Triple Concerto

[chopithoven]

Many writers argue that the Triple Concerto has a weak point in the imbalance of the soloist parts, eg: the cello is given a much more prominent part than the piano, which serves ussually as a mere accompaniment, and in the lack of balance of the timbres and textures of the soloists between themselves. Additionally, it is described as not homogeneous, and very distant from the perfect equilibrium of Mozart's Sinfonie Concertanti. Could somebody agree or disagree with this? Does this imbalance make this concerto a "minor work"?

[Peter]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
Many writers argue that the Triple Concerto has a weak point in the imbalance of the soloist parts, eg: the cello is given a much more prominent part than the piano, which serves ussually as a mere accompaniment, and in the lack of balance of the timbres and textures of the soloists between themselves. Additionally, it is described as not homogeneous, and very distant from the perfect equilibrium of Mozart's Sinfonie Concertanti. Could somebody agree or disagree with this? Does this imbalance make this concerto a "minor work"?

There is definitely an imbalance as the soloists themselves will tell you - the piano part is not too demanding, the Violin part is fairly minimal, but the 'cello part is quite formidable! I suspect the reason for this is that Beethoven was writing for specific players - Anton Kraft was a fine 'cellist whom Beethoven admired and the pianist was probably intended to be Archduke Rudolph.

However I don't think the concerto as a whole can be regarded as a minor work - it isn't in the same league as the last 3 piano concertos in my view, but it is still a wonderful joy to listen to.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
There is definitely an imbalance as the soloists themselves will tell you - the piano part is not too demanding, the Violin part is fairly minimal, but the 'cello part is quite formidable!

On paper, and for the performer, this may be so, but for this listener there is a good balance to the work. The overall effect is very satisfying and it is as worthy of Beethoven as the others. Upon hearing, matters of ballance have never entered my head, it is not the relative difficulty of the parts that should be an issue, just the aural effect produced - difficult does not always = good.

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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited February 28, 2003).]

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Rod:
On paper, and for the performer, this may be so, but for this listener there is a good balance to the work. The overall effect is very satisfying and it is as worthy of Beethoven as the others.

Music is supposed to be listened, not read. So if the balance is heard it's sufficient, right? And could it be possible that B wrote the piano part as if it were a string instrument, without making use of its polyphonic capabilities?

[John Rasmussen]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
And could it be possible that B wrote the piano part as if it were a string instrument, without making use of its polyphonic capabilities?

Highly unlikely, to say the least. The most likely explanation is the one given above, that the intended pianist was not Ludwig himself but his royal patron or someone else.

But the Triple Concerto is not the only Beethoven work with such imbalance; I've noticed that several of the violin/piano sonatas are heavy on piano and light on the violin, audibly. The Tenth, in particular, has a simple violin part, but the piano part is as difficult as many of the sonatas. Of course, some would say that's a welcome change from the many flashy violin virtuoso pieces with minimal piano accompaniment. De gustibus non disputandum est.

[This message has been edited by John Rasmussen (edited February 28, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
On paper, and for the performer, this may be so, but for this listener there is a good balance to the work. The overall effect is very satisfying and it is as worthy of Beethoven as the others. Upon hearing, matters of ballance have never entered my head, it is not the relative difficulty of the parts that should be an issue, just the aural effect produced - difficult does not always = good.

I agree but it is a reason for the works neglect.

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

[Poseidan73]

I love the Triple Concerto, i don't think it's a "minor" work, it's a recommended piece on many classical sites. I don't know the technical aspects of playing it, but i have been to live performances of it. I would agree that the piano parts are not as significant, but the violin parts are quite substantial.

[lysander]

I too love the Triple Concerto.
It may not have the 'Titanic' quality of most of his works, but I simply get pure enjoyment just by listening to it.
The Largo movement in A flat major, is highly cantabile and poetic.
In the final movement Beethoven returns to dance rythmn and almost constantly pulses with lively motion.
As a joke my husband refers to the Triple Concerto as, triple cornetto!

[Rod]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
Music is supposed to be listened, not read. So if the balance is heard it's sufficient, right?

Yes.

And could it be possible that B wrote the piano part as if it were a string instrument, without making use of its polyphonic capabilities?

I can't really say here for sure, but yes for the piano to fit homogenously with the stringed instruments I suppose it would be wise to limit the use of effects that will unduely isolate the piano. That being said, the slow movement highlights the stringed instruments, especially the cello, in a way the piano can never emulate, so there is also an element of shifting emphasis between the instrumental qualities across the piece, the piano is more visible in the more dramatic moments.

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

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
Music is supposed to be listened, not read. So if the balance is heard it's sufficient, right? And could it be possible that B wrote the piano part as if it were a string instrument, without making use of its polyphonic capabilities?

I quite agree with Rod on this, the balance is there when the piece is played correctly. There are many pieces of chamber music that include piano (Schumann's Quintet is a good example) where the piano part could easily dominate if the player lacks sensitivity. If he decides to just bang it out, the strings will inevitably make just a quiet muddle in the background, but if he plays it with the feeling of being part of the ensemble, then the balance is certainly there. There seems no doubt in the hearing (I have never read it) that balance can be achieved, but so can imbalance if the pianist determines to "steal the show". Team effort at its best.
Regards, Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by John Rasmussen:
Highly unlikely, to say the least. The most likely explanation is the one given above, that the intended pianist was not Ludwig himself but his royal patron or someone else.

But the Triple Concerto is not the only Beethoven work with such imbalance; I've noticed that several of the violin/piano sonatas are heavy on piano and light on the violin, audibly. The Tenth, in particular, has a simple violin part, but the piano part is as difficult as many of the sonatas. Of course, some would say that's a welcome change from the many flashy violin virtuoso pieces with minimal piano accompaniment. De gustibus non disputandum est.

[This message has been edited by John Rasmussen (edited February 28, 2003).]

John,
I don't take issue with you on the sonata thing, but I do want to point out that B wrote his sonatas for Piano & Violin in the classical way which was a sonata for piano with violin accompaniment. With a couple of notable exceptions (the Kreutzer, obviously, and some movement in others), I think he intended the piano to be more dominant. It was only in the Romantic that the sonata became "Sonata for Violin & Piano", and that obviously changes the accent from one instrument to the other. I find it odd somewhat that B continued in this vein with the duo sonata, when he went right from the start with Piano Trios by balancing out the instruments much more evenly. You'll note that Haydn's "Piano Trios" were written in the style of the times as "Sonata for Piano, with the accompaniment of Violin & 'Cello optional" where the cello merely doubles the left hand of the piano and the violin doubles the right hand, except for some melodic parts in the slow movements. B effectively killed off this style in his trios, but kept it up for some time in his "accompanied sonatas", especially the violin ones, but not the 'cello ones, which he changed right from the start also. This is a mystery to me, since his violin piece writing is so splendid, but there it is.
Regards, Gurn

[Rod]

Originally posted by John Rasmussen:
[B] ... I've noticed that several of the violin/piano sonatas are heavy on piano and light on the violin, audibly. The Tenth, in particular, has a simple violin part, but the piano part is as difficult as many of the sonatas. Of course, some would say that's a welcome change from the many flashy violin virtuoso pieces with minimal piano accompaniment. De gustibus non disputandum est.
B]

I have the whole violin sonatas on period instruments and one finds a much better balance with the fortepiano. It is said that B kept the violin part relatively simple in the final sonata because its intended violin performer favoured this style of playing, disliking noisy passages.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited March 01, 2003).]

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Rod:
I can't really say here for sure, but yes for the piano to fit homogenously with the stringed instruments I suppose it would be wise to limit the use of effects that will unduely isolate the piano.

Of course.

While reading the score I noticed that the piano part uses very few chords, and it is very frequently played with unison or single notes, just like the strings, so it looks like B. did not want to make it more prominent. But how he didn't notice that giving a predominant role to Kraft's cello would be quite imbalancing for the music?

[This message has been edited by chopithoven (edited March 01, 2003).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by chopithoven:
Of course.

While reading the score I noticed that the piano part uses very few chords, and it is very frequently played with unison or single notes, just like the strings, so it looks like B. did not want to make it more prominent. But how he didn't notice that giving a predominant role to Kraft's cello would be quite imbalancing for the music?

[This message has been edited by chopithoven (edited March 01, 2003).]

Chop,
I can't help but think that this was not something he did unintentionally. B was known to be particularly fond of the cello (he wrote the first accompanied sonatas for it, as you know), and he may very well have felt that there was no problem with stressing the cello parts, even at the expense of perfect concertante tradition. Yet another innovation!!!
Regards, Gurn

[chopithoven]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Yet another innovation!!!

Of course.