Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:46:38 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Chris Bonds <[log in to unmask]>:
>I agree that K. 563 is a great work, and would even agree it is
>"underplayed." However, to be scientific about it, we should eliminate the
>effect that string trios in general are not as frequently heard as quartets
>or quintets.
Good point; no doubt the primary reason K 563 is not heard often. Also the
string quintets don't get a lot of air time for the same reason, and these
(together with K 563) are by far the greatest chamber music Mozart wrote.
>Next point: Nothing that Mozart (or anybody else FTM) wrote can
>compare with the Beethoven late quartets. (Isn't that better than "late
>Beethoven?" The latter sounds like he was overdue on a commission or
>something!)
Well, late quartets sound like the quartets were late to arrive; same
deal... We could call them mature quartets, or senior quartets, what
do you think?:)
>It's unfair to Mozart to diminish his K. 563 by attempting to compare.
>The reverse is equally true--nothing in Beethoven can compare to Mozart's
>K. 563!
I guess I am in the habit of comparing, so I do compare and feel that
there is nothing wrong with it. After all, there are, I believe, notions
of greatness (no matter how intangible these) which transcend stylistic
and period boundaries. Can I compare Bach with Schoenberg? Sure I can.
It's even easier with Mozart and Beethoven since they are a lot closer
stylistically, after all the late quartets are still mostly in sonata
form (as are the late piano sonata form.
Ulvi
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|