time signature of 12/16?
Yes. Either he would have used it if he wanted it, or he assumed what he
wrote would be performed as he wished. One would have to look for
changes of time signature to accommodate duple vs triple in long forms
to see if that was his practice. Since problems of this type are found
well into the 19th century, I don't consider the matter settled.
Pianists rarely get low marks for playing literally.
> > On a strictly subjective level, with so much inequality in the air
> > (Quantz, et al) I wonder if Beethoven would have expected a performer to
> > play in strict time.
>
> I'm not sure that Quantz (whose Versuch was published in 1752) was
> exactly 'in the air' by the time of Beethoven's sonatas. And actually,
> that publication date is a bit deceptive: a lot of the content was
> inspired by Quantz's studies with Buffardin in the French-influenced
> court at Dresden, several years before he started working for
> Frederick in Potsdam. (Yes, I'm a baroque flautist...)
Hence the 'et al'. The Quantz does harken back, but Leopold looks
forward.
The perfect book on inequality has yet to be written, but the last one I
studied was Helfing's "Rhythmic Alteration".
Stephen