# The Grosse Fuge and all things Op. 130



## shangoyal

Let's talk about this work by Beethoven!

In particular, I'm curious how you guys listen to it. With the Grosse Fuge or with the other Finale? Or without either (as I sometimes do, ending with the Cavatina)?


----------



## Garlic

I'm not a big fan of the other finale, probably because I expect the Grosse Fuge and find the other one seems lightweight in comparison. If I have a choice I always listen to it with the fugue, and often listen to the fugue on its own as well.


----------



## KenOC

All my Op. 130 playlists are doubled up, one with the Grosse Fuge at the end, the other with the new finale. My listening choice at any time is based on impulse. Both work fine for me.

I never listen to the Op. 130 without a finale. I often listen to the Grosse Fuge as a standalone work.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Grosse Fugue all the way!


----------



## Quartetfore

Other finale. I listen to the full work three or four times a year. I do a full Beethoven cycle once a year.


----------



## GodNickSatan

Listening to Op. 130 without the Grosse Fuge at the end to me would be like listening to the 9th symphony without the final movement. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Mandryka

If I want to hear the rondo then I tend to play Busch's live second recording of it. If I want to hear the Fugue then I would always go for the Tokyo Quartet's first recording. But truth is I usually finish when the cavatina is over.

I don't think I've ever really been happy with any recording I've heard of the fugue. They all play it too heavily and agressively, it gives me a headache. What I would really like is a light elegant classical interpretation. Maybe the most satisfying fugue I've heard is the Tokyo Quartet's second recording.


----------



## Alydon

shangoyal said:


> Let's talk about this work by Beethoven!
> 
> In particular, I'm curious how you guys listen to it. With the Grosse Fuge or with the other Finale? Or without either (as I sometimes do, ending with the Cavatina)?


I find the problem with the Grosse Fuge (which was discussed at length in a previous post) is that it is so over-whelming you are swept away by it and forget the rest of the work. Though the Grosse Fuge was Beethoven's original intention he was persuaded to write a more conventional movement which I seem to find more logical in the context of the rest of the work, but now with technology as it is you can programme in either and make your own mind up.


----------



## norman bates

Mandryka said:


> I don't think I've ever really been happy with any recording I've heard of the fugue. They all play it too heavily and agressively, it gives me a headache. What I would really like is a light elegant classical interpretation.


It's a very intense piece and they play it aggressively because with its angularity, severity and lack of prettiness it seems to require that kind of interpretation. I feel that there's something very masculine in it.


----------



## Mandryka

norman bates said:


> It's a very intense piece and they play it aggressively because with its angularity, severity and lack of prettiness it seems to require that kind of interpretation. I feel that there's something very masculine in it.


You've got to remember its context though, straight after the cavatina. Bizarre to have a bombastic and heroic and angry piece after the cavatina I think - it's hard to understand what he was doing. The second recording by The Tokyo Quartet has an restrained performance, and I would say the music benefits.

Op 130/133 is a really enigmatic piece of music I think.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> You've got to remember its context though, straight after the cavatina. Bizarre to have a bombastic and heroic and angry piece after the cavatina I think - it's hard to understand what he was doing.


Beethoven loved contrast. He was seldom restrained about it.


----------



## GodNickSatan

Yeah that's what makes it so amazing!


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> Beethoven loved contrast. He was seldom restrained about it.


So what makes it a quartet do you think, rather than a random collection of movements for string quartet?

As far as the Grosse Fugue is concerned, you make it sound as though he plonked it at the end with no other idea in mind than that it's a contrast with the stuff before. I think that there is some evidence that Beethoven was extremely casual about final movements. But it's not what you expect of great art, you know.


----------



## Mahlerian

Mandryka said:


> So what makes it a quartet do you think, rather than a random collection of movements for string quartet?


Well, the key sequence is clearly centered on a single tonality. For a classical quartet, that's all that was ever needed. On top of that, though, as not infrequently in Beethoven, there are thematic connections between the movements, particularly the first movement and the Grosse Fuge.


----------



## Mandryka

Mahlerian said:


> Well, the key sequence is clearly centered on a single tonality. For a classical quartet, that's all that was ever needed. On top of that, though, as not infrequently in Beethoven, there are thematic connections between the movements, particularly the first movement and the Grosse Fuge.


Do you hear the fugue as invoking a memory of the first movement? So the music becomes a sort of exploration of memory, at least in part?


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> So what makes it a quartet do you think, rather than a random collection of movements for string quartet?
> 
> As far as the Grosse Fugue is concerned, you make it sound as though he plonked it at the end with no other idea in mind than that it's a contrast with the stuff before. I think that there is some evidence that Beethoven was extremely casual about final movements. But it's not what you expect of great art, you know.


Kerman, in his book on the quartets, labels the Op. 130 "disassociated," meaning the opposite of integrated. He (like Cooper) finds the quartet mostly a collection of movements with no organic connection. Some might find that approach to a "great masterpiece" offensive, of course.

As for the finale, Beethoven's occasional casualness goes far beyond "plonking" the Grosse Fuge in (and then out again). He authorized Ries to have the Hammerklavier published in London three ways: (1) "you could omit the Largo and begin straight away with the Fugue"; (2) "you could use the first movement and then the Adagio, and then for the third movement the Scherzo"; and (3) "you could take just the first movement and the Scherzo and let them form the whole sonata." That always gives me a chuckle!


----------



## shangoyal

Alydon said:


> I find the problem with the Grosse Fuge (which was discussed at length in a previous post) is that it is so over-whelming you are swept away by it and forget the rest of the work. Though the Grosse Fuge was Beethoven's original intention he was persuaded to write a more conventional movement which I seem to find more logical in the context of the rest of the work, but now with technology as it is you can programme in either and make your own mind up.


Yes, for me, the Fuge kind of goes against the grain of the Cavatina, which is the preceding movement. Perhaps, more listening will help me see Beethoven's design, I am not completely sure he changed the finale wholly by his own will.


----------



## shangoyal

norman bates said:


> It's a very intense piece and they play it aggressively because with its angularity, severity and lack of prettiness it seems to require that kind of interpretation. I feel that there's something very masculine in it.


Yay, somebody who agrees with me on how Beethoven's music can be seen as a little to the "men" side of things.


----------



## Quartetfore

KenOC said:


> Kerman, in his book on the quartets, labels the Op. 130 "disassociated," meaning the opposite of integrated. He (like Cooper) finds the quartet mostly a collection of movements with no organic connection. Some might find that approach to a "great masterpiece" offensive, of course.
> 
> As for the finale, Beethoven's occasional casualness goes far beyond "plonking" the Grosse Fuge in (and then out again). He authorized Ries to have the Hammerklavier published in London three ways: (1) "you could omit the Largo and begin straight away with the Fugue"; (2) "you could use the first movement and then the Adagio, and then for the third movement the Scherzo"; and (3) "you could take just the first movement and the Scherzo and let them form the whole sonata." That always gives me a chuckle!


This is not the first time I have come across this idea, and in a sense it is quite true. But, if Beethoven wanted this form, I for one would not question it.


----------



## Pip

This is how I listen to it 




It is as intense as it gets - maybe not for the purist, but .......wow!


----------



## Cheyenne

I love Furtwängler's perfomances too. Here's some more praise for them by other members:



GrosseFugue said:


> Hey, this is a no-brainer for me.  I LOVE IT! A true "head-banging" piece! Had the opportunity
> to download a version of it I'd never heard by the incomparable
> Furtwanger: http://furtwanglersound.com/recordings/beethoven/beethovens5egmcavgfy47/
> 
> It's for FULL STRING ORCHESTRA. I think it's the greatest version I've ever heard!  Even better
> than Otto Klemperer's orchestra version.





Scarpia said:


> Anyone that thinks they don't like the grosse fuge should listen to the Furtwangler recording made with the VPO. It is a live recording that I have in a DG set of live VPO recordings, I don't know if it is currently available. (There is also a Berlin Philharmonic recording, but I haven't heard that one.) There is some magic he does that makes all the odd stuff in that music make sense.


----------



## KenOC

Quartetfore said:


> This is not the first time I have come across this idea, and in a sense it is quite true. But, if Beethoven wanted this form, I for one would not question it.


Well, this raises the question of what Beethoven "wanted." He was approached, very gingerly, about writing a new finale, with the suggestion that the fugue would be published separately and also in a four-hand piano arrangement. He agreed immediately, and apparently not just for the small additional fee to be paid for the new finale. The new movement was the last music he wrote, and the quartet was published with it in place.

So what Beethoven "wanted," evidently, was for the quartet to be played with the new finale. But today, when the fugue has finally become popular, most recordings use it instead and offer the newer movement as an option. Most live performances, also, use the fugue (as determined a while back in another forum).


----------



## Forte

shangoyal said:


> Yes, for me, the Fuge kind of goes against the grain of the Cavatina, which is the preceding movement. Perhaps, more listening will help me see Beethoven's design, I am not completely sure he changed the finale wholly by his own will.


I think the contrast is the point. The cavatina seems almost heavenly, it's such a precious and intimate little piece with so much cantabile expression. Then that perfect world is rejected harshly by the sheer power and violence of the fugue.


----------



## Mandryka

Forte said:


> I think the contrast is the point. The cavatina seems almost heavenly, it's such a precious and intimate little piece with so much cantabile expression. Then that perfect world is rejected harshly by the sheer power and violence of the fugue.


 It's an interesting idea, and reminds me of some ideas I once heard about the final movement op of 132.

Why do you think Beethoven does that, I mean why does he reject the "perfect world" vision? Does he do it anywhere else (the final variation in op 120 is different.)


----------



## Forte

Mandryka said:


> It's an interesting idea, and reminds me of some ideas I once heard about the final movement op of 132.
> 
> Why do you think Beethoven does that, I mean why does he reject the "perfect world" vision? Does he do it anywhere else (the final variation in op 120 is different.)


Why did he do anything in any of his great works? It was generally to present a novel idea or a way to express himself emotionally by means that were hardly conventional. I think the fugue is that much more effective when it is placed right after an emotional world that is almost the polar opposite. Maybe it's not entirely fair to say that such a finale is completely unconventional coming after what preceded it either - sections of it are just as tranquil as the cavatina, and considering it is a finale that would round out a work of roughly 50 minutes, from what is normally expected of Beethoven it is going to be everything that he can throw at you.

As for Op. 120, the final two variations are connected in much the same way except in reverse order. Variation 32 is a rather barbaric (is that the right word? possibly) triple fugue, and Variation 33 is a rather serene minuet. Contrasts tend to be a hallmark of his late period. I can think of Op. 111 which does nearly the same thing, with a dramatic first movement and a totally different second movement that seems transcendent when placed with its predecessor.


----------



## Mandryka

Forte said:


> Why did he do anything in any of his great works? It was generally to present a novel idea or a way to express himself emotionally by means that were hardly conventional. I think the fugue is that much more effective when it is placed right after an emotional world that is almost the polar opposite. Maybe it's not entirely fair to say that such a finale is completely unconventional coming after what preceded it either - sections of it are just as tranquil as the cavatina, and considering it is a finale that would round out a work of roughly 50 minutes, from what is normally expected of Beethoven it is going to be everything that he can throw at you.
> 
> As for Op. 120, the final two variations are connected in much the same way except in reverse order. Variation 32 is a rather barbaric (is that the right word? possibly) triple fugue, and Variation 33 is a rather serene minuet. Contrasts tend to be a hallmark of his late period. I can think of Op. 111 which does nearly the same thing, with a dramatic first movement and a totally different second movement that seems transcendent when placed with its predecessor.


But to end with barbarary is an interesting gesture. After the heavenly vision we're plunged into all that noise. In op 120 we're plunged into something very rooted in ordinariness, after all the transcendence. And in op 132 . . . I don't know, but sometimes I hear something false forced bitter cynical in that final movement, like a rictus grin. I need to think again about what happens towards the very end of op 111.

I don't (want to) believe Beethoven was casual about these things. I believe he was expressing ideas about the meaning of life.


----------



## shangoyal

Mandryka said:


> But to end with barbarary is an interesting gesture. After the heavenly vision we're plunged into all that noise. In op 120 we're plunged into something very rooted in ordinariness, after all the transcendence. And in op 132 . . . I don't know, but sometimes I hear something false forced bitter cynical in that final movement, like a rictus grin. I need to think again about what happens towards the very end of op 111.
> 
> I don't (want to) believe Beethoven was casual about these things. I believe he was expressing ideas about the meaning of life.


Yes, because it's not a jerky or hasty gesture when he changes the mood suddenly. Both the Cavatina and the Grosse Fuge are tremendous works of music when heard separately, they are aesthetically tight and effective in essaying certain ideas, emotions, etc. So in the light of the high level of musical writing that Beethoven performed in Op. 130 overall, it is very compelling to think that he had certain larger and important ideas in mind - as you say, something like the meaning of life - and the sudden change in mood is part of the overall plan.


----------



## starry

This has definitely come up before on this forum. I've forgotten what I said, but I definitely prefer op130 with the original ending.


----------



## Forte

Mandryka said:


> But to end with barbarary is an interesting gesture. After the heavenly vision we're plunged into all that noise. In op 120 we're plunged into something very rooted in ordinariness, after all the transcendence. And in op 132 . . . I don't know, but sometimes I hear something false forced bitter cynical in that final movement, like a rictus grin. I need to think again about what happens towards the very end of op 111.
> 
> I don't (want to) believe Beethoven was casual about these things. I believe he was expressing ideas about the meaning of life.


Or is Variation 33 the transcendence? I don't agree the variation preceding it is transcendent; rather, it is more like Beethoven's homage to Bach, as well as the fugue.

The Op. 133 is not all barbaric either, it's certainly associated with its violent rhythms, syncopations, and leaps, but there are contrasts between sections even within the movement. The ending is not of an emotional quality that mirrors the beginning, being triumphant and slightly ponderous instead of being harsh.

Op. 111 is one of those works that you could speculate about philosophically for all of time, but the big picture structure-wise seems to have been figured out (if I read analyses correctly).


----------



## Cadenza

I'm listening closely to the String Quartets this week and next while on vacation. I appreciate them greatly, but as yet, I've not made them my friend. Honestly, I'm not sure I even like them yet. I may be looking for tunes and rhythms and signposts along the way that are more familiar territory for me. However, I intend to stay with them.
As to the Gross Fugue, nothing in it - it's placement or tone or style - seems incoherent with what meager understanding I have of Beethoven's personality or the tone or temperament of the rest of the quartets. I'll keep listening. Love the Furtwangler...


----------

