What are you listening to now?

[Michael]

Listening to the opening of the "Pathetique" and trying to find out by ear where the bloody hemidemisemiquavers are!

Incidentally, I am listening to one of Brendel's recordings and I notice that, while he repeats the exposition, he doesn't repeat the Grave. I have some other versions - including Serkin, I think - where the Grave is repeated and I think it slows down the whole movement, especially as it comes again at the start of the development section. What does the score say? Did Beethoven leave an option?

[Chris]

Listening to the opening of the "Pathetique" and trying to find out by ear where the bloody hemidemisemiquavers are!

First ones appear in the fourth bar!

Incidentally, I am listening to one of Brendel's recordings and I notice that, while he repeats the exposition, he doesn't repeat the Grave. I have some other versions - including Serkin, I think - where the Grave is repeated and I think it slows down the whole movement, especially as it comes again at the start of the development section. What does the score say? Did Beethoven leave an option?

I think that in the autograph, there is no "reverse repeat sign" at the beginning of the Allegro, indicating that the Grave should be repeated as well, but I think the first editions had it. I'm not sure, though.

Andras Schiff discusses this matter in his lecture series on the Beethoven piano sonatas, which you can easily find by Googling. He is in favor of repeating the Grave, and the argument can be made that it makes sense, since that material shows up in the development and in the coda. Schiff believes it has a shocking effect when the pianist repeats all the way back to what seems like just introductory material. But I think not repeating the Grave makes that shock all the more effective when the development section is finally reached. Personally, I do not repeat the Grave.

[Peter]

Listening to the opening of the "Pathetique" and trying to find out by ear where the bloody hemidemisemiquavers are!

Incidentally, I am listening to one of Brendel's recordings and I notice that, while he repeats the exposition, he doesn't repeat the Grave. I have some other versions - including Serkin, I think - where the Grave is repeated and I think it slows down the whole movement, especially as it comes again at the start of the development section. What does the score say? Did Beethoven leave an option?

Brendel is correct - the repeat is marked in the score from the Allegro di molto e con brio. I agree that it doesn't work musically to repeat the Grave so I'm not sure why Serkin does it. The hemidemis occur in the 4th bar just after the sforzando bass note and also in the long scale run down at the end of the Grave. This is complicated because Beethoven groups them in different rhythmic combinations so they will not sound even.

[Hofrat]

First, I want to point out that there are even shorter notes in the Grave introduction of the opus 13 sonata. In bar 10, there are 128ths.

According to the score I have, the repeat in the first movement starts in bar 11. The score is based on the autograph or a first edition.

[Michael]

First, I want to point out that there are even shorter notes in the Grave introduction of the opus 13 sonata. In bar 10, there are 128ths.

What - demihemidemisemiquavers?

[Hofrat]

Easier to say 128th notes!!

[Zevy]

Pleased you're still listening to them, Zevy. Are you familiar with the Quartets?

PDG - I am very familiar with the quartets; early, middle and LATE! The Quintet(s), as well. But these trios are very charming. I am still listening to them everytime I am in the car.

[Quijote]

This evening I attended a live performance of Elvio Cipollone's Concerto for saxophone and electronics, followed by a lecture on the piece by musicologist Noémie Sprenger-Ohana, saxophonist Pascal Bonnet and the composer himself.
Not a bad work, with some flaws I felt in the balance between abstract and mimetic discourse, and some questionable use of overly-concrète sounds (and hence too overtly 'anecdotal' for my taste). Still, a pleasant way to spend a drab Thursday evening.

[Michael]

PDG - I am very familiar with the quartets; early, middle and LATE! The Quintet(s), as well. But these trios are very charming. I am still listening to them everytime I am in the car.

In a certains sense, the string trio is a more difficult art - technically anyway. You could say Beethoven mastered the awkward three-wheel vehicle before he went on to the four by four.

[PDG]

In a certains sense, the string trio is a more difficult art - technically anyway. You could say Beethoven mastered the awkward three-wheel vehicle before he went on to the four by four.

I disagree with this view, Michael.

With a String Trio, there are three distinct individual voices, each with its unique range and sonority. A bit like a singing trio of soprano, tenor and bass. With a Quartet there is surely the perplexing problem of balancing two distinct violins against a viola and cello. The sonority and balance (as well as overall loudness, interplay, motivic-resolution, etc) are surely harder to satisfactorily achieve when the lead melodies have to be shared.

Brahms destroyed many Quartet drafts through frustration, and completed "easier" String Sextets and then Quintets, before tackling "notoriously difficult" Quartets...

[Michael]

Only "in a sense" did I mean the string trio could be regarded as being more difficult, and then purely from a technical point of view. I don't know how Beethoven did it, but he makes the Opus 9 trios sound like quartets. I believe he honed his skills in these works and it was the expertise he gained here that led him on to the Opus 18 works.
I wouldn’t regard having an extra violin as being a disadvantage – quite the opposite. In the string trio, the composer has to fill out the texture as best he can – and inspiration may have to give way to technical problems in some cases, even though to my untrained ears, there is no evidence of this in Opus 9. With the quartet, Beethoven has the classic four parts to play around with and he can concentrate on the musical content.
Don’t get me wrong. I regard the string quartet as the perfect musical medium – or whatever you want to call it - it and nothing compares to the middle and late works of Beethoven in this area. But, as in the symphony, he treaded very carefully in the footsteps of Mozart and Haydn and he tested himself in the less obvious arena of the string trio. In the same way, his first chamber works were piano quartets – a virtually unknown genre.

[PDG]

Only "in a sense" did I mean the string trio could be regarded as being more difficult, and then purely from a technical point of view. I don't know how Beethoven did it, but he makes the Opus 9 trios sound like quartets. I believe he honed his skills in these works and it was the expertise he gained here that led him on to the Opus 18 works.
I wouldn’t regard having an extra violin as being a disadvantage – quite the opposite. In the string trio, the composer has to fill out the texture as best he can – and inspiration may have to give way to technical problems in some cases, even though to my untrained ears, there is no evidence of this in Opus 9. With the quartet, Beethoven has the classic four parts to play around with and he can concentrate on the musical content.

Hi Michael. I still think the Quartet is the far more technical ensemble composition. With a Trio the 'road map' is clearer, whereas there are all sorts of balancing problems within a Quartet. Of course, B's Opp. 3,8 & (especially) 9 are incredible works because of what he achieves with the limited resources of instrumentation. But he pulled it off, as you say, before attempting the daunting Quartet formula. I've just listened to Hess 32 - the earlier version of Op.18 number 1 - and it seems to me that he was still clearly learning his trade in this area despite having finished the masterful Trios.

I really don't think the Piano Quartets can in any way compare to 'proper' String Quartets, but I may have misunderstood why you mentioned these?

Let's hope some serious string players offer their views!

[Michael]

Well, we'll agree to differ - and demonstrate how an argument need not go on for twenty pages. Coincidentally, I too have been listening to the Amenda version of the Opus 18, No. 1 only last week. I was thinking how I would enjoy putting on the CD for somebody who knew the published version well and watching his face. He (or preferably she) should be okay up to the end of the exposition (maybe) but by the end of the second subject he should be sitting up and asking questions. (The only problem is I don't know anyone who is familiar with either work.)
If we had been left with the Amenda version, I think we would still be quite happy and (speaking very personally) unable, most of the time, to see how it could be improved. The most obvious improvement to me is in the development section where the older version stops and starts whereas in the version we all know, it cuts its way through like a ...... well, four-wheel-drive - but let's not start that again.

[Zevy]

....the lead melodies have to be shared.

Interesting - I always think of the 2nd violin and viola as the string quartet's inner voices.

[PDG]

Well, we'll agree to differ - and demonstrate how an argument need not go on for twenty pages.

I disagree. I demand my 20 pages...