PDA

View Full Version : Middle movements of the 9th


PDG
04-07-2001, 08:55 PM
I wonder why Beethoven placed the slow movement AFTER the scherzo in the 9th Symphony, when the opposite is the case in all the others. I know that this work is, romantically, supposed to represent the creation of life, & Mankind's growth & place in the overall scheme of things, etc., but in my mind's ear, if the first movement represents the chaos of creation, then what should perhaps follow is a calm before the storm (the scherzo), if you will. This calm would be the stillness & quiet of everything following the exertions of the universal forces (first movement). The scherzo then could be life emerging & running the gamut of birth, love, war, peace & death, before the finale unites the previous three movements (which it does, anyway) as a life-affirming testimony to the possibilities of universal brotherhood & the rest.

So why the scherzo before the adagio?

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-07-2001, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
So why the scherzo before the adagio?



That's an interesting question, perhaps best answered by programming the cd to play movements 1,3,2,4 for comparison. It surely seems a less natural progression that way - it may be familiarity, but to me the scherzo and the 1st movement compliment each other as do the adagio and the finale. B adopts this plan with Op.106 and Op.97 as does Brahms in his 2nd piano concerto. It seems to me that different reasons can be given for the order of movements in each of these works, but surely the most convincing is that it is what the composer wanted. Beethoven was not a conventional composer - nor was Haydn who was experimenting with unusual keys, order of movements, instrumentation etc. a good 50 years earlier!

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-08-2001).]

Chris
04-07-2001, 11:29 PM
He probably did it so people in the future would ask "Why did he do that?" http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/wink.gif

Rod
04-08-2001, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
I wonder why Beethoven placed the slow movement AFTER the scherzo in the 9th Symphony, when the opposite is the case in all the others. I know that this work is, romantically, supposed to represent the creation of life, & Mankind's growth & place in the overall scheme of things, etc., but in my mind's ear, if the first movement represents the chaos of creation, then what should perhaps follow is a calm before the storm (the scherzo), if you will. This calm would be the stillness & quiet of everything following the exertions of the universal forces (first movement). The scherzo then could be life emerging & running the gamut of birth, love, war, peace & death, before the finale unites the previous three movements (which it does, anyway) as a life-affirming testimony to the possibilities of universal brotherhood & the rest.

So why the scherzo before the adagio?



Why the romantic 'picture painting'? Remove questionable programme you have placed upon the work and you will find the obvious answer to your question in the music!

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

Serge
04-08-2001, 06:27 PM
You'll have to elaborate for me, Rod. If the 9th is considered as purely absolute music, it still begs the original question. Why did L. write it that way?

[This message has been edited by Serge (edited 04-09-2001).]

~Leslie
04-09-2001, 10:23 AM
Ok, I'll bite. Because he wanted to continue building tension in his message, before dissolving his sugar in Rod's tea. ~

Rod
04-09-2001, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Serge:
You'll have to elaborate for me, Rod. If the 9th is considered as purely absolute music, it still begs the original question. Why did L. write it that way?

[This message has been edited by Serge (edited 04-09-2001).]

Only the last movement, virtually by default, is not absolute music - this is unavoidable when words are used. The other movements are not consistant enough in their 'emotional impression' to fit a convenient programme. B was not one to place his music into the logical and emotional restrictions required in story writing - for example, the picture painted here of the scherzo as a 'storm' - how does the trio fit into this scenario? Even the first movement has lighter reprieves that B used typically in minor mode music (a mechanism that allows the reinforcement of the minor mode passages whilst simultaneously relieving the potential monotony of remaining in the minor mode too long) but would not fit logically in a 'story'. Of the adagio only the fanfare at the end is unusual, and could be seen as a necessary structural linking mechanism to the finale. If a 'programme' is to be made, I would say B was looking to produce the ultimate display in symphonic sonata-allegro, scherzo and variation forms for the first three movements - that would be worthy balance for the mammoth finale that questions them in its introduction. It is absolute music that is being questioned here. I see no story whatsoever linking the first three.

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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-09-2001).]

Serge
04-09-2001, 08:56 PM
Ah ha.

Rod
04-09-2001, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Serge:
Ah ha.

Thanks for your most considered response!

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

PDG
04-10-2001, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
That's an interesting question, perhaps best answered by programming the cd to play movements 1,3,2,4 for comparison. It surely seems a less natural progression that way - it may be familiarity, but to me the scherzo and the 1st movement compliment each other as do the adagio and the finale. B adopts this plan with Op.106 and Op.97 as does Brahms in his 2nd piano concerto. It seems to me that different reasons can be given for the order of movements in each of these works, but surely the most convincing is that it is what the composer wanted. Beethoven was not a conventional composer - nor was Haydn who was experimenting with unusual keys, order of movements, instrumentation etc. a good 50 years earlier!

I don't think a convincing reason can be because "it's what the composer wanted". This doesn't explain the why. I sometimes do programme my CDs to play tracks 1,3,2 then 4, & this way sounds good to me, too. I don't think you can compare op.97 with the 9th because (a) the listening effect in a chamber work is not so traumatic as in a symphony, & (b) in the 'Archduke', the slow movement is only an andante, not an adagio. With op.106, the scherzo is so short that, again, comparison is inadvisable.
For my question, I am not particularly interested in what Brahms or Haydn did!
------------------
PDG (Peter)

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 04-10-2001).]

PDG
04-10-2001, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Rod:
Only the last movement, virtually by default, is not absolute music - this is unavoidable when words are used. The other movements are not consistant enough in their 'emotional impression' to fit a convenient programme. B was not one to place his music into the logical and emotional restrictions required in story writing - for example, the picture painted here of the scherzo as a 'storm' - how does the trio fit into this scenario? Even the first movement has lighter reprieves that B used typically in minor mode music (a mechanism that allows the reinforcement of the minor mode passages whilst simultaneously relieving the potential monotony of remaining in the minor mode too long) but would not fit logically in a 'story'. Of the adagio only the fanfare at the end is unusual, and could be seen as a necessary structural linking mechanism to the finale. If a 'programme' is to be made, I would say B was looking to produce the ultimate display in symphonic sonata-allegro, scherzo and variation forms for the first three movements - that would be worthy balance for the mammoth finale that questions them in its introduction. It is absolute music that is being questioned here. I see no story whatsoever linking the first three.


No, the 9th is not absolute music, but it is not the finale I'm interested in here! I don't consider this symphony to be 'programme' music, but it is many people's interpretation of it. Neither would I call the scherzo a 'storm' - I was referring to the adagio as a possible calm before a storm. I don't say that there is anything unusual about the adagio(!), only that placed third in the work, instead of second, I think the opening of the finale possibly (just possibly) has its edge muted. Okay, this was probably intentional, but, again, does not answer the why. I agree about the balance of the first 3 movements within themselves, but don't believe it is necessarily lost if the scherzo & adagio are switched around. I, too, hear no 'story' in this work.

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-10-2001, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
I don't think a convincing reason can be because "it's what the composer wanted". This doesn't explain the why. I sometimes do programme my CDs to play tracks 1,3,2 then 4, & this way sounds good to me, too. I don't think you can compare op.97 with the 9th because (a) the listening effect in a chamber work is not so traumatic as in a symphony, & (b) in the 'Archduke', the slow movement is only an andante, not an adagio. With op.106, the scherzo is so short that, again, comparison is inadvisable.
For my question, I am not particularly interested in what Brahms or Haydn did!

I wasn't comparing Op.97 with the ninth - merely the order of movements and I don't accept your reasons regarding my comparison! - What do you mean by a Symphony being more traumatic than chamber music? Surely the point we are discussing is the order of movements and therefore my examples are highly relevant! You could ask your question of Op.59 no.1 as well. The answer has to be that the composer considered the musical effect to be enhanced by placing the Scherzo second. Why you could ask should a scherzo be the 3rd movement as though it is preordained ? - that was my point about Haydn, and much as it may not matter to you, I'm sure Beethoven would have been influenced by Haydn's experiments.

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

PDG
04-10-2001, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Chris:
He probably did it so people in the future would ask "Why did he do that?" http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/wink.gif

This is as good an explanation as I've heard so far!

------------------
PDG (Peter)

PDG
04-10-2001, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Peter:
I wasn't comparing Op.97 with the ninth - merely the order of movements and I don't accept your reasons regarding my comparison! - What do you mean by a Symphony being more traumatic than chamber music? Surely the point we are discussing is the order of movements and therefore my examples are highly relevant! You could ask your question of Op.59 no.1 as well. The answer has to be that the composer considered the musical effect to be enhanced by placing the Scherzo second. Why you could ask should a scherzo be the 3rd movement as though it is preordained ? - that was my point about Haydn, and much as it may not matter to you, I'm sure Beethoven would have been influenced by Haydn's experiments.


By 'traumatic', I mean the power of a symphony orchestra over a chamber ensemble. Of course there's no reason why a scherzo HAS to be placed third(!), only that in all his other symphonies (apart from the renegade 8th), this is the case. I cannot believe that Beethoven was in any way influenced by Haydn in writing the 9th!

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Rod
04-10-2001, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
...I don't say that there is anything unusual about the adagio(!), only that placed third in the work, instead of second, I think the opening of the finale possibly (just possibly) has its edge muted. Okay, this was probably intentional, but, again, does not answer the why. I agree about the balance of the first 3 movements within themselves, but don't believe it is necessarily lost if the scherzo & adagio are switched around. I, too, hear no 'story' in this work.


I don't know why you are persisting with questioning the placement of movements in this particular work. The adagio does not follow well immediately after the allegro - the contrast is too great, whereas the Scherzo placed 2nd, by its nature, acts as a 'bridge' between the allegro and the adagio, but is sufficiently a contrast after the allegro as not to induce monotony. Conversely the opening bars of the finale requires contrast to be effective, its effect would be lessened if it followed the scherzo. B clearly structured the movements to follow in the order they currently stand.

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

Peter
04-10-2001, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
By 'traumatic', I mean the power of a symphony orchestra over a chamber ensemble. Of course there's no reason why a scherzo HAS to be placed third(!), only that in all his other symphonies (apart from the renegade 8th), this is the case. I cannot believe that Beethoven was in any way influenced by Haydn in writing the 9th!



I don't deny that an orchestra is more powerful than a chamber ensemble, but that has nothing to do with the order of movements. I wouldn't describe the 8th as renegade !
Re. Haydn influence, you really are nit-picking there! - You don't surely deny that Haydn influenced Beethoven as a composer and therefore must have indirectly influenced the 9th ? Or are you suggesting that Beethoven suddenly forgot all he had learnt from Haydn and others and produced the 9th out of thin air? I would go as far as to suggest to all those who disregard Mozart and Haydn, that the achievements that we all so admire in B would not have been possible without those two much maligned (on this forum) and misunderstood gentlemen.

The reason for placing the Scherzo before the adagio is purely musical (the same reason he did it in other works, regardless of idiom) - Beethoven considered it produced the best effect, there is no other reason! He certainly didn't do it just to be different or to provoke a 21st century debate!
------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-10-2001).]

PDG
04-10-2001, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Rod:
I don't know why you are persisting with questioning the placement of movements in this particular work. The adagio does not follow well immediately after the allegro - the contrast is too great, whereas the Scherzo placed 2nd, by its nature, acts as a 'bridge' between the allegro and the adagio, but is sufficiently a contrast after the allegro as not to induce monotony. Conversely the opening bars of the finale requires contrast to be effective, its effect would be lessened if it followed the scherzo. B clearly structured the movements to follow in the order they currently stand.

Maybe I am persisting because I've yet to see an answer to my original question. Everything else you've written is, of course, based on your opinion, except that Beethoven "structured the movements to follow in the order they currently stand," which is rather obvious, & a tad unhelpful!
------------------
PDG (Peter)

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 04-10-2001).]

PDG
04-11-2001, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Peter:
I don't deny that an orchestra is more powerful than a chamber ensemble, but that has nothing to do with the order of movements. I wouldn't describe the 8th as renegade !
Re. Haydn influence, you really are nit-picking there! - You don't surely deny that Haydn influenced Beethoven as a composer and therefore must have indirectly influenced the 9th ? Or are you suggesting that Beethoven suddenly forgot all he had learnt from Haydn and others and produced the 9th out of thin air? I would go as far as to suggest to all those who disregard Mozart and Haydn, that the achievements that we all so admire in B would not have been possible without those two much maligned (on this forum) and misunderstood gentlemen.
The reason for placing the Scherzo before the adagio is purely musical (the same reason he did it in other works, regardless of idiom) - Beethoven considered it produced the best effect, there is no other reason! He certainly didn't do it just to be different or to provoke a 21st century debate!

What is this? National Have A Go At PDG Day?!
I am not nit-picking! Where on Earth do you hear Haydn's influence in the 9th Symphony? You are wrong to assume that I "disregard" Haydn (I don't). And I adore Mozart. It is rather silly to ask me if I think Beethoven created the 9th out of thin air. If Haydn's influence is so strong, then why didn't Beethoven write the 9th 10 years earlier?

I am not provoking a 21st Century debate (although if I'm not supposed to do that on these boards, then please let me know). I merely asked a question. I don't think the provocation is all one way here.

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-11-2001, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
What is this? National Have A Go At PDG Day?!
I am not nit-picking! Where on Earth do you hear Haydn's influence in the 9th Symphony? You are wrong to assume that I "disregard" Haydn (I don't). And I adore Mozart. It is rather silly to ask me if I think Beethoven created the 9th out of thin air. If Haydn's influence is so strong, then why didn't Beethoven write the 9th 10 years earlier?

I am not provoking a 21st Century debate (although if I'm not supposed to do that on these boards, then please let me know). I merely asked a question. I don't think the provocation is all one way here.



No one's having a go ! I just don't agree with you, which is fair enough as it is what the forum is for - to discuss, not necessarily agree. Charles Rosen says in his 'The Classical Style' - "The forms of late Beethoven descend clearly and directly from Haydn's technique of allowing the music to grow out of a small kernel, the simplest, most condensed of musical thoughts announced, generally at the very opening." That sounds like a fair description of the first movement of the 9th Symphony to me.

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

Rod
04-11-2001, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by PDG:


Maybe I am persisting because I've yet to see an answer to my original question. Everything else you've written is, of course, based on your opinion, except that Beethoven "structured the movements to follow in the order they currently stand," which is rather obvious, & a tad unhelpful![/B][/QUOTE]

All of my 'opinions' as they relate to Beethoven, though cumbersomely stated, are based on reasoned grounds - I don't just make things up as I go along! Your question was why did B place the scherzo second and the adagio 3rd? The question itself is rather bizarre - you could go on to question the order of movements for any of B's works - and it would be, all in all, a pointless excercise. The answer you HAVE been given - the order is based on aesthetic and structural grounds. If you want a full thesis on your question, with all due respect, I suspect a professor would deem it too naiive to deserve one.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 04-11-2001).]

PDG
04-12-2001, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Rod:
All of my 'opinions' as they relate to Beethoven, though cumbersomely stated, are based on reasoned grounds - I don't just make things up as I go along! Your question was why did B place the scherzo second and the adagio 3rd? The question itself is rather bizarre - you could go on to question the order of movements for any of B's works - and it would be, all in all, a pointless excercise. The answer you HAVE been given - the order is based on aesthetic and structural grounds. If you want a full thesis on your question, with all due respect, I suspect a professor would deem it too naiive to deserve one.


Thanks for the due respect(!). You call my question 'naive' & 'bizarre'; Peter, in his first reply, called it 'interesting'. This adjective I prefer. No, I don't want a 'full thesis' on the subject - should I change my mind, however, I'll forward to you a copy ASAP!

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-12-2001, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
Thanks for the due respect(!). You call my question 'naive' & 'bizarre'; Peter, in his first reply, called it 'interesting'. This adjective I prefer. No, I don't want a 'full thesis' on the subject - should I change my mind, however, I'll forward to you a copy ASAP!



I still think it interesting as it made me think of other works as well that have this movement plan and why the composer wrote it as he did - so you have indeed stimulated some thought. I've tried to suggest reasons why Beethoven placed the Scherzo second and can do no better I'm afraid - as you don't think much of our replies, do you have any ideas?

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

PDG
04-13-2001, 12:48 AM
It's not that I don't think much of your replies! I appreciate them, but they are, for the most part, conjectural. Of course, I don't know the answer to my question (if I did, I wouldn't have asked it!), but when Rod talks about the structures of the movements lending themselves to the overall effect, I'm confused. In my view, a plausible explanation for the scherzo being placed before the adagio is that the slow movement placed second in the work would give the impression of two long, sprawling movements side by side, & this could have a slight 'dragging' effect on the symphony. In other words, my guess is that it's a matter of scansion, not structure. When Rod talks about the fanfare of the adagio acting like a linking mechanism to the finale, again, I'm confused - the fanfare doesn't end the adagio!

If we talk about key relationships, the work seems somehow uneven. The opening allegro is in D minor. Then the scherzo kicks off..........in D minor! The adagio is in B flat. Then the finale starts...........in B flat(!), before, of course, proceeding to the triumphant D major. One of the reasons for my curiosity is that, on the face of it, D minor/B flat/D minor/B flat/ D major for the 4 (5) movements looks more interesting than the sequence we have.

I certainly don't question Beethoven's musical thinking (please...........!!!), but this topic has always intrigued me. At the beginning of this chain, I was hoping that someone might know if Beethoven had ever commented on his choice of movement placement. Since it appears not, then all we can do is guess, &, as I've said, my big guessword is 'scansion'.



------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-13-2001, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
It's not that I don't think much of your replies! I appreciate them, but they are, for the most part, conjectural.


I don't think that saying the first movement and Scherzo are complimentary or that the 3rd movement provides the best preparation for the choral finale is conjecture! I think a comparison with the Hammerklavier sonata is valid as both Scherzos come before long adagio movements and are in a sense parodies of their respective first movements. One point that has been missed is that both the 3rd and 4th movements of the 9th are sets of variations.

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

PDG
04-13-2001, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Peter:
I don't think that saying the first movement and Scherzo are complimentary or that the 3rd movement provides the best preparation for the choral finale is conjecture![QUOTE]

Wrong! This is a conjectural position.

[QUOTE] I think a comparison with the Hammerklavier sonata is valid as both Scherzos come before long adagio movements and are in a sense parodies of their respective first movements.

Agreed, although this has little to do with the question in hand.

One point that has been missed is that both the 3rd and 4th movements of the 9th are sets of variations.


Not missed by me. Over the last few days I have played the 9th half a dozen times, & each time I hear it, the more humble I feel. This phenomenal, but PHENOMENAL, aural kaleidoscopic meisterwerk, granted to mankind from a DEAF man, surely sums up, for those of us willing to be summed up, that, within those restrictive chains which we call 'human suffering', all is ultimately possible. And it is. Thanks to Beethoven.

Happy Easter.
------------------
PDG (Peter)

[This message has been edited by PDG (edited 04-13-2001).]

Joy
04-13-2001, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
Agreed, although this has little to do with the question in hand.

One point that has been missed is that both the 3rd and 4th movements of the 9th are sets of variations.


Not missed by me. Over the last few days I have played the 9th half a dozen times, & each time I hear it, the more humble I feel. This phenomenal, but PHENOMENAL, aural kaleidoscopic meisterwerk, granted to mankind from a DEAF man, surely sums up, for those of us willing to be summed up, that, within those restrictive chains which we call 'human suffering', all is ultimately possible. And it is. Thanks to Beethoven.

Happy Easter.

How true. Very well said.
Happy Easter to you too.

Peter
04-13-2001, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
[QUOTE]Peter: I think a comparison with the Hammerklavier sonata is valid as both Scherzos come before long adagio movements and are in a sense parodies of their respective first movements.


PDG: Agreed, although this has little to do with the question in hand.



I think it has everything to do with the question in hand - B placed the movements in that order in both works for exactly the same reasons - both scherzos parody their first movements and both adagios are followed by complex finales. The greatest Sonata and the greatest Symphony share the same movement format!

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

PDG
04-13-2001, 03:33 PM
Peter, I find it difficult to think of the scherzo of the 9th as a parody - I think it has more worth than that! Of course I agree about the movement similarities between the Hammerklavier & the 9th, but I would go back to my point about scansion; just compare the respective lengths of the scherzo & adagio of the sonata with those of the symphony!

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-13-2001, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
Peter, I find it difficult to think of the scherzo of the 9th as a parody - I think it has more worth than that! Of course I agree about the movement similarities between the Hammerklavier & the 9th, but I would go back to my point about scansion; just compare the respective lengths of the scherzo & adagio of the sonata with those of the symphony!



Scherzo literally means joke, and this the greatest scherzo ever written is full of humour with the wonderful use of timpani for example. The very opening mimicks the great theme of the opening movement with the same descending D minor chord. Antony Hopkins says 'this opening coming as it does after the last tremendous D minor arpeggio theme in the first movement establishes a link that the ear acknowledges even though the mind may be unwilling to admit any thematic connection.' This is deliberate and Beethoven wants this connection made with the first two movements - change the order and this is lost.

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

PDG
04-13-2001, 10:39 PM
Thank you. This response is enlightening.

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-14-2001, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
Thank you. This response is enlightening.



Good! With the Hammerklavier, Charles Rosen says that the scherzo's main theme is like a humorous form of the main theme of the first movement with its falling thirds and insistent B natural. 'The elaborate structure of the first movement is missing here, but reflections of its dramatic shape and its sonority are heard as if in a distorted echo'. These two movements belong together as do the first two of the 9th for very similar reasons. Happy Easter!

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

PDG
04-14-2001, 05:21 PM
There's no need to Hammer... home the point!

Talking about the scherzo of the Hammerklavier, I must say that the trio always makes me think of sea-sickness; you know, a windswept, stormy night on the ocean.........40 foot waves...........a howling wind.............& you've just consumed a dodgy lobster curry...........ooh..........excuse me, but I feel a bout of 'HK scherzo trio' coming on............!!

Or to give it its correct Latin name: Klavierus Mal-de-mereat Lobstercurryopolus Dodgytummyo Vomitissimat Beethovenitis Syndrome. (Dr. PDG)


------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-15-2001, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by PDG:


Or to give it its correct Latin name: Klavierus Mal-de-mereat Lobstercurryopolus Dodgytummyo Vomitissimat Beethovenitis Syndrome. (Dr. PDG)




Thank goodness I've never had lobster curry! The trio of Op.106 reminds me of the Eroica first movement. Op.27 no.1 2nd movement(another work where the scherzo is placed 2nd) is also not recommended for those suffering from mal de mer!

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

PDG
04-15-2001, 03:51 AM
I think the scherzo of op.27 no.1 is mesmeric. Rod said somewhere about maybe putting up an MP3 of this movement - I'm curious to know how the double-stopping sounds on an 'authentic' piano.

Lobster curry & Easter eggs? Sounds like a great diet plan! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-15-2001, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
I think the scherzo of op.27 no.1 is mesmeric. Rod said somewhere about maybe putting up an MP3 of this movement - I'm curious to know how the double-stopping sounds on an 'authentic' piano.

Lobster curry & Easter eggs? Sounds like a great diet plan! http://www.gyrix.com/~cgraye/ubb/smile.gif



What do you mean by double-stopping? - (that's a string instrument term)- are you referring to the hands playing in unison?

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

Rod
04-19-2001, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
When Rod talks about the fanfare of the adagio acting like a linking mechanism to the finale, again, I'm confused - the fanfare doesn't end the adagio!


No, but it occurs near the end. Why did you think B placed this unusual fanfare here, and not, say, at the beginning or in the middle. It serves a purpose of latently preparing the ear for nature of things that are to come.

Originally posted by PDG:

I was hoping that someone might know if Beethoven had ever commented on his choice of movement placement. Since it appears not, then all we can do is guess, &, as I've said, my big guessword is 'scansion'.


Not to my knowledge has B made any comments, but I honestly think their is no mystery to guess at.

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

Rod
04-19-2001, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
I think the scherzo of op.27 no.1 is mesmeric. Rod said somewhere about maybe putting up an MP3 of this movement - I'm curious to know how the double-stopping sounds on an 'authentic' piano.



I can do it, but I'm not sure of the point you're making - the piece played on a Walter sounds technically as you would expect on a modern instrument, only the timbral nuances are different - there is no mechanical limitation with the Walter that would make the playing of this movement hazardous.


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

PDG
04-21-2001, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Peter:
What do you mean by double-stopping? - (that's a string instrument term)- are you referring to the hands playing in unison?


Oops! Faux pas. Yes, I meant the 'chopping' effect in the 2nd half of the mvt.

------------------
PDG (Peter)

PDG
04-21-2001, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by Rod:
I can do it, but I'm not sure of the point you're making - the piece played on a Walter sounds technically as you would expect on a modern instrument, only the timbral nuances are different - there is no mechanical limitation with the Walter that would make the playing of this movement hazardous.


Fair enough. I am happy to take you at your word.

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-21-2001, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by PDG:
Oops! Faux pas. Yes, I meant the 'chopping' effect in the 2nd half of the mvt.



No you don't! You mean the syncopation. The chopping effect is Beethoven played a la Chopin!

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

PDG
04-21-2001, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by Peter:
No you don't! You mean the syncopation. The chopping effect is Beethoven played a la Chopin!


I am perfectly willing to engage in an exchange about my favourite Polish woodcutter!

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-21-2001, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
I am perfectly willing to engage in an exchange about my favourite Polish woodcutter!



No need to defend Chopin - I'm full of admiration for the man, it's just that many Chopin pianists do not make good Beethovians, and vice-versa. Had B lived another 2 years, it is possible that they could have met as Chopin was in Vienna in 1829.

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

PDG
04-21-2001, 04:12 PM
Please don't stone me for saying it, but I think that Chopin's complete piano output is as great as Beethoven's. It is interesting that unlike Liszt, Chopin was not a huge admirer of Beethoven, yet he idolised Mozart.

------------------
PDG (Peter)

Peter
04-21-2001, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by PDG:
Please don't stone me for saying it, but I think that Chopin's complete piano output is as great as Beethoven's. It is interesting that unlike Liszt, Chopin was not a huge admirer of Beethoven, yet he idolised Mozart.



Don't worry,(though I suspect some here would think stoning too good for you, and a good old fashioned public burning much more appropiate!), for my part, I regard Chopin as being a great composer for the piano, but I don't think he reached the heights attained by Beethoven. Fine as his 3 sonatas are, they don't compare with the last Beethoven five in particular or even with many of the earlier ones. As for the concertos, they're more Hummel than Beethoven.

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 04-21-2001).]

PDG
04-21-2001, 05:16 PM
Please! Anything but a burning. I've been scalded enough by Claire in the other forum!! I should have stated solo piano when comparing C with B. And yes, of course, B's sonata cycle is one of the great miracles of human achievement.

------------------
PDG (Peter)