Favourite Quartets

[Michael]

Originally posted by Rod:
I agree, one variation in particular captures this feeling of loneliness you mention like no other, but I would not convey this emotion to the whole movement,

If you are referring to the third variation, I agree with you up to a point. But "loneliness" doesn't come near to describing the quality of this variation - it is nothing short of devastating - another inadequate word. It is one of those spiritual states that cannot be conveyed in mere words, hence we need music.
It is rare to come across a set of variations that has, as its theme, a supremely beautiful melody. B achieves this in Opus 27 and again in the Ninth Symphony. Usually, he relies on rather skeletal themes to build up his monumental structures (as in the C minor variations, the Eroica and the Diabelli).

Michael

[Peter]

Originally posted by Michael:
It is rare to come across a set of variations that has, as its theme, a supremely beautiful melody.
Michael

Two other beautiful themes come to mind, Op.26 first movement and the 3rd movement of the Archduke Trio Op.97.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[PDG]

Given Beethoven`s superhuman, intuitive genius, it amazes me that he compromised his art to the point where he agreed to substitute the finale of the op.130 quartet. Now, I love both the Grosse Fugue & the rondo which replaced it, but I have only seen the quartet performed with the rondo. This means that whatever Beethoven`s aspirations for op.130, they can never be realised all the time this practice continues. He would never have allowed himself to be coersed, & since he knew that he was not much longer for this world, I will never understand his decision. It surely can have little to do with the Fugue`s inaccessibility, since audiences were already confused by his music!

With the rondo, op.130 is still a masterpiece, but the inescapable feeling is that it is a compromised, corrupted masterpiece.

[Michael]

I think you are right, PDG, when you say that B was not forced into changing the finale of the B flat quartet. When was he ever motivated by public opinion?
That the late quartets were misunderstood at the time of their first performances seems to be something of a myth. The original problem with listeners to the Grosse Fugue was its length rather than its content. It was after B's death that some vigorous attacks were made on his late music, and even his earlier works. No less a person than Grillparzer, who gave the famous oration at B's funeral, privately condemned some aspects of the composer's art in a diary entry in 1834, citing "Beethoven's harmful effects on the world of music, despite his inestimably high worth."
One possible theory for the substitute finale is that B took it as a musical challenge. Perhaps he was intrigued by the effect the alteration of its ending would have on a work? And the B flat would seem to be a good choice for such an experiment.
After a rather weighty first movement, there is a succession of shorter, gentler movements - rather like a Baroque suite. Listening to it with the new rondo ending, the whole work becomes lighter in tone - rather like the last quartet of all. But when you listen to it with the Grosse Fugue finale, that last mighty edifice throws a backward shadow and alters your perception of the entire piece.
Originally, I preferred the rondo but over a period of twenty years (gasp!) the Grosse Fugue is now the only finale for me. It can be listened to on its own with satisfaction, but when it comes in on the dying strains of the Cavatina - like the last movement of the Ninth after the adagio - you know that this is it!
The Grosse Fugue is one of those pieces of music that should never be heard for the first time! I have only started to unlock its secrets - possibly because I listen harmonically instead of polyphonically. I can't follow a Bach organ fugue to save my life, but it doesn't stop me listening. Anyway, isn't fugue a texture rather than a form?
Somebody once wrote that "if any work justifies the invention of the gramophone, its the 'Grosse Fugue'. As if the gramophone or the CD player needed justification, but I know what he meant.

Michael

[PDG]

Michael, the Viennese not taking to the length, rather than the content, of the Gross Fugue, is a new one on me. The effect of the Fugue immediately following the Cavatina is quite jarring - more so than the way the 4th movement follows the 3rd in the 9th symphony - & surely, Beethoven must have realised this better than anyone. We know that the Cavatina was "composed in the very tears of misery," so why did he not use a short, transitionary movement to link the Cavatina with the Fugue, as he did by using a march to link the Hymn of Thanksgiving to the tempestuous finale, in op.132?

Also, I can`t agree that he may have substituted the Rondo for the Fugue as some kind of experiment, just to see what effect this had on the work, especially given the nature of the work. I think it more likely that the Rondo was Beethoven`s mocking gesture towards his critics ("those cattle, those assas"). They couldn`t take the Fugue, so now they would have to settle for a pastiche, instead! The trouble is, of course, that this is such a great movement in its own right, that his gesture has been, ultimately, self-defeating, for the Rondo remains the established finale of op.130!

I think Beethoven believed that one day the Fugue would be restored to the quartet, but it has yet to happen. It would appear that the public still prefers, or is still assumed to prefer, his great op.130 with the "wrong" finale.

[Michael]

Yes, the rondo substitute is itself a great movement, and B may well have been having a laugh at those "asses" - who knows?
But I think the fugal finale is coming into its own nowadays - I don't know about live performances but certainly in recordings. Some years back, on a recording of Opus 130, you would find the rondo placed directly after the Cavatina, and the Grosse Fugue following as an alternative. Nowadays, it's usually the other way round, and some recordings of the quartet have been issued with the rondo alternative not included at all.
Regarding the jarring effect of the Grosse Fugue coming after the Cavatina, Beethoven was not shy of using those shock tactics. In his early days, when he played in public and reduced his audience to tears, his favourite trick was to slam down the piano lid and give a guffaw.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 01-13-2001).]

[Peter]

I can't imagine Beethoven being badgered into anything against his artistic judgement - he must genuinely have felt the Fugue to be an inappropiate finale. He had of course done the same thing many years earlier with the Waldstein sonata in replacing the Andante Faviori with the more profound adagio. You could also ask why he didn't replace the finale of Op.106, it is surely equally as difficult to understand and play as the Grosse fugue.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[PDG]

Originally posted by Peter:

I can't imagine Beethoven being badgered into anything against his artistic judgement - he must genuinely have felt the Fugue to be an inappropiate finale. He had of course done the same thing many years earlier with the Waldstein sonata in replacing the Andante Faviori with the more profound adagio. You could also ask why he didn't replace the finale of Op.106, it is surely equally as difficult to understand and play as the Grosse fugue.

I don`t think one can compare the fugue finale of op.106 with the fugue finale of op.130. For a start, the complexity of the Hammerklavier means that a fugue was, probably, the only available option with which to resolve this work; it is also linked to the adagio by a transitionary "movement", which prepares the listener for the "strap yourself in" ride ahead. Beethoven also provided such a linking movement between the Hymn of Thanksgiving & the finale of his life-affirming op. 132.

Also, the idea that Beethoven accepted that the Grosse Fugue was inappropriate for op. 130 is ridiculous! We know that he was furious that, at the first performance, the Fugue was not encored.

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
Given Beethoven`s superhuman, intuitive genius, it amazes me that he compromised his art to the point where he agreed to substitute the finale of the op.130 quartet. Now, I love both the Grosse Fugue & the rondo which replaced it, but I have only seen the quartet performed with the rondo. This means that whatever Beethoven`s aspirations for op.130, they can never be realised all the time this practice continues. He would never have allowed himself to be coersed, & since he knew that he was not much longer for this world, I will never understand his decision. It surely can have little to do with the Fugue`s inaccessibility, since audiences were already confused by his music!

With the rondo, op.130 is still a masterpiece, but the inescapable feeling is that it is a compromised, corrupted masterpiece.

It has been proven from the sketches that the replacement is more in line with Beethoven's original intentions for the finale of this work - the fugue being an afterthought. One has to come to the conclusion that he saw some validity in the critisism of the fugue, the extra cash then being an additional incentive. No-one critisises B over the replacement af the andante in the Waldstein sonata brought about under similar circumstances. Over time I can come to accept the replacement as a viable option for the finale based on my experience of period instruments and performance practise, for under these conditions the nature and balance of the work as a whole accomodates the replacement far more effectively than modern interpretations, which reduce the rondos effectiveness, making it seem somewhat trivial after the gravity of the cavatina and an ineffective balance to the first movement. With authentic practice the opening allegro would certainly have a lighter air, whilst the replacement rondo loses this air of triviality. Though I accept you'd have to hear all this for real to understand fully, unless you're accustomed to authentic methods. Of course it helps if all repeats are observed also.

Rod

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by PDG:
I don`t think one can compare the fugue finale of op.106 with the fugue finale of op.130. For a start, the complexity of the Hammerklavier means that a fugue was, probably, the only available option with which to resolve this work;

I wasn't comparing the 2 as such - I was simply backing up my case, which you have also done! I don't accept that a fugue finale was the only option for the Hammerklavier - why? you could argue that because of the complexity of the previous movements, something a little lighter and more jovial would be appropiate - It's very easy with hindsight to say something was inevitable. What about Op.110 - if the complexity of Op.106 justifies a fugue finale, what justifies it in Op.110?

I still maintain that Beethoven considered the new finale to Op.130 more appropiate than the Grosse Fugue and to change that now would be as wrong as replacing the 2nd movement of the Waldstein with the Andante Favori - In both cases Beethoven's artistic judgement prevailed, not the wishes of others.If the idea of Beethoven not being satisfied with the Grosse Fugue as the finale is ridiculous, why did he write an alternative movement - against his artistic judgement? - I don't think so.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-15-2001).]

[PDG]

Originally posted by Peter:
I wasn't comparing the 2 as such - I was simply backing up my case, which you have also done! I don't accept that a fugue finale was the only option for the Hammerklavier - why? you could argue that because of the complexity of the previous movements, something a little lighter and more jovial would be appropiate - It's very easy with hindsight to say something was inevitable. What about Op.110 - if the complexity of Op.106 justifies a fugue finale, what justifies it in Op.110?
I still maintain that Beethoven considered the new finale to Op.130 more appropiate than the Grosse Fugue and to change that now would be as wrong as replacing the 2nd movement of the Waldstein with the Andante Favori - In both cases Beethoven's artistic judgement prevailed, not the wishes of others.If the idea of Beethoven not being satisfied with the Grosse Fugue as the finale is ridiculous, why did he write an alternative movement - against his artistic judgement? - I don't think so.

Peter, for a start, the Hammerklavier would not be the awesome work that it is if it ended with a light, jovial movement, so thank God Beethoven left it alone! My main point about op.106 & yes, op.110, is that we are lead into these fugues by trasitionary "movements", which help prepare us for what`s to come, yet there is nothing separating the Cavatina from the Grosse Fugue in op.130, & I`m interested in possible reasons why.

You seem happy to accept the rondo as the quartet`s established finale, but it is clear, even from recent posts here, that opinion is divided on this matter. It is known that Beethoven went berserk upon learning that the critics & public alike had not taken to the fugue. I`ve already stated why I think he offered the rondo as a replacement finale, & I still say that with this concession, Beethoven compromised his artistic judgement, intentionally or otherwise.

[Peter]

Originally posted by PDG:
[B
I`ve already stated why I think he offered the rondo as a replacement finale, & I still say that with this concession, Beethoven compromised his artistic judgement, intentionally or otherwise.[/B]

And I still say that he never would have done such a thing had he not thought it preferable.
Surely the Cavatina would have served as a preparatory movement (like the arioso from Op.110) without the need for another slow movement as well.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[PDG]

Originally posted by Peter:
And I still say that he never would have done such a thing had he not thought it preferable.
Surely the Cavatina would have served as a preparatory movement (like the arioso from Op.110) without the need for another slow movement as well.

A linking movement needn`t have been slow - the march of op.132 neatly separates the Thanksgiving Hymn from the joyous finale. Without the march, I feel that these two enormous, emotionally-opposed movements would rest uneasily, side by side.

I cannot agree that the function of the Cavatina was to serve as a "preparatory" movement - it`s too mood-inducing. You are saying that Beethoven did not compromise his artistic judgement by substituting the rondo for the fugue; the inference, therefore, is that he made an error of judgement by including the fugue in the first place. I don`t believe this was the case. Ultimately, of course, we`ll probably never know, & we may have to settle for agreeing to disagree.

[Peter]

Originally posted by PDG:
A linking movement needn`t have been slow - the march of op.132 neatly separates the Thanksgiving Hymn from the joyous finale. Without the march, I feel that these two enormous, emotionally-opposed movements would rest uneasily, side by side.

I agree

I cannot agree that the function of the Cavatina was to serve as a "preparatory" movement - it`s too mood-inducing.

What about the arioso dolente of Op.110 ?


You are saying that Beethoven did not compromise his artistic judgement by substituting the rondo for the fugue; the inference, therefore, is that he made an error of judgement by including the fugue in the first place.

Yes - every time he revised a work, it was for the better - Op.53, Op.18 no.1 , Fidelio (although some great music was lost), Op.19 are examples. The original endings of both the Pastoral Symphony 2nd movement and the 8th Symphony 1st movement were both altered, and for the better. Peter.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by PDG:
A linking movement needn`t have been slow - the march of op.132 neatly separates the Thanksgiving Hymn from the joyous finale. Without the march, I feel that these two enormous, emotionally-opposed movements would rest uneasily, side by side.

I cannot agree that the function of the Cavatina was to serve as a "preparatory" movement - it`s too mood-inducing. You are saying that Beethoven did not compromise his artistic judgement by substituting the rondo for the fugue; the inference, therefore, is that he made an error of judgement by including the fugue in the first place. I don`t believe this was the case. Ultimately, of course, we`ll probably never know, & we may have to settle for agreeing to disagree.

The mood inducing nature of the cavatina is usually the main reason given for it being a preparatory movement to the fugue! Whether B made an error of judgement in besides the point, and will always be a value gudgement. B obviously though a movement of the rondos nature could fit in op130 as a finale - whereby we must reconsider the nature of the work as a whole, which relates to my earlier comments regarding the performance of the piece.

Rod



------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin