Stupid Question

[Michael]

Please bear with me. I must have asked this question before but I can't seem to get the answer into my thick head. Our friend, Beethoven, wrote about half a dozen works or so for four-hand piano. Does this mean that two pianos are required or just one (with two people sitting side by side)?
I know that Beethoven, having many female pupils, was fond of the latter arrangement.
I know I could find the answer by trawling the net or looking through my library, but I am tired tonight, being snowbound all day.
Peter? (I know Philip and Chris are string virtuosi). My forte is the harmonica.

[Roehre]

None of his music for piano-four-hands is meant for two pianos.

Even the transcription of the Grosse Fuge for piano-é-4-mains op.134 is to be played at one instrument, though this piece obviously were better conceived for two pianos, certainly in the awkward sertting Beethoven himself made of the work.

Strictly academically speaking B's opinion obviously is correct, but from a listener's point of view it doesn't make any diffference whether B's own transcription is played or e.g. Ries' version (the latter dividing the four parts conveniently between the two players, who therefore don't play the melodic contents of two parts completely, but swapped between them).

[Michael]

Thanks, Roehre!
I have a recording of the piano transcription of the Grosse Fuge in which the pianist plays with himself. I'd better clarify that very quickly: thanks to modern recording technology, he plays both piano parts.
The advantage, for a non-musician like myself, is that both stereo channels can be separated and heard in isolation. And with the Grosse Fuge that is some advantage!

[Chris]

Piano four-hands (or piano duet) generally refers to two players on one piano, and as Roehre pointed out, all of Beethoven's works of this kind are like that. But there are works written for two pianos as well. Mozart wrote works for both piano four-hands (on one piano) and for two pianos.

[Chris]

(I know Philip and Chris are string virtuosi).

I rather enjoy being included with Philip as a string virtuoso, even though he is a professional and I am an amateur hack

I am almost certainly a better pianist than a violinist at this point - though an amateur hack either way, sadly.

[Peter]

Please bear with me. I must have asked this question before but I can't seem to get the answer into my thick head. Our friend, Beethoven, wrote about half a dozen works or so for four-hand piano. Does this mean that two pianos are required or just one (with two people sitting side by side)?
I know that Beethoven, having many female pupils, was fond of the latter arrangement.
I know I could find the answer by trawling the net or looking through my library, but I am tired tonight, being snowbound all day.
Peter? (I know Philip and Chris are string virtuosi). My forte is the harmonica.

Well the question was answered very well way before I set eyes on it! The only thing to add is that Schubert was also rather fond of the duet arrangement with pretty young ladies!

[jamesofedinburgh]

Thanks, Roehre!
I have a recording of the piano transcription of the Grosse Fuge in which the pianist plays with himself. I'd better clarify that very quickly: thanks to modern recording technology, he plays both piano parts.
!

Very good! So I'll be careful in my choice of words too in order to avoid a detour to Double Entendre City (which is a most un-Beethovenian sort of place, given that he felt Don Giovanni to be an 'immoral opera').

Later composers liked to explore the sensuous sound textures available to two large modern instruments. In particular, having two separate instruments enables both pianists to play in the same register - even on the same keys - without interfering with one another. They also explored the resonance possible with two pianos - the Steinway makes very beautiful sounds as chords decay, and these cause overtones to sound. One way to do this is to hold keys down without sounding them - Ligeti uses this in his two-piano pieces (Schoenberg having begun it with silently depressed keys which yield harmonics in the first of his three piano pieces Opus 11). Bartok in his Music for 2 Pianos and Percussion is using the sound of the piano to complement that of various percussion instruments. Somewhere or other I think there are also pieces for 2 prepared piano (i.e. Cage when he actually was writing some fine music instead of just picking mushrooms, claiming Satie was a greater composer than Beethoven, and generally spending his time in pseudo-Zen mode).

Have we cleared the bypass to D-E City and arrived safely in the Land of Unambiguous Facts Plainly Stated? (A suburb of Oz or of the Celestial City?)

The classical composers were more interested in line, harmony, motivic development and so forth with texture almost being a wonderful afterthought or - if you prefer - an 'emergent property' of the musical thinking. The obvious exception being Beethoven's deliberate exploration of sonority and texture in his third period, though even here such passages as the end of the Arietta (Opus 111) may be spread out not only for the sound but to make the separate lines clearer and therefore easier to hear. - Somewhere or other on these message boards - or somewhere else, I can't recall precisely - there seems to be some puritanical zealots who think Beethoven should not go anywhere near a Steinway. This is strange to me (not, sadly, the dictatorial tone of some people which is a fact of life on the anonymous internet) because while period instruments have something to offer so do modern instruments - after all, so much of listening is an act of imaginative construction, therefore the greater the variety of performances and instruments the better, at least to my mind. Melvyn Tan, Paul Tomes, Artur Schnabel, Alfred Brendel, Wilhelm Kempff - they all have much to offer.

A wonderful classical work for piano 4-hands is Mozart's Variations in G K.501 (I think that's the number). I used to play this all the time with a close friend, we'd get to the end and just listen to the sounds fade away. Of course we cheated, we played it on two pianos.

[Peter]

Very good! So I'll be careful in my choice of words too in order to avoid a detour to Double Entendre City (which is a most un-Beethovenian sort of place, given that he felt Don Giovanni to be an 'immoral opera').

Later composers liked to explore the sensuous sound textures available to two large modern instruments. In particular, having two separate instruments enables both pianists to play in the same register - even on the same keys - without interfering with one another. They also explored the resonance possible with two pianos - the Steinway makes very beautiful sounds as chords decay, and these cause overtones to sound. One way to do this is to hold keys down without sounding them - Ligeti uses this in his two-piano pieces (Schoenberg having begun it with silently depressed keys which yield harmonics in the first of his three piano pieces Opus 11). Bartok in his Music for 2 Pianos and Percussion is using the sound of the piano to complement that of various percussion instruments. Somewhere or other I think there are also pieces for 2 prepared piano (i.e. Cage when he actually was writing some fine music instead of just picking mushrooms, claiming Satie was a greater composer than Beethoven, and generally spending his time in pseudo-Zen mode).

Have we cleared the bypass to D-E City and arrived safely in the Land of Unambiguous Facts Plainly Stated? (A suburb of Oz or of the Celestial City?)

The classical composers were more interested in line, harmony, motivic development and so forth with texture almost being a wonderful afterthought or - if you prefer - an 'emergent property' of the musical thinking. The obvious exception being Beethoven's deliberate exploration of sonority and texture in his third period, though even here such passages as the end of the Arietta (Opus 111) may be spread out not only for the sound but to make the separate lines clearer and therefore easier to hear. - Somewhere or other on these message boards - or somewhere else, I can't recall precisely - there seems to be some puritanical zealots who think Beethoven should not go anywhere near a Steinway. This is strange to me (not, sadly, the dictatorial tone of some people which is a fact of life on the anonymous internet) because while period instruments have something to offer so do modern instruments - after all, so much of listening is an act of imaginative construction, therefore the greater the variety of performances and instruments the better, at least to my mind. Melvyn Tan, Paul Tomes, Artur Schnabel, Alfred Brendel, Wilhelm Kempff - they all have much to offer.

A wonderful classical work for piano 4-hands is Mozart's Variations in G K.501 (I think that's the number). I used to play this all the time with a close friend, we'd get to the end and just listen to the sounds fade away. Of course we cheated, we played it on two pianos.

Yes I share your views on this - we have had very ardent debates on this forum regarding the use of modern instruments before. The Mozart variations you mention are superb as is his sonata in F K.497. He did also write a fugue in C minor K.426 for 2 pianos. Two other great works of the genre are Schubert's Grand Duo in C and his Fantasy in F minor.

4 handed arrangements were also the way most people had access to the orchestral repertoire at the time.

[jamesofedinburgh]

Oh yes, I know the Mozart pieces, as well as a little known fugue in G-minor which is like an exercise in Handel. The C-minor has been scored for string quartet, I think, and is very dissonant. It is frequently coupled with the Grosse Fugue, either on string quartet discs or (less frequently) on 2-piano discs. Regarding Mozart and the fugue, there is an interesting recording by the Hagen Quartet of his arrangements of various Bach fugues from the 48 for string quartet together with Opus 130 ending with the Grosse Fugue.

I used to play these Mozart fugues though never, alas, the Schubert pieces. The opening of the F-minor fantasy is superb.

Yes - ardent discussions! These are good, but sometimes people are so set in their views that they become highly aggressive towards one another in how they express them. To me, Beethoven is without doubt the greatest composer and even the greatest of artists, but I respect that some people just don't like his music. After all, I can't 'prove' that I am right in my opinion. Similarly, to hear Frank Sinatra sing the central verse of 'Under My Skin' - the manner in which he builds the line as a continuous subtle crescendo, the effortless syncopation, as well as that wonderful tone of voice - is to hear, for me, the finest singer (in that genre) of all and one at the height of his powers, an artist as great as Fischer Dieskau in the lied repertory. After Sinatra, who else can sing such songs? But - I respect that some people just don't 'get' Sinatra, or are distracted by his (at times) very violent and aggressive personality.

Such is life!

[Sorrano]

Have we cleared the bypass to D-E City and arrived safely in the Land of Unambiguous Facts Plainly Stated? (A suburb of Oz or of the Celestial City?)

For a second I though you had started talking about Hovhanness.

[Sorrano]

Even the early Beethoven sonatas explore the realm of sonority; I am thinking specifically of the early C Major sonata. There are also many examples of using heavily textured chords, sometimes for shock effect, and other kinds of devices that Beethoven used early on that go way beyond the kinds of sounds that Mozart, Haydn, and other contemporaries used.

[Bonn1827]

Jamesofedinburgh you are a breath of fresh air!! How right you are about dogmatic opinion and "the anonymity of the internet". This is one of the things which has driven me away recently - that, other issues and important commitments. I hope it's safe to go back into the water now...........!! However, this seems one of the better forums for the occasional serious discussion.

I'm about to go and live in Vienna for one year from 20 January and have a number of wonderful concerts lined up - including a Handel opera, "Rodelinda" (Concentus Musicus, Wien) at Theatre an der Wien. Very co-incidentally (serendipitously) a prospective landlady in Dobling is also a member of the Vienna Singverein and has offered to take me to rehearsals at the Musikverein. She sent me a picture of them rehearsing Verdi's "Requiem" with the National Orchestra of France/Gatti. It's official: I've died and gone to Heaven.

Your comments about sonority are very pertinent, as are others I've noted that you've made on previous topics. Sinatra? Undoubtedly the best singer EVER of his kind (who cares about the personal pecadillos?) And, of course, he's singing the revered Cole Porter. I've always said this music was as good as any Schubert lieder and you're the only other person on the planet I've ever known to suggest any link between those things too: you were talking about the singing rather than the quality of the songs, and I am referring to the latter.

[jamesofedinburgh]

Hi Bonn1827 and Sorrano

Yes, Opus 2/3 and other sonatas of the earlier years have wonderful and imaginative use of the sound of the instrument. This just becomes more prevalent and apparent in the latter years.

Oh, I just didn't say anything about the songs, but they are beautiful too. I agree, they are not Schubert as the idiom is entirely different, but in their own way songs of Cole Porter are very beautiful and fully deserving of respect by anyone who loves music. He was less prolific (somewhat distracted, perhaps, by his 'personal peccadilos'!) but there was something special going on there. The same with Gershwin, though - in my opinion - he went astray when trying to write classical music and was best as a songwriter. 'Summertime' being an obvious masterpiece. I am not sure if Sinatra has sung this song. In addition to 'Under My Skin' I think Sinatra's singing on 'Fly Me To The Moon' is sublime (not a Cole Porter song but still a very fine one) and 'Come Fly With Me' is the very sound of romance. 'It Was A Very Good Year' is potentially a sentimental song, and Sinatra is not helped by the weepy string arrangement, but the sense of time past and powerful regret is very moving, perhaps he had Ava Gardner in mind.

A year in Vienna! Enjoy that and check in now and again. I've never been there because living in the UK going to the continent is normally for the sunshine and not the musical culture, alas.

[Bonn1827]

Thanks for those comments (may I call you?) James. IMO, the songs of Gershwin and Porter (I agree about GG's lame classical forays!) are every bit as important and valuable as those of Schubert, despite the different idioms. I believe they, like Schubert, will be sung 200 years hence.

I adored Sheryl Crowe's singing of "Begin the Beguine" in the film "DeLovely". Just magnificent. These songs are in safe hands with the younger generation. But can anything beat the embarrassment of Rod Stewart's cloying renditions of "The American Songbook"!! Please, somebody put the man out of our misery!!

Sinatra's masterpiece, IMO, is Harold Arlen's "One for My Baby and One for the Road". Simply sublime, accompanied primarily by solo piano - later joined by an ensemble. Simple, moving, narrative - the essence of great writing.

Did you see Stephen Sondheim interviewed last week on "The Colbert Report" (US Comedy Channel)? The man is a legend, and Colbert is an intelligent, hugely entertaining interviewer. People who miss this show are missing something HUGE. I'm sure it's downloadable - really, don't miss it. (Very American but, ultimately, bitingly funny satire. The human version of "South Park")

[jamesofedinburgh]

'One For My baby and One for the Road'? - to my shame I don't know that one but I shall 'Amazon it' to locate the MP3 later today. The problem with some of Sinatra's singing is that he went for big band accompaniments and I don't like that idiom as much as small ensembles. Occasionally, though, the arrangement can be rather good - on 'Under My Skin' the orchestration was by someone whose name I cannot recall but I do recall reading that he was an avid fan of Ravel and it shows in the sensitive instrumentation.

I think the songs you refer to will be sung in 200 years, certainly. So too will many pop songs, an idiom I don't like as much because the rhythm is often very static with pop music compared to the 'swing' of popular songs earlier in the century. (One could start a thread here about the progressive dumbing down of music, but that would be a bit unfair to early Beatles - they were fresh, invigorating, and very talented until they became pretentious and wanted to compete with Beethoven et al).

I shall look up Sheryl Crowe, the chances are my wife has her albums as she is studying singing (as am I, though somewhat less ably). 'Begin the Beguine' is a lovely song, much of it is due to the cleverness of the lyrics as much as the melody/harmony. Subtle lyrics seem to be out of fashion these days, sadly.

Rod Stewart singing 'American Songbook'? My goodness, I'll give that a miss. I think he was a rather good, 'matey' kind of singer, able to evoke pain and loss which is more than most pop singers can do, but I think he probably strayed out of his area of expertise. Possibly out of boredom - endless reprises of 'Maggie Mae' must drive a man crazy and in need of new experiences. Like Sting singing Dowland - perhaps not the ideal collaboration, but full marks for trying, and in some ways I liked what he did and thought there was a lot of sniping in early music circles due to jealousy. Of course he couldn't possibly 'get it right' without years of preparation, but that's not the point, he was Sting singing Dowland and it was good on its own terms. (Oh dear, will I be shown the door now!)

You mention Sondheim - another quite good musical - very under rated - is Bernstien's Candide. Of course nothing can equal the magnificent book but I think the tunes are rather good, the overture is very clever, and - aside from a cloying American sentimentality that is alien to Voltaire - I do enjoy it. A tune from it was used as the theme tune for the Dick Cavet Show in America in the 1970s and 80s. - I think a 'true' Candide would have to have been written by Couperin, he of the great Passacaille in B-minor for clavecin, as there would have been no cloying and no kitsch in his score. As Flaubert wrote of Voltaire 'Did he laugh? No, he ground his teeth' which to my mind makes Candide to be - as the Koreans might put it - a desentimentalised zone.

But of course Ludwig, as much as I love him and his music, would have found Candide 'immoral' so let us draw a veil on this topic. But to reconnect with Ludwig - do you know the variations to Opus 127? Of course you do! Listen carefully to the string writing in the theme and then the first variation and then in the third variation (the hymn in E-major). Even better, get hold of Murray Perahia conducting it with a string orchestra. Then listen to Wagner's Tristan Act 2, the link should be obvious. However, then listen to most any 1940s American film noir with an orchestral soundtrack - swirling strings, wide separation between soprano and bass lines, use of rich sounds and suspensions - and you can trace the influence of one truly astounding piece of music (Opus 127) on popular culture. The link is pretty obvious when you think about it, European composers were prevalent in Hollywood and of course they were conservatoire trained therefore they were exposed to the art music of Beethoven and made use of it in their own way. Of course, en route they lost the purity of their great predecessor, but they were not trying to 'be geniuses' , they were writing to order and doing it ever so well in their own way.