String quartet in E minor by Emilie Mayer

[Double-A]

About half a year ago I finished a typeset of this quartet--or rather two typesets as there are two versions of it (incidentally it was by googling the name of Emilie Mayer that I first became aware of this forum.  Also the source I used was posted to IMSLP by Eric Schissel).  The typesets are here.

I think this quartet is brilliant, especially the second version and I'd like to get the word out about it.  So I wrote a piece about it which tells the story of the two versions and contains a fairly detailed description of them.  Those who are interested can read it here.

[matesic]

Obviously I must have a go at this! From the excerpts of the Op.14 quartet that can be heard on editionsilvertrust.com she was a highly significant composer, composing much chamber music in an era when this was somewhat unfashionable. I do wonder, however, whether by overpraising such works we might actually be doing them a disservice by risking disappointed expectations. Mayer's Op.14 quartet is described on editionsilvertrust as "the equal of the quartets of Mendelssohn and Schumann". This site also considers the third piano quintet of Jadassohn as the equal of Brahms's and Dvorak's, making me seriously question the author's judgment (or hearing aid).

[Double-A]

Sorry, I didn't mean to increase your workload:-)  Though I appreciate you working on it of course.  Thank you!

I am aware of the problem you cite:  Too much praise can be counterproductive.  Two defenses (such as they are):

I feel that this quartet is truly special and believe that your caution is less necessary than in general*.  (And I find the situation with the three sources fascinating:  It allows us to kind of watch her at work.)

At the same time look at what I compare it with (if you have read my piece):  Not Beethoven op 59 or Brahms or Schumann.  Rather Mendelssohn op 44:  Very good quartets (especially the e-minor is part of the most sung--and most played--20 or 30 string quartets in the literature), but more sound craftsmanship then greatness.

I also believe I have managed to avoid the word "great" in the piece.

And since you mention Prof. Silvertrust I might as well give his chamber music journal a mention.  Its articles often (actually almost always) deal with unsung composers.  You find articles or series of articles on Reicha's string quartets, Farrenc's chamber music and so on.  The quality is not always stellar and one can't deny that Silvertrust has some bees in his bonnet, but it is a very useful resource for lovers of chamber music, especially amateurs who play themselves.  His sort of work is only done by enthusiasts so we should forgive him for occasional hyperbole.


* I have to admit though that I remember a post by Alan Howe--somewhere out of reach of my ability to search; it was in a thread about some topic other than Emilie Mayer--which judged the op 14 quartet with a very distinct lack of enthusiasm (contrary to what one finds elsewhere).  It is not the same work but still a call for caution I suppose. 

[Santo Neuenwelt]

With regard to our saying Mayer's Op.14 is the equal of Mendelssohn's or Schumann's quartets, perhaps we should have been more restrained and said some of them.

But really, Matesic, as a player, you must know that the Mendelssohn quartets or those of Schumann are not the ne plus ultra. I recall being in a chamber music class years ago in Vienna with Boskovsky who dismissed Mendelssohn's Quartets because there was so much "Roodle Doodle" in the lower voices, noting that that the lower parts were probably written at the piano emulating the left hand. And if you play them, its true. There are long stretches of such passages in almost all of his works. No one would deny the compelling melodies one finds in them, but if you play the viola or cello, roodle doodle will often be your fate in virtually all of them.

And Schumann, he has been attacked, unjustly I think, for the same thing by many although I do not think it is as apparent from the writing as those of Felix. They could even be called unsung because they are performed so rarely, a pity. Anyway, taste, of course, is personal. We did not, after all, say the Mayer was the equal of Beethoven, Brahms or late Schubert.

As for the Jadassohn, having played it 3 times, I think it is in the same league as the Dvorak and Brahms. An even stronger case can be made for the Kiel Opp.75 and 76 for which we make the same assertion. But, in the opinion of three different pianists and a dozen string players who took part, the concensus was that the Jadassohn 3 is first rate. (And we did have our hearing aids on when we played.) I reiterate though, taste is personal and subjective. One teacher's A may be another teacher's B but one would hope not a D or F. Maybe the Jadassohn is a B for you and an A for us, but, certainly I hope you do not feel is is a D or F...

This website is about unsungs. I throw this thought out for consideration. Not everything the "Greats" produced was first rate or even deserving of performance. Yet, these works get performed simply because they are by a famous composer while first rate works by a composer who may not have produced too many or any other such works languish. If sometimes we slip into hyperbole, it is simply an attempt to get a good work noticed. Something that is unlikely to happen if we say, well, here is another nice work...

[eschiss1]

Are you speaking of (Felix) Mendelssohn's 4 piano quartets, or of the way he may have composed the quartets in short score? The bit about piano has me a bit at a loss there. (And when I think of his quartets my mind goes immediately to the best of them anyway, perhaps unfairly- the Op.posth.80 in F minor...)

[Santo Neuenwelt]

Not his Piano Quartets. His String Quartets, Opp.12, 13, 44 Nos.1-3, Op.80 & 81. The response was to the original comment by Matesic about our opinion of Emilie Mayer's Op.14 String Quartet which included a comparison to Mendelssohn's  string quartets. Have you played them, or just heard them? If you have played them, especially if you are a violist or cellist or a violinist who has spoken with your violist or cellist, you will know what roodle doodle is all about...If you have only heard them, you may not know since in good recordings the roodles, either by the players or the recording engineers, are kept well in the background, and rightly so...

[Double-A]

Wow!  If the Mendelssohn quartets are that bad why use them as a comparison point?

Roodle Doodle!  I assume you mean things like the syncopated accompaniment in the e-minor quartet.  This is not a bug but a feature.  Almost all of Mendelssohn's fast movements have a relentless forward-leaning drive, as if afraid to die before the end is reached (almost a metaphor on Mendelssohn's life).  It seems to me it is the very character of the man.  And to insinuate technical incompetence (as in "composed at the piano emulating the left hand") in the case of Mendelssohn strikes me as ignorant--no longer just a difference in taste.

I have played (not performed of course) all of them--first and second fiddle.  Everybody I know (including violists and cellists) agrees  that they are very pleasant to play, also not too difficult (though the fast tempi required can be a challenge, see paragraph above).  As I said above I consider them very good, not great--with the exception of the a-minor op 13, young Mendelssohn's attempt to deal with Beethoven's late quartets which is among my absolute favorites.  (Op. 80 on the other hand gets a lot of fame for its "un-Mendelssohnian" emotional turmoil, but it is really a bit too straightforward for my taste).  Only op. 81 are subpar and Mendelssohn never published them, they appeared only after his death.  BTW Schumann no. 1 and especially no. 2 may be unsung, no. 3 certainly not.

Anyhow by talking down Mendelssohn you lower expectations for the Mayer by implication.

[matesic]

It would be great to be able to sort out this (minor) disgreement with instruments in hand! I'm sure most amateur groups would agree that with an agile first violinist Mendelssohn's quartets are exciting and rewarding to play. Roodle-doodle or no, it's usually our viola-player who requests one, at the end of a session when the wine has ruled out anything more intellectually demanding.

I think it was irresponsible of Mr Boskovsky to air his dislike in such a way. At the keynote concert of a course I attended a group that shall remain nameless decided (out of contempt) to "send up" a movement of a Tchaikovsky quartet that happened to be one of my favourites. And still is!

Of course, the other danger of over-praising the pretty good is to diminish the truly great. I admit I haven't played the Jadassohn 3rd quintet or even heard it in its entirety (has it ever been released on CD?) but I'm afraid the two movements that are played in reverse order on youtube do not make my hair stand on end, my blood run hot and cause me to grip the arms of my seat as does the Brahms.

[eschiss1]

There is/was a recording of the Jadassohn 3rd on a Real Sound CD that also contains his 4th piano trio and, I think, 1st piano quartet (this work has been recorded since then on the Querstand label). (Well, you asked...)

Mayer's Op.14 quartet can be heard in full on a 1999 cpo CD, btw.

[matesic]

Returning to the topic of this thread, on first playthrough the second version of the E minor quartet puts me strongly in mind of Mendelssohn's Op.80! The most obvious similarity is how the scherzo (second movement) maintains the feverish minor key mood of the first. Felix was allegedly lamenting the death of Fanny, so I wonder if Emilie was also giving romantic vent to her grief? How well the piece works as a whole should become clearer next time through.

[Santo Neuenwelt]

Comparing the Mayer Op.14 to the quartets of Mendelssohn was not a slam against Mendelssohn but a compliment. Your rather harsh response was that we are not using our hearing aids. To which I pointed out that the Mendelssohn quartets, which are very good, are not without certain faults such as the frequent use of roodle doodle accompaniment. Roodle doodle, is exemplifed in the piano by the left hand, usually thumb and little finger, alternating between 2 notes. It has nothing to do with syncopation. To give but one example. have a look at the first page of the finale in the cello part to Op.80. Of course, it is used in liberally in many other places of his quartets...

As for the Jadassohn Piano Quintet No.3, you can hear soundbites of all four movements here: http://www.editionsilvertrust.com/jadassohn-piano-quintet-3.htm.

As I wrote earlier, taste is subjective. Perhaps you think the Mendelssohn quartets, which as I have said are very good, the equal of Beethoven, Brahms or late Schubert, the ne plus ultra. I do not. Does that mean I am wrong and you are right? If I think the Griller Quartet was better than the Amadeus and you disagree, am I wrong and you are right? I don't think so...

As it was said in Gentlemen Prefer Blonds---every gentleman has the right to support whichever he prefers, redheads, brunettes or blonds. Gray heads and baldies were not mentioned...

[eschiss1]

Well, since the Grillers played and recorded Ernest Bloch's quartets, Bax, ... and recorded works by composers even more modern (or at least, less Romantic, e.g. Michael Tippett, Edmund Rubbra...), the fact that I also favor them (or agree with your hypothetical, at least)- oh never mind, that's way off-topic for this thread...

[Double-A]

Now this is a surprise!  I have no idea what other quartet the e-minor reminds me of, but Mendelssohn f-minor would have been low on my list.  You are right though about the scherzo continuing the mood of the first movement.  But the Mendelssohn is much more emotionally constant (almost to excess) than the Mayer.  E.g. Mendelssohn stays right in f-minor whereas Mayer introduces a new key or Mayer has a trio section in A-Major that is much brighter than the scherzo whereas the trio in the Mendelssohn contrasts only by evoking a somewhat different dark emotion.  I find the Mendelssohn scherzo rather angry than anything else with its syncopated hemiolas in the beginning followed by the ironic answer in the straightest possible 3/4 meter in piano as if to ask: "What's the matter?"  Mayer's mood is more of anxiety.

Also the beginning of the Mendelssohn with its nasty teeth gritting tremolo is quite a distance from the rather stately beginning of the Mayer who I think was right to call the movement Allegro maestoso.

[matesic]

I just uploaded my rendition to imslp, and also here:

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/86bb17lcyurkadw/mayer.mp3

There are a few corrections, queries and suggestions that I put on an imslp Discussion page under your username.

My general feeling is that this is a fine and original piece, somewhat let down by the Adagio which really needs a contrasted middle section. I think you're right that it owes little or nothing to Mendelssohn, but exactly what Emilie's influences were is hard to detect. She was clearly out to "push the envelope" of minor-key mood and modulation, while not departing far from classical models. Anyway, thanks for a highly worthwhile experience!

Steve

[Double-A]

It sounds great!  Thanks!

Only one little difference of opinion:  I'd have played the trio sections in the scherzo slower (crotchet ~ 110) and sang out the melodies for all they are worth (including the rises in triplets) to create some rest in between the scherzo sections.

Interesting how tastes vary:  I find the slow movement the most impressive in its very constancy.  I am not in danger of losing interest throughout the movement.  Maybe a slightly faster tempo (crotchet ~ 45, this is still a very slow adagio; the key is that it feels in crotchets as the beat, not at all in quavers) would help (it seems to me that uneven measures often need to be counted a bit faster than even measures at the same tempo marking).

As to influences only Beethoven--the one everybody quotes when Emilie Mayer is to be discussed--comes to mind, not so much any details as the fact that the form is consciously constructed and also the very ambition behind the piece.