 | Classical music | |||
| ||||
Some have suggested that Beethoven's decision to separate the Great Fugue from the Quartet was an example of his chaotic side taking over (whereas his music showed unmatched logic and order) Most critics tend to say that despite Beethoven's move to accomodate the publisher, the Fugue belongs with the B flat quartet, and that any difficulty with it disappears with familiarization and listening.
I am not one of these. I find the Fuge so harsh and disonnant, that it completely overshadows and contradicts the five movements which preceed it.
If the fuge had been discovered after Beethoven's death, separate from the B flat quartet, I doubt if anyone would have automatically associated it with the latter. I think critics' insistence that the Fuge belongs only with the B flat quartet is another example of people thinking the artist's original intention (and everything else the artist does) is always right. There is another famous instance of Beethoven making a change like this - the Piano Sonata Op 53 (the Waldstein). He chose to replace the original second movement (the 'Andante Favori') with the one page 'Introduzione'. I have NEVER heard of any pianist reinstating the original second movement in this case.
It might also be argued that the title 'Bonaparte' should be reinstated to the 3rd Sympony, because that was Beethoven's original intention.
I believe there is some value in occasionally playing the Great Fuge with the rest of the B flat quartet - it gives us an idea of what Beethoven orinigally had in mind. But I would only do it as a way of reminding myself that sometime even great artists can make shocking mistakes. Thankfully, Beethoven thought better of this one, and corrected it.
I am not saying that the Great Fuge is shocking mistake, but keeping it with the rest of the B flat quartete would have been.
I think the finale he finally published with the work, although not the greatest of his string quartet movements, connects far better with the rest of the work emotionally than does the Great Fuge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.147.29 ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just realised that the above isn't signed, and hasn't been picked out as such by any bot or human editor as such. Since I didn't write it - whether or not I might agree with it kommt nicht im Frage, though I don't much - I think I should dissociate myself from it. Delahays ( talk) 22:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Robert Simpson's proposal (already mentioned in the article) seems to strike a balance: play the first five movements of Op. 130; then the fugue; then the replacement finale. Double sharp ( talk) 15:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that the article doesn't mention the notion, advanced i.a. by Hans Keller, that the model for this quartet is probably Mozart's E Flat Divertimento for String Trio K563, which also seems to have influenced Beethoven's own early Trio Divertimento, also in E Flat. Keller argued that the second finale was superior to the Fugue mainly on that ground, if I remember rightly. Substituting the Fugue destroyed the subversive joke of proposing it as a cabaletta to follow the cavatina - but the second finale does the same job, perhaps. Delahays ( talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
- 05.I.AdagioMaNonTroppo-Allegro.ogg
- 06.Ii.Presto.ogg
- 07.Iii.AndanteConMotoMaNonTroppo.ogg
- 08.Iv.AllaDanzaTedesca-AllegroAssai.ogg
- 09.V.Cavatina-AdagioMoltoEspressivo.ogg
- 10.Vi.Finale-Allegro.ogg
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)