Kevin's Watch

I don't know, MM. It's tough to put it all into words. But since that's never stopped me before...

Bach and Beethoven are my favorite composers because of their counterpoint. They are, imo, the greatest composers of polyphony. (Also some Renaissance guys, particularly Monteverdi's early stuff, but that was before the tonality that we know. And Bartok, but he's after the tonality that we know. heh) The way they weave the voices together is, for me, the highest expression of music. The quartet wasn't around in Bach's time, but I guess we know he'd have written lots of fugues if it had been.

The string quartet is maybe the best vehicle for polyphony. (Well, it could be four of any type of instrument. It doesn't necessarily have to be the string quartet, though it's my favorite. Madrigals from the Renaissance are primarily for four or five voices without instrumental accompaniment. To mention Monteverdi again, his madrigals are extraordinary. I particularly love Books IV and V, although he adds some instruments in some of V, and the later books don't truly fit the definition of madrigal any longer. Yes, I digress, but it's to Monteverdi, so all is forgiven. ) A symphony does not intend to do what a quartet does, so things like "His quartet #X is better than his symphony #Y" is meaningless. (I know that kind of thing hasn't been said here. I'm just saying.) The process or composing is different, the aims are different, etc etc.

A symphony can highlight the different tone colors (timbre: the quality of the sound that tells you which instrument you are hearing. Two notes of identical pitch, loudness, and duration, one on a violin and one on a trumpet, sound different.), combining them in a huge number of ways. What would be the point of a symphony that didn't utilize those possibilities?

The quartet, obviously, doesn't have that option. It must do other things. I just happen to prefer those other things, on the whole, to what symphonies do. The texture and intimacy are what do it for me. You said it: either it moves you, or it doesn't. Other than piano lessons, I had no exposure to any kind of classical music before college. Mainly Mozart, but also a child's version of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. (Which was still gorgeous!) I don't have any idea how to connect my preference for chamber music to that. But when I got to college, and learned what else had been written, my life had new meaning.

It seems odd even to me, but I feel great power in certain quartets that, for me, rivals the power of a full orchestra. Heck, for that matter, Bach's famous unaccompanied violin chaccone can sometimes make me shake! That kind of power in a single violin? Just amazing.

I agree, it's hard to put thoughts about music into words. So I over-compensate by writing out pompous wordiness, hoping something of the quality of a piece of music gets communicated, heh heh.

At least we're communicating here by expressing ourselves in (mostly) plain language. I know some basic terminology, but I'm no graduate of music theory or whatever, and I can't read music, so I can't analyze music at a very technical level, and I'm not sure I want to. I can't stand books on music that inundate the reader with academic jargon.

Actually, I haven't completely ignored string quartet music. I just remembered the Kronos Quartet, the modern ensemble well known for its performance of the music of contemporary composers, especially that of Philip Glass. I was fortunate enough to see Kronos live in concert several years ago when they visited, and I enjoyed their music making. I'm a fan of the Minimalist style Glass is famous for, so that probably helped my enjoyment. But the piece that truly wowed me was The Sands, an epic work for string quartet & orchestra composed by Terry Riley. If I recall correctly, Riley wrote The Sands specifically for Kronos, and the work was inspired by the Persian Gulf War. I would love to hear The Sands again, but there doesn't seem to exist any commercial recording of it.

See, that's my symphonic sensibilities kicking in again. Obviously, having a string quartet backed by a full orchestra defeats the intimacy of a quartet, but The Sands was great music nonetheless, so...

Also obvious is that Glass and Riley are far removed from Beethoven. So, I find the quartet music of Glass or Riley more accessible than Beethoven's. Maybe the smooth Minimalist style is just inherently more accessible to the ear than something like the thornier sound of late period Beethoven. He wasn't trying to be accessible at that point in his composing life, anyway. His late period quartets were created in the profound isolation of his mind, and he didn't give a damn if no one at the time could play them, never mind comprehend them. I understand that some of the late quartets seem to presage 20th Century atonal music, as if Beethoven was eerily reaching across the centuries. That shows me just how far advanced his musical imagination was, compared with his contemporaries (who were probably still coming to grips with those nutty symphonies of his).

Fist and Faith wrote:It seems odd even to me, but I feel great power in certain quartets that, for me, rivals the power of a full orchestra. Heck, for that matter, Bach's famous unaccompanied violin chaccone can sometimes make me shake! That kind of power in a single violin? Just amazing.

Yes!! Not a single violin, but listened to the Guaneri Quartet CD last night; it was Beethoven’s Heiliger Dankgesang; that’s the first time a piece of music nearly brought me to tears. It was the moment it exploded into that joyous part for the first time, right after the slow part in the beginning. It's funny, because I've heard the Dankgesang many times; I suppose some things do grow finer with time!

MM: you have listened to some of Beethoven's quartets, aye? I mean, it's perfectly fine if they just don't speak to you, but if you haven't given them a chance yet--! *equips mallet for bonking*

Lord Foul wrote:you have listened to some of Beethoven's quartets, aye? I mean, it's perfectly fine if they just don't speak to you, but if you haven't given them a chance yet--! *equips mallet for bonking*

Put that mallet down, you maniac. I borrowed a CD of Beethoven's quartets several years ago. I did listen to some of the music, but not all of it. I meant to come back to the quartets (and his other chamber works) after I was done obssessing over the symphonies, but that didn't happen. And I have a box set of the 32 piano sonatas that I still haven't fully explored. Hopefully, my life will be organized enough (at some point) this year that I'll have time to give the sonatas, and maybe even the quartets, my fullest attention. But hey, what's the rush? It's not like the world's going to end tomorrow...? (cue theme music for The Day After Tomorrow)

Ah, the Heileger Dankgesang!!! (Not to be confused with the conductor of the same name on the P.D.Q. Bach recording.)

As I've probably posted somewhere or other, string quartets were taken very seriously by some composers. Mozart's "Haydn" quartets, so named because of who they were inspired by and dedicated to, are the compositions of his that are famous for the erase marks on them. Certainly, he didn't accidentally write down the wrong note - he is famous for his ability write without such errors. Rather, he thought he could improve it!

Beethoven worked things out in sketch books. We can see how he came up with an idea, developed it, changed it, discarded it, etc. And his sketch books show that he worked on one composition for a while, then worked on another for a while, then back to the first, maybe on to yet a third... BUT, when he was working on a quartet, that's ALL he worked on.

For anyone wanting to try Beethoven's quartets, I suggest the three quartets of Op 59, from his Middle period. At the time, they were considered radical. Someone asked, "Do you call that music?" In a rare moment of calmness, Beethoven replied, "Oh, they're not for now. They're for a later age." Something like that. Anyway, they're much more accessible than some of the Late q's, but brilliant in all ways. I love the melodies and rhythms, and, of course, the interweaving of voices. The 3rd has a great dissonant introduction, homage to Mozart's "Dissonance" quartet; a funeral dirge; and the last movement is a fantastic fugue, with the longest, fastest fugue subject I know of. (I promise, you'll understand those technical terms when you hear it! )

MM, as far as "analyze music at a very technical level" goes, that also seems to be a "you either like it, or you don't" thing. I SOOO get into that!! "What?!?! Bach used a Neopolitan 6 chord???" LOL For me, it only adds to the enjoyment of listening to it. But I know many many people don't have the slightest interest in this. Lots of my fellow music students in college objected to having to do it.

Fist: after Beethoven's late string quartets, I was thinking I'd delve into Mozart's Haydn quartets, as well as some of Schubert's quartets. Is the "Dissonance" quartet you mentioned a part of the Haydns? This seems suggest so:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002 ... 11-9039957

Will probably find my way to Beethoven’s middle quartets, eventually.

Yeah, the "Dissonance" quartet is one of Mozart's six "Haydn" Quartets.

And if you were thinking about it, there's no need to buy such an expensive recording. Hyperion is as good a label as any, but I'm sure there are a dozen less expensive recordings that are just as good.

Again, I'll recommend the Naxos label. Budget prices, good or great recordings. If you fall in love with a piece, you can always get a second recording. But if you don't really like it, you've only spend about $7. The Dissonance qrt is on this disc:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ ... =classical
Amazon doesn't have a picture of the disc, but this is vol. 4 of Naxos' Mozart complete qrt cycle. The picture is on Naxos' site: www.naxos.com/mainsite/NaxosCat/Naxos_C ... e=8.550543

And, since this is a Beethoven thread , as I've said before, the complete Beethoven qrt cycle is also on Naxos. The Middle are volumes 4-6:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ ... =classical
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ ... =classical
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ ... =classical
And vol. 6 has the first of the Late qrts, Op. 127. Awesome piece!!

Lord Foul wrote: Give Fricsay a try, too! He's my desert island 9th--even after hearing such greats as Karajan and Karl Böhm!

Forgot to respond to this bit of LF's post. I'd love to get my hands on Fricsay's recording, but I won't be purchasing anything over the internet for the time being, my local record stores still don't have the CD, and I don't request special orders from them anymore, because that service is a joke. So I just browse every now and then and see if Fricsay is on the shelf. If it is, wonderful. If it isn't, it isn't.

As for Naxos, yeah, I'll give them kudos for making quality classical recordings affordable for anyone, even though their no-frills, generic CD packaging is an eyesore, sort of like my plain, picture-less username right now, heh.

And since I brought up Emerson, they have a complete Beethoven cycle.
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ ... l&n=507846
Heh, yeah, a bit pricey. I don't own it, but I listened to a lot of it in a store a few years ago. I went to some of the spots that the performers must do well for me to buy, like the Heileger Dankgesang, and was very happy with it. Every now and then, I think of it longingly. Maybe some day...

Ah, Fist! I'm so excited I had to tell someone!

Well, after some thought, I've decided I must explore more of Beethoven's genius (wasn't a hard decision, heh). So, here's the announcements: Foul's going to buy the middle quartets!

Middle quartets! yay!

heh, I don't know why I'm so excited. I know the middle quartets don't approach the late ones, but I'm sure they're waaaay up there. And didn't you say one of the middle quartets had the longest, most complex fugue you ever heard, Fist? Geez, I'm freaking giddy right now. Ah, another music world to explore!

Hey, the middle and late quartets are apples and oranges. I love them equally, for different reasons.

I said Op. 59 "Rasumovsky", No. 3 has the longest, fastest fugue subject. That is, the theme that's thrown around from instrument to instrument. It's the last movement. To hear the sample of it on the amazon page you linked, you have to click on the "See all 8 tracks on this disc" right after the 7th track. (Seems to me it would have been as easy to list the 8th track as it was to say "See all 8 tracks on this disc" but what do I know...) This sample is the fastest I've ever heard it played, which is excellent!!

I've never heard this recording before. I just listened to several excerpts, and it sounds great!

Fist and Faith wrote:Hey, the middle and late quartets are apples and oranges. I love them equally, for different reasons.

Nice way of looking at it!

But yeah, can't beat the Guarneri Quartet!

In other news, I bought the last five piano sonatas by Beethoven. It was either going to be Claudio Arrau or this guy, and I wound up picking "this guy':

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ ... 8&v=glance

The samples took my breath away!

Just to derail the thread a bit

Matrixman, is this the composer you were talking about??
www.epitonic.com/artists/terryriley.html

Damn, Foul, now I'm jealous!! I haven't seen a DG Originals recording yet that I haven't wanted!

I have the last sonatas by Alfred Brendel, on the budget label Vox Box. I put it on in-store play when I worked in Durham years ago, and I soon found myself literally laughing for joy.

Terry Riley: yes, duchess, that's him. I really don't know his music aside from The Sands and his Chanting The Light of Foresight CD. Honestly, though, I didn't care much for that CD: the music was plain boring. But I'd still like to hear The Sands again, with the Kronos Quartet.

Actually, Steve Reich and Philip Glass are my favorite composers in terms of the Minimalist style, because they aren't afraid of melody, and they have enough variety in their music to break up the sometimes exasperating monotony of Minimalism. It's an acquired taste, but when it does get rolling, Minimalist music can be pretty awesome, at least to my ears.

If the Scherzo movement of Beethoven's Ninth is a "miracle of repetition", then so is Reich's Eight Lines, as an example of excellent Minimalist music. I don't have the technical vocabulary to describe what it is, just that it's an astonishing 17-minute single movement piece that goes through melodic permutations, as each instrument does its own thing yet joins with the others to create a complex and beautiful organic whole. One of the most sheerly mesmerizing pieces of music I've ever heard.

BTW, Lord Foul, please let us know what you think of the Beethoven piano sonatas. I don't doubt Maurizio Pollini is awesome, but I've never listened to him. I basically know the piano sonatas only through Wilhelm Kempff, which is not necessarily a bad thing, I guess. Heh, those classical Amazon reviews by users are pretty in-depth! C'mon, LF, you don't need us, those Amazon freaks have all the classical opinion you could ever want!

Hey, Fist, a comment on Brendel: I know he's a renowned Beethoven and Bach performer and all that, but he's one of those straight-laced folks who dismisses my hero, Glenn Gould, as an eccentric whose interpretations of Bach are frivolous and not to be taken seriously. So as much as Brendel thinks of Gould, that's how much I think of Brendel: very little at all.

Well, I certainly like his playing better than his attitude! I can't help but shake my head in sadness, pity, and incomprehension at those who put such limits on music. I can't imagine what's lost by trying new ideas on music. A famous Bach harpsichordist (I can't remember which one) was once arguing with another about interpreting Bach, and she said something to the effect of, "Fine, you continue to play Bach your way. I will continue to play it Bach's way."

Matrixman wrote: If the Scherzo movement of Beethoven's Ninth is a "miracle of repetition", then so is Reich's Eight Lines, as an example of excellent Minimalist music. I don't have the technical vocabulary to describe what it is, just that it's an astonishing 17-minute single movement piece that goes through melodic permutations, as each instrument does its own thing yet joins with the others to create a complex and beautiful organic whole. One of the most sheerly mesmerizing pieces of music I've ever heard.

Thank you. I think that I will have to go hunting for that. Sounds like well done instrumental jazz.

I don't know any Reich at all, but I'll be looking for that, too!

Fist and Faith wrote:Damn, Foul, now I'm jealous!! I haven't seen a DG Originals recording yet that I haven't wanted!

I have the last sonatas by Alfred Brendel, on the budget label Vox Box. I put it on in-store play when I worked in Durham years ago, and I soon found myself literally laughing for joy.

Heh, get jealous again, because I'm about to buy this:

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/ ... c&n=507846

Matrixman wrote:BTW, Lord Foul, please let us know what you think of the Beethoven piano sonatas. I don't doubt Maurizio Pollini is awesome, but I've never listened to him. I basically know the piano sonatas only through Wilhelm Kempff, which is not necessarily a bad thing, I guess. Heh, those classical Amazon reviews by users are pretty in-depth! C'mon, LF, you don't need us, those Amazon freaks have all the classical opinion you could ever want!

Hey, Fist, a comment on Brendel: I know he's a renowned Beethoven and Bach performer and all that, but he's one of those straight-laced folks who dismisses my hero, Glenn Gould, as an eccentric whose interpretations of Bach are frivolous and not to be taken seriously. So as much as Brendel thinks of Gould, that's how much I think of Brendel: very little at all.

Brendel's great, as far as Schubert's last three sonatas go. But then, I've only heard those sonatas as performed by Brendel. Although, I saw him play the finale of Moonlight Sonata, which was breathtaking.

He's not my favorite pianist, though. His playing often comes across to me as a bit generic and playing it safe. It feels a bit "cookie-cutter", for lack of a better word. To be sure, his technique is very careful and meticulous, but such low-risk/low-gain interpretations often miss the "living, breathing" intricacies of Beethoven's music, which pianists such as Sviatoslav or Schnabel capture so eloquently.

Kempff: A bit too studied and clear-headed for me. If I recall correctly, he's one of those "transparent mediums" who doesn't put any bit of himself into his playing--just a hollow conduit for the music. Not a big fan of that, myself; I prefer Arrau's style: "An interpreter must give his blood to the work interpreted."

Although: Arrau isn't perfect. He is quite the philosopher on the piano, giving life to Beethoven's late sonatas like no other. But, alternately, his dark, brooding style does not lend well to pieces that require humor.

Cool insights, LF!

I know Arrau only from his recordings of Beethoven's piano concertos, but I like his style a lot. His version of the "Emperor" concerto with Colin Davis & the Dresden State Orchestra is one of my most favorite Beethoven recordings.

As for Kempff, heh...yeah, I figured he wasn't the fiery type of musician. I still haven't gotten around to listening to my box set of Beethoven's piano sonatas (performed by Kempff). Just haven't gotten in the mood.