I agree with John Purdy. This quartet is immensely rich, It plays with the dependance and independance of motives, with polyrythmy. The first quartet is probably the work in which Carter set up a language of his own. This languange was to evolve during about half a century. Here, we have the beginnings of th evolution.
Britannica has an article about this piece: www.britannica.com/topic/String-Quartet-No-2 In part, it says "...rather than working within a framework of melody supported by harmony, he kept the four instruments “quite distinct,” imagining a “four-way conversation” in which there was perhaps more talking than there was listening. Further, there was dissonance; the layers were meant to contrast with one another, not to blend. "
It took me 6 months of study and listening to "get" this piece. But when I did it blew my mind. The rhythmic vitality and polyphonic independence is remarkable. And I do connect with it on an emotional level. But that's what it took six months. Why? Something appealed to me even though I couldn't understand it at first. This is the problem with this kind of music - it requires a considerable investment to understand it.
What do you think of the Carter's 1st and 3rd string quartets? (they are also available on my channel). I find them superb too, though they are different in style from the 2nd. The 4th and 5th appeal a little less to me.
I am familiar with the 1st and 3rd. I like the 1st very much but the 3rd never appealed to me. I find it overly dense and "busy" lacking the lyricism of the 1st and 2nd. I am less familiar with the 4th and I don't believe I've heard the 5th although I'm aware of its existence. If you've got the 4th I'd like to give it another listen or two.
The 4th by the Juilliard Quartet is available on my channel. I don't have the 5th, which wasn't part of the set I posted as it hadn't been composed yet at that time (the Juilliard quartet made a recording of it later on). There is a good performance of the 5th on YT by the Pacifica quartet, recorded live in Japan.
I agree with John Purdy. This quartet is immensely rich, It plays with the dependance and independance of motives, with polyrythmy. The first quartet is probably the work in which Carter set up a language of his own. This languange was to evolve during about half a century. Here, we have the beginnings of th evolution.
The fact that "it requires a considerable investment to understand [this kind of music]" is not a "problem." The challenge is what makes listening to this music worth doing. And the same might be said of Beethoven or most any music that people think they "understand."
j'ai une préférence pour les deuxièmes et cinquièmes quatuors , je les trouve plus fluides mais aussi plus torturés , mystérieux , intégrés à la veine expressionniste d'elliott carter , musicien assez délaissé malgré les chefs d'oeuvre fascinants qu'il nous laisse et il en reste à découvrir , merci
et ne surtout pas oublier le majestueux quatuor julliard , un des meilleurs quatuors du siècle passé , avec le quatuor amadeus , la quartetto italiano , le quatuor de budapest , le quatuor busch , le quatuor lassalle ,le quatuor talich et le quatuor alban berg et tant d'autres
continuation du premier quatuor , influence expressionniste admirable , fascinant , captivant comme dans une atmosphère envoûtante , l'écriture est complexe , le jeu torturé par les musiciens prodigieux du fameux quatuor julliard , un des cinq plus grands ensembles de tous les temps avec amadeus , budapest , quartetto italiano , alban berg , quatuor tallich ect , merci
En tout cas le style est très différent du premier quatuor, ce qui est d'ailleurs le cas de chacun des quatuors de Carter, par exemple le style du troisième, plus touffu, se distingue à nouveau grandement des précédents. Cela s'explique peut-être notamment par le fait que les 5 quatuors ont été composés à des intervalles assez longs.
A propos j'aime beaucoup son troisième quatuor, très touffu, d'un style percussif (pizzicati et col legno ?). On a parfois l'impression d'entendre tout un orchestre de chambre qui joue.
moi je préfère le second , le cinquième , ils sont de la même veine influencés par le grand arnold schoenberg dont les quatuors sont absolument prodigieux , féeriques
nombreux points communs avec les quatuors de schoenberg dont l'influence sur carter est évidente , les deux artistes sont fascinants surtout pour leurs quatuors
il est normal que les styles des quatuors soit très différents , comme le faisaient mozart , beethoven , et haydn , bien avant carter , pour ses 6 quatuors dédiés à haydn mozart a avoué n'avoir jamais tant souffert pour composer une oeuvre musicale que pour composer ses quatuors , sauf pour ses grands opéras et son requiem , beethoven recommençait plusieurs fois la composition de ses quatuors ,mais il y a une continuité entre ces génies , schubert , haydn , mozart , beethoven , brahms , schoenberg , carter , chostakovitch , le travail en pizzicati est largement utilisé par mozart dans certains de ses quatuors
I just don't get it. Try as I might, this sort of think doesn't appeal to my ear and appealing to the emotions via the ear seems to me to be one of the basic definitions of "music".
Carter's string quartets are very difficult indeed. Even sometimes for myself, though I generally like late 20 c. classical music. Nevertheless there is something about this work which I found fascinating, and made me listen to it over and over. I was struck by the great originality of the composition and I had the impression that it was a masterpiece even before I could fully appreciate it. Even now I dont' think I can fully appreciate it in a purely emotional way (as one usually listens to music). I think that some of Carter's other works are more approachable though then his string quartets.
+MarcusHK1 Well, on the basis of what you say here I will listen again (and again) and try to see in it what you see/hear. Thanks for the reply and for the up-load.
I'm not saying that you must like it, I understand that it's not everyones cup of tea. If you are not used to this kind of music, it's probably not the best place to start, there are other contemporary classical works which are a little more approachable.
That is one of the basic definitions of music, but if you don't have a handle on the patterns as such it can't make that appeal. It appeals to my emotions via the ear.
My esthetic is quite eclectic... & I've tried to appreciate his work all my life (I'm 62) While I certainly appreciate his genius & original contributions (he won a Pulitzer Price for this piece in 1960) I still can't "get into it". His introduction of complex metric modulations & contrasting textures are purely intellectual to me... to such an extent that the word "neurotic" always comes to mind. Frank Zappa said that he listens to Carter when he likes to "relax & unwind". I don't believe him. I believe he was just trying to educate & document the influence this composer had on Frank during his early years. Art & Music reflects aspects of a culture & civilization... if this is true than Carter demonstrates how far away from the natural order we have moved. His approach just pure intellect to me....... like a mathematical exercises with no practical application.
I agree with John Purdy. This quartet is immensely rich, It plays with the dependance and independance of motives, with polyrythmy. The first quartet is probably the work in which Carter set up a language of his own. This languange was to evolve during about half a century. Here, we have the beginnings of th evolution.
Britannica has an article about this piece: www.britannica.com/topic/String-Quartet-No-2
In part, it says "...rather than working within a framework of melody supported by harmony, he kept the four instruments “quite distinct,” imagining a “four-way conversation” in which there was perhaps more talking than there was listening. Further, there was dissonance; the layers were meant to contrast with one another, not to blend.
"
It took me 6 months of study and listening to "get" this piece. But when I did it blew my mind. The rhythmic vitality and polyphonic independence is remarkable. And I do connect with it on an emotional level. But that's what it took six months. Why? Something appealed to me even though I couldn't understand it at first. This is the problem with this kind of music - it requires a considerable investment to understand it.
What do you think of the Carter's 1st and 3rd string quartets? (they are also available on my channel). I find them superb too, though they are different in style from the 2nd. The 4th and 5th appeal a little less to me.
I am familiar with the 1st and 3rd. I like the 1st very much but the 3rd never appealed to me. I find it overly dense and "busy" lacking the lyricism of the 1st and 2nd. I am less familiar with the 4th and I don't believe I've heard the 5th although I'm aware of its existence. If you've got the 4th I'd like to give it another listen or two.
The 4th by the Juilliard Quartet is available on my channel. I don't have the 5th, which wasn't part of the set I posted as it hadn't been composed yet at that time (the Juilliard quartet made a recording of it later on). There is a good performance of the 5th on YT by the Pacifica quartet, recorded live in Japan.
I agree with John Purdy. This quartet is immensely rich, It plays with
the dependance and independance of motives, with polyrythmy. The first
quartet is probably the work in which Carter set up a language of his
own. This languange was to evolve during about half a century. Here, we
have the beginnings of th evolution.
The fact that "it requires a considerable investment to understand [this kind of music]" is not a "problem." The challenge is what makes listening to this music worth doing. And the same might be said of Beethoven or most any music that people think they "understand."
j'ai une préférence pour les deuxièmes et cinquièmes quatuors , je les trouve plus fluides mais aussi plus torturés , mystérieux , intégrés à la veine expressionniste d'elliott carter , musicien assez délaissé malgré les chefs d'oeuvre fascinants qu'il nous laisse et il en reste à découvrir , merci
et ne surtout pas oublier le majestueux quatuor julliard , un des meilleurs quatuors du siècle passé , avec le quatuor amadeus , la quartetto italiano , le quatuor de budapest , le quatuor busch , le quatuor lassalle ,le quatuor talich et le quatuor alban berg et tant d'autres
This one of U-Tubes better recordings. Who does it and what company recorded it.
What happened to the sound in the last six minutes???
Unfortunately it was removed by YT because of copyright issues. But I believe this recording is also available on another YT channel.
@@MarcusHK1 Thank you very much, and here it is:
th-cam.com/video/oktfgp6dZG4/w-d-xo.html
continuation du premier quatuor , influence expressionniste admirable , fascinant , captivant comme dans une atmosphère envoûtante , l'écriture est complexe , le jeu torturé par les musiciens prodigieux du fameux quatuor julliard , un des cinq plus grands ensembles de tous les temps avec amadeus , budapest , quartetto italiano , alban berg , quatuor tallich ect , merci
En tout cas le style est très différent du premier quatuor, ce qui est d'ailleurs le cas de chacun des quatuors de Carter, par exemple le style du troisième, plus touffu, se distingue à nouveau grandement des précédents. Cela s'explique peut-être notamment par le fait que les 5 quatuors ont été composés à des intervalles assez longs.
A propos j'aime beaucoup son troisième quatuor, très touffu, d'un style percussif (pizzicati et col legno ?). On a parfois l'impression d'entendre tout un orchestre de chambre qui joue.
moi je préfère le second , le cinquième , ils sont de la même veine influencés par le grand arnold schoenberg dont les quatuors sont absolument prodigieux , féeriques
nombreux points communs avec les quatuors de schoenberg dont l'influence sur carter est évidente , les deux artistes sont fascinants surtout pour leurs quatuors
il est normal que les styles des quatuors soit très différents , comme le faisaient mozart , beethoven , et haydn , bien avant carter , pour ses 6 quatuors dédiés à haydn mozart a avoué n'avoir jamais tant souffert pour composer une oeuvre musicale que pour composer ses quatuors , sauf pour ses grands opéras et son requiem , beethoven recommençait plusieurs fois la composition de ses quatuors ,mais il y a une continuité entre ces génies , schubert , haydn , mozart , beethoven , brahms , schoenberg , carter , chostakovitch , le travail en pizzicati est largement utilisé par mozart dans certains de ses quatuors
I just don't get it. Try as I might, this sort of think doesn't appeal to my ear and appealing to the emotions via the ear seems to me to be one of the basic definitions of "music".
Carter's string quartets are very difficult indeed. Even sometimes for myself, though I generally like late 20 c. classical music. Nevertheless there is something about this work which I found fascinating, and made me listen to it over and over. I was struck by the great originality of the composition and I had the impression that it was a masterpiece even before I could fully appreciate it. Even now I dont' think I can fully appreciate it in a purely emotional way (as one usually listens to music). I think that some of Carter's other works are more approachable though then his string quartets.
+MarcusHK1 Well, on the basis of what you say here I will listen again (and again) and try to see in it what you see/hear. Thanks for the reply and for the up-load.
I'm not saying that you must like it, I understand that it's not
everyones cup of tea. If you are not used to this kind of music, it's
probably not the best place to start, there are other contemporary
classical works which are a little more approachable.
That is one of the basic definitions of music, but if you don't have a handle on the patterns as such it can't make that appeal. It appeals to my emotions via the ear.
My esthetic is quite eclectic... & I've tried to appreciate his work all my life (I'm 62) While I certainly appreciate his genius & original contributions (he won a Pulitzer Price for this piece in 1960) I still can't "get into it". His introduction of complex metric modulations & contrasting textures are purely intellectual to me... to such an extent that the word "neurotic" always comes to mind.
Frank Zappa said that he listens to Carter when he likes to "relax & unwind". I don't believe him. I believe he was just trying to educate & document the influence this composer had on Frank during his early years.
Art & Music reflects aspects of a culture & civilization... if this is true than Carter demonstrates how far away from the natural order we have moved.
His approach just pure intellect to me....... like a mathematical exercises with no practical application.