# Beehovens Grosse fuge explained VIDEO!



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I found this video were Beethovens Grosse fuge is explained, i just started watching it so i can't really tell how good it is, but it think that some of you could enjoy it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Some of us could indeed. Thank you!


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

A great piece to explore and quite possibly my favourite quartet (you can tell that I don't play strings). The Takacs Quartet does a great job of this if anyone's discovering it for the first time.
When a single fugue just isn't manly enough...

Apparently when the quartet moaned about the technical demands, Ludwig replied "What do I care about you and your effing fiddles". 
Nice one Ludwig. You sound like everyone's dream boss. :lol:


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I'll give some of this a listen soon when I get a chance. The Grosse Fuge is really an interesting piece for me as it probably is with many others. At first 5 or 6 listens, I just could not get into it because it sounded too chaotic but now it's one of my favorite pieces and really a mind-blowing thing to take in.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Beethoven's Große Fuge explained!*

Meine Damen und Herren:

In one corner, at five feet und four inches, veighing in at 75 kilos, ve haff Herr Beethoven ze Harmonist: In ze ozer corner, at five feet und four inches, veighing in at 72 kilos, ve haff Herr Beethoven ze Contrapuntist.

Vizout eizer fighter ever really making any headway, neizer fighter yielding at any moment, neizer vinning or losing, zis match vas called a draw after ze zweiundzwanzigste round.

It vas a spectacular match, mit Beethoven ze Harmonist und Beethoven ze Contrapuntist each taking a terrible beating, und it vill go on record as being vun uf ze most brutally ugly und exciting uf fights in all uf history.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Meine Damen und Herren:
> 
> In one corner, at five feet und four inches, veighing in at 75 kilos, ve haff Herr Beethoven ze Harmonist: In ze ozer corner, at five feet und four inches, veighing in at 72 kilos, ve haff Herr Beethoven ze Contrapuntist.
> 
> ...


I just wanted to say that I read this entirely in the voice of Werner Herzog. Though Dr Strangelove may have been more appropriate.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Meine Damen und Herren:
> 
> In one corner, at five feet und four inches, veighing in at 75 kilos, ve haff Herr Beethoven ze Harmonist: In ze ozer corner, at five feet und four inches, veighing in at 72 kilos, ve haff Herr Beethoven ze Contrapuntist.
> 
> ...


"Edited - Reason: spelling" LOL


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> "Edited - Reason: spelling" LOL


Hey! I vas tryink to be a bit consistent zere.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Alright, I just finished listening to the whole thing. Overall it was pretty good and I do appreciate the work put into it. We both have the same favorite recording of this piece too, which is a plus. However, even though I enjoyed it for the most part I have some criticisms. 

First of all, the disparaging comments about Schoenberg and Boulez were just completely unnecessary and unprofessional. A sudden tangential rant about how Schoenberg "killed modern music" is just so completely out of place and has nothing to do with Beethoven's Grosse Fugue. It only serves to alienate those of us who love both composers. 

In fact, here is an excerpt from the video description "This is Beethoven as you've never heard. In this discussion, you will hear those who claim "mathematics" is key to composition trounced! You will have the religion of Atonalism charged as "guilty," as other golden calves will be smashed as well."

Really? Couldn't this have just been a video discussing Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, rather than a video that tries to use Beethoven's Grosse Fugue as a platform to push the speakers own personal "musical philosophy" onto us? Granted, the majority of the video IS just talking about Beethoven's piece and I appreciate that but the few times where the speaker does try to force his "musical philosophy" into the analysis just comes across as awkward, distracting and unnecessary.

Equally distracting, in my personal opinion, are the various comments trying to "humorously" drill it into your head that this is a challenging work. The lecture is littered with comments like "oh this definitely wouldn't be played on an elevator hardy har" and "Oh man my friend thought Moonlight Sonata was too dissonant just imagine if this piece were his introduction to Beethoven, GARSH" (I'm paraphrasing obviously). This is less egregious than my first complaint and is more just my personal opinion that comments like that are just kind of silly. 

And then, a small complaint is that the musical examples are cut short at very awkward moments and that whole thing could have been edited a lot better. I also think the lecture was a little bit all over the place and hard to follow at times.

Other than that though, I found it pretty enjoyable. It must have taken quite a bit of effort to put this together and I commend that.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Formalism! that piece should be banned! Toa intellectuel! cun't andr'stand' tht prafesr os kno cun't weithar.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Formalism! that piece should be banned!


If it doesn't pass muster with the tractor drivers in Kazakhstan...it's history, and so is its composer.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

It's kind of like a 2 hour video explaining the complexity of scotch. Unnecessary. To "get" it, you just have to force it upon yourself over and over again until you like it. It's not quantum chromodynamics for Pete's sake.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> It's kind of like a 2 hour video explaining the complexity of scotch. Unnecessary. To "get" it, you just have to force it upon yourself over and over again until you like it. It's not quantum chromodynamics for Pete's sake.


I'm afraid a lot of these essays and explanations, the higher academic or the on-line ones, or "classic FM" type essays, lol, are from those who either 'had trouble getting it' themselves, or they are writing to an audience of readers whom the author, at least, thinks of as being "just tewwified at the difficulty of Beethowen's wery complex Fuge."

Like you said, directly partaking, several times, on your own, is really all it takes.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> Equally distracting, in my personal opinion, are the various comments trying to "humorously" drill it into your head that this is a challenging work. The lecture is littered with comments like "oh this definitely wouldn't be played on an elevator hardy har" and "Oh man my friend thought Moonlight Sonata was too dissonant just imagine if this piece were his introduction to Beethoven, GARSH" (I'm paraphrasing obviously). This is less egregious than my first complaint and is more just my personal opinion that comments like that are just kind of silly.


I didn't watch this, but based on what you've written, I have little desire to.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. The best way to get someone to hear a composition they think is difficult in a new light is _not_ to remind them how difficult they think it is, but to get them to hear it like anything else. Point out that Beethoven's themes here are much like the kinds of themes he uses elsewhere, that the jumping rhythms are part and parcel of his "striving" heroic style of his middle period...get people to hear it as a Beethoven work. Don't keep telling them that this is something completely different.

And the WORST thing you can do is tell someone that they don't get it because they're unable to. I'm of the opinion that great art is accessible to everyone, even those who've only ever listened to Fur Elise and the (first movement of the) Sonata Quasi una Fantasia in C-sharp minor, so long as A)they are willing to be open to it and B)it is presented to them in a context where it makes sense to them.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I'm afraid a lot of these essays and explanations, the higher academic or the on-line ones, or "classic FM" type essays, lol, are from those who either 'had trouble getting it' themselves, or they are writing to an audience of readers whom the author, at least, thinks of as being "just tewwified at the difficulty of Beethowen's wery complex Fuge."
> 
> Like you said, directly partaking, several times, on your own, is really all it takes.


I agree on a sort of basic level, but I do think that sometimes these lectures and analysis type videos/writings can bring to light things I didn't realize about the music before and deepen my appreciation for the piece in question.

They have to be done right though.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I didn't watch this, but based on what you've written, I have little desire to.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with the above. The best way to get someone to hear a composition they think is difficult in a new light is _not_ to remind them how difficult they think it is, but to get them to hear it like anything else. Point out that Beethoven's themes here are much like the kinds of themes he uses elsewhere, that the jumping rhythms are part and parcel of his "striving" heroic style of his middle period...get people to hear it as a Beethoven work. Don't keep telling them that this is something completely different.
> 
> And the WORST thing you can do is tell someone that they don't get it because they're unable to. I'm of the opinion that great art is accessible to everyone, even those who've only ever listened to Fur Elise and the (first movement of the) Sonata Quasi una Fantasia in C-sharp minor, so long as A)they are willing to be open to it and B)it is presented to them in a context where it makes sense to them.


True, and yet nobody would get additional enjoyment out of this work if it was not only known to not be complex, but unsophisticated and accessible.

We all enjoy the enjoyment that comes from genuinely enjoying a reputed complex and difficult thing, even if it is unfashionable to state such.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Couchie said:


> To "get" it, you just have to force it upon yourself over and over again until you like it. It's not quantum chromodynamics for Pete's sake.


LOL believe it or not, that's exactly how most physicists 'get' quantum field theory!


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

It crazy this has been here all along and here I'm bringing up the same video under the solo instrument & chamber works threads:

http://www.talkclassical.com/3971-grosse-fugue-what-do.html

I even go Mahlerian to finally watch it. Now I feel bad on both levels. Well anyway as I said at the end of the other thread I did enjoy it for what it is in terms of some in depth look at the work. Now it seems it's the skewed views of someone reaching for the answer. But like violadude said I do appreciate the effort that went into it and he does bring up some good points.

Now I wonder if the guy who made it knows it's being discussed as much as it is in places other than just youtube. Wow, and now I'm wondering if he is a member of this site.. that would be something.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Bach wrote Grosse Fuge before Beethoven did. And yes, I've got an mp3 somewhere.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

I suppose a very slim chance with this thread being 8 years old, does anyone know if that video has been reuploaded on Youtube? Thanks.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

staxomega said:


> I suppose a very slim chance with this thread being 8 years old, does anyone know if that video has been reuploaded on Youtube? Thanks.



Beethovens Grosse fuge is explained, put this in the search at You tube and you see various .


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Rogerx said:


> Beethovens Grosse fuge is explained, put this in the search at You tube and you see various .


I did this, but I'm looking for this specific video. I've read plenty about op. 133, but this particular one from the description of others here sounds particularly good. The only clue I know what to look for is someone further down in this thread says it is 2 hours long.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

staxomega said:


> I did this, but I'm looking for this specific video. I've read plenty about op. 133, but this particular one from the description of others here sounds particularly good. The only clue I know what to look for is someone further down in this thread says it is 2 hours long.


It was a tip, no harm done, pity for you. good luck.


----------



## staxomega (Oct 17, 2011)

Rogerx said:


> It was a tip, no harm done, pity for you. good luck.


I didn't mean to offend you, I was just clarifying that I was looking for this particular video.


----------

