# Be honest here #3: Are you more of an allegro guy or andante guy?



## Guest

I have very rarely enjoy the slow second movement of a symphony. They seem to test my patience more than anything else. Especially Bruckner. What about you?


----------



## Kopachris

I very rarely enjoy the faster movements. First and third movements are usually all right, but fast finales always seem over the top to me.


----------



## KenOC

Slow movements are a Godsend. In a boring performance, they give me a chance to catch some shut-eye. I always ask my wife to wake me up when something happens. It's all good!


----------



## Guest

@Koa... Penguin guy: The finale are the best. Ever heard a Bruckner finale? [You might have] They are lengendary


----------



## StevenOBrien

I see slow movements as a break between the fast movements. Unless the slow movement is REALLY good, I find myself mostly awaiting the scherzo/finale. Slow introductions to classical-era works are usually a little painful to have to sit through, so I'll usually skip them when listening to a recording.

So yeah, I guess I'm an allegro guy .


----------



## PetrB

Bruckner could test anyone's patience, whatever tempo the movements.

I like whole works like I like complete stories, all acts of a play, full, not fragments or details of paintings.

I find the other 'just this movement' approach, uh, odd.


----------



## tdc

PetrB said:


> I like whole works like I like complete stories, all acts of a play, full, not fragments or details of paintings.
> 
> I find the other 'just this movement' approach, uh, odd.


What about works where you only enjoy one or two movements? Do you force yourself to sit through the rest anyway, or do you generally just avoid listening to those works?


----------



## Ravndal

Looks like I'm the first voting for the andante. 

Edit: Maybe because i just woke up.


----------



## Art Rock

I always (well, almost always) listen to the complete works, but in general I love the slow movements.


----------



## Ramako

In Haydn's late symphonies I find that the slow movements are the highlight of the work, and display a great deal more variety than the other movements.

However I also consider this unusual.

But there are many great slow movements out there, which are either the highlight IMO of the work or one of the best movements. Just consider Beethoven 5, 7 Dvorak 9, Tchaikovsky 5&6, Mahler 5 and especially _Mahler 9_.


----------



## PetrB

tdc said:


> What about works where you only enjoy one or two movements? Do you force yourself to sit through the rest anyway, or do you generally just avoid listening to those works?


I've never had the problem. Perhaps I'm less of a 'sensationalist' than you? Also, having been in and around music for _a very long time_ I've got the perspective that each movement is a counter, or foil, i.e. either a relief or set-up, in relation to the others. Some works really aren't like that. Bruckner I suspect (not at all a fan, don't consume) suffers in the way you stated.

There are works, more than one occasion, where a movement was 'added' -- or the original intended plan for it -- i.e. was not first conceived of along with the whole.

Beethoven's 9th a famous example. He got a commission from a London Choral society _while working on that symphony_, and 'fit the bill nicely' by making the last movement the choral movement. I'd argue that Beethoven, brilliant musical strategist that he was, still ended that symphony perfectly, and the previous movements are the perfect 'set-up' for it so that it is not only stunning, but in a way that makes that last movement feels 'inevitable,' i.e. nothing else could have possibly been in that slot other than what is there. But that is Beethoven 

I would have to look up other such instances, but those huge extended works of Bruckner, and Mahler, were not written 'in one go,' and sometimes the listener, as well as critics, can tell just by listening.


----------



## tdc

PetrB said:


> I've never had the problem. Perhaps I'm less of a 'sensationalist' than you? Also, having been in and around music for _a very long time_ I've got the perspective that each movement is a counter, or foil, i.e. either a relief or set-up, in relation to the others. Some works really aren't like that. Bruckner I suspect (not at all a fan, don't consume) suffers in the way you stated.
> 
> There are works, more than one occasion, where a movement was 'added' -- or the original intended plan for it -- i.e. was not first conceived of along with the whole.
> 
> Beethoven's 9th a famous example. He got a commission from a London Choral society _while working on that symphony_, and 'fit the bill nicely' by making the last movement the choral movement. I'd argue that Beethoven, brilliant musical strategist that he was, still ended that symphony perfectly, and the previous movements are the perfect 'set-up' for it so that it is not only stunning, but in a way that makes that last movement feels 'inevitable,' i.e. nothing else could have possibly been in that slot other than what is there. But that is Beethoven
> 
> I would have to look up other such instances, but those huge extended works of Bruckner, and Mahler, were not written 'in one go,' and sometimes the listener, as well as critics, can tell just by listening.


Less of a sensationalist? So, basically you think perhaps my desire to occasionally listen to isolated movements is a result of being fairly vulgar and wishing to satisfy my physical senses more so than you...I would say, no. I do think it is often a result of time constraints and the fact that I think many single movements of bigger works also work well as stand alone movements. I don't always have a few hours to spare when I want to listen to a certain movement of Bach's _Christmas Oratorio_ or _St. Matthew Passion_ for example. The final movement of the latter work I don't think needs any extra context to be deeply enjoyed, it is also a brilliant work all on its own. Personally if I was to listen to the work in its entirety every time I listened to it, I think it would kill some of the joy for me I have in listening to it. That is not to say I do not also enjoy those works in their entirety, or that there are not many many works I often listen to in their entirety consistently. But in today's fast paced world and with modern recording technology, I can also be flexible in my listening.

Sorry if my questions came across as contentious they honestly were not meant that way, more of a curiosity, as I think strict completion in listening to every work a bit 'odd'.

In response to the OP I don't have a preference generally for Andante or allegro, it depends on the work, and* I also generally prefer to listen to works in their entirety*, but I am not strict with this rule and for me there are many exceptions.


----------



## niv

I like them both, thank you. What about the second movement of Mozart 40, or Beethoven 3,5 or 7?


----------



## Kieran

I think the symphony is made up of all movements - none are disposable or unnecessary to the whole. But the slow set is the interior of the symphony, for me. It can be the most expressive and moving. The allegros and scherzos and minuets are the outward expression, if that makes any sense...


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> I would have to look up other such instances, but those huge extended works of Bruckner, and Mahler, were not written 'in one go,' and sometimes the listener, as well as critics, can tell just by listening.


The one Mahler work which was written "in a single go" seems to be nearly everyone's least favorite, though......so I'd hesitate to draw any conclusions from that.

I listen to works in their entirety, and consider them as single entities. Did Chopin really just rope together four of his most unruly children to compile the Sonata No. 2? I don't think so. I think there is always a deeper unity behind every great piece of music.


----------



## elgar's ghost

During my pre-classical listening years I listened to quite a bit of heavy rock/metal and usually preferred the slower or mid-paced 70s stuff (esp. Black Sabbath/Humble Pie) to the faster 80s sort (Slayer or Anthrax? No thanks...), so when it came to appreciating classical I was perhaps by nature inclined to enjoy slower passages or whole movements, especially if there was something of the 'monumental' about them. Probably explains why I wallowed in the music of Bruckner right from the first time I heard anything by him (for the record, Symphony No. 5).


----------



## hreichgott

My mom fostered my love of classical music by playing Beethoven on the piano. I used to dance around the living room to the Six Ecossaises in E flat (quite fast) and the slow movement of the Pathetique sonata. To this day I love fast and slow movements both.


----------



## Novelette

Depends, of course, on the composer and the particular work.

I'm totally with Ramako about Haydn, though. His most personal moments are in his slow movements, they have an almost _romantic_ [lowercase, mind you] pathos about them.


----------



## CyrilWashbrook

karajan said:


> I have very rarely enjoy the slow second movement of a symphony. They seem to test my patience more than anything else. Especially Bruckner. What about you?


I'm not sure which ones you've heard, but I find that Bruckner's slow inner movements are excellent. The second movement of the Fifth, the second movement of the Seventh and the third movement of the Ninth are probably my favourites. (Notwithstanding the fact that the Ninth is incomplete, the Adagio is in my view the perfect finale to that work and needs nothing to follow it.)


----------



## Arsakes

Well, I prefer the Andantes of Romantic era symphonies and the fast movements of classic era's, but I appreciate a work fully.


----------



## Avey

Mahlerian said:


> The one Mahler work which was written "in a single go" seems to be nearly everyone's least favorite, though......so I'd hesitate to draw any conclusions from that.


Just out of curiosity, which symphony is that?


----------



## Avey

PetrB said:


> I've never had the problem. Perhaps I'm less of a 'sensationalist' than you? Also, having been in and around music for _a very long time_ I've got the perspective that each movement is a counter, or foil, i.e. either a relief or set-up, in relation to the others. Some works really aren't like that. Bruckner I suspect (not at all a fan, don't consume) suffers in the way you stated.
> 
> There are works, more than one occasion, where a movement was 'added' -- or the original intended plan for it -- i.e. was not first conceived of along with the whole.
> 
> Beethoven's 9th a famous example. He got a commission from a London Choral society _while working on that symphony_, and 'fit the bill nicely' by making the last movement the choral movement. I'd argue that Beethoven, brilliant musical strategist that he was, still ended that symphony perfectly, and the previous movements are the perfect 'set-up' for it so that it is not only stunning, but in a way that makes that last movement feels 'inevitable,' i.e. nothing else could have possibly been in that slot other than what is there. But that is Beethoven


Just IMO: this comes off arrogant and circular. The former being obvious in your italics of "a very long time," and the latter in your post hoc rationalization for the "fit" of the choral movement in the 9th. Your conclusion that "nothing else could have possibly been in that slot other than what is there" was exactly the point you were seeking to explain.

One can only respond to that: Obviously, but why?


----------



## Mahlerian

Avey said:


> Just out of curiosity, which symphony is that?


The 8th, which was sketched in full in a few weeks, and on a motivic level is Mahler's most unified.


----------



## clavichorder

Allegro!!!!! At home dancing or jamming out to it in my liviny any day.

Andante has been a learned appreciation. In the symphony hall, when I'm forced to sit down and be calm, usually I enjoy the slow movement more.


----------



## Ingélou

I'm afraid I get bored rather easily, so I'm an allegro person. Dreadful, I know. 
I like slow airs on their own, but if it's a sandwich, I always rip out the filling...


----------



## Feathers

It depends on the piece, the composer, my mood, and the time of the day.


----------



## Skilmarilion

I have always been drawn to the expressive power of slow movements, but upon reflection it seems that many of the allegro movements from my favourite works are the ones that I most cherish.

I guess the relationship between the two in any work if vastly intruiging.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I like allegros. I'm built more for speed than comfort.


----------



## Jord

it depends on the piece for me personally


----------



## Novelette

hreichgott said:


> My mom fostered my love of classical music by playing Beethoven on the piano. I used to dance around the living room to the Six Ecossaises in E flat (quite fast) and the slow movement of the Pathetique sonata. To this day I love fast and slow movements both.


Ooh, the Six Ecossaises. What a happy memory!  I love playing it.


----------



## maestro57

karajan said:


> I have very rarely enjoy the slow second movement of a symphony. They seem to test my patience more than anything else. Especially Bruckner. What about you?


Including Beethoven's Symphony No. 7's 2nd movement? Get outta town!


----------



## OboeKnight

I really enjoy both equally. Some slow movements are agonizing uneventful, while others are breathtakingly beautiful. A good fast movement can almost always cheer me up. I wouldn't like one without the other though.


----------



## Tristan

I'm probably more of an allegro guy. Doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the slow movements (or sometimes prefer them over faster ones), but the faster ones are often my favorite. The best example being the finale of Tchaikovsky's 4th =)


----------



## Novelette

Not to derail the thread entirely, but as this thread begins with "Be honest here #3..."

Was there a #1 and 2? My admittedly hasty search found no such threads.


----------



## Cheyenne

Novelette said:


> Not to derail the thread entirely, but as this thread begins with "Be honest here #3..."
> 
> Was there a #1 and 2? My admittedly hasty search found no such threads.


http://www.talkclassical.com/24956-honest-here-do-you.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/25297-honest-here-2-do-5.html

Just use google, it is quite effecient in searching the forums, far more so than the actual search engine on the forum.


----------



## Aquos

Both it depends on the mood.


----------



## Il Seraglio

It depends. My patience is terrible with slow movements in Bach, Handel and other Baroque music of that nature, which are usually in a minor key and very heavy on continuo. The combination can make for laboured listening sometimes.

On the other hand, some composers are better as writing slow movements than allegros. Mysliveček would be one, whose music I think really shines at slower tempi.


----------



## Ondine

Haydn's symphonic slow movements are brilliant. I love them.


----------



## davinci

Mahlerian said:


> I listen to works in their entirety, and consider them as single entities. Did Chopin really just rope together four of his most unruly children to compile the Sonata No. 2? I don't think so. I think there is always a deeper unity behind every great piece of music.


I feel that way for the most part. But in the case of a Mahler symphony, it's written as a complete thought and I need to listen to the movements as a continuous piece. Similarly for Bruckner, but his adagios can stand on their own in a single listen.

The Allegro is of course exciting and can set the stage for the piece, but I'm finding modern conductors are pacing the Andante closer to Adagios, rather than "at a walking pace."
I didn't really answer the OPs question, but these are my observations.


----------



## Novelette

Cheyenne said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/24956-honest-here-do-you.html
> http://www.talkclassical.com/25297-honest-here-2-do-5.html
> 
> Just use google, it is quite effecient in searching the forums, far more so than the actual search engine on the forum.


Ah yes, this is a better idea. =D


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I prefer fast movements, often scherzos of any type. I like slow stuff of course, but I'm more picky with that. Slow movements have to have a certain level of emotional depth or else they bore me. I want lyricism, not an intellectual and formulaic lecture. But with fast things, I'm less picky, as long as they are have strong motivic lines.


----------



## LindnerianSea

as many posts have already mentioned, a single slow movement on its own is quite meaningless. it only gains its true meaning when surrounded by 'relatively' faster movements... sometimes even the absolute speed itself becomes meaningless (e.g. Kubelik's rendition of Mahler's slow movements are very fast !). 
what attracts me to 'slow' movements, however, is the typical sombre and serious character of the music.


----------

