Ferdinand Hiller string quartet No 1

[Double-A]

... but I'm impressed by the excerpts of Johann Benjamin Gross's (1809-1848) third quartet on editionsilvertrust.com. His first two quartets (1833 and 1837, parts on imslp) might be worth sampling too. In an overview of string quartets of the 1830's Mendelssohn, Spohr and Onslow are clearly the dominant figures, venturing (perhaps a little tentatively) into the romantic era, but can anyone think of a work apart from Mendelssohn's Op.13 suggesting its composer was acquainted with Beethoven?

I'd like to modify this question:  Can you think of a work suggesting the composer was acquainted with late Beethoven?  And indeed where are these works?  It seems to me for example (maybe I am listening incorrectly?) that Brahms' entire chamber music is in the tradition of middle Beethoven--and that would be a generation after Hiller and Mendelssohn.

I think it is important to keep the generations apart:  Spohr and Onslow were "hit" by Beethoven's late quartets in mid career and both rejected them as "crazy".  This seems a fairly normal reaction by contemporaries to a revolutionary novelty they had not produced themselves.  But Mendelssohn and Gross (and Hiller) were young whippersnappers when the late quartets appeared and must have been fascinated.  And it seems to me that Gross's excerpts on the Silvertrust web site show that he also tried to react to them and not just by naming the slow movement "Cavatina" (Mendelssohn "quoted" the Cavatina in op. 12).  I am very impressed by what I heard and want to learn more about Gross whose name I have never encountered before.

As to Reicha he has a set of 6 flute quartets (flute plus string trio) two of which I believe are on Youtube.  There the part writing is very good indeed.  Apart from the four Mozart they may well be the best pieces available for this combination (my own first serious attempts at chamber music were with the four Mozart flute quartets, so I am a little partial to the combination).

[Santo Neuenwelt]

Here are a few that show influence of Late Beethoven

Karl Weigl String Quartet No.3,
Friedrich Kiel String Quartet No.1
Alexis Castillon String Quartet No.1
Wilhelm Stenhammar String Quartet Nos. 3 & 4
Heinrich von Herzogenberg String Quartet No.5
Ferruccio Busoni String Quartet No.2
Paul Scheinpflug String Quartet
Felix Weingartner String Quartets 3 and 2

[Alan Howe]

We're in danger of getting off topic here...

[matesic]

I was actually thinking of the 1830's! Interestingly, Gross's second quartet (1837) seems to show none of the Beethovenian (and Mendelssohnian) influences that he evinces in the third quartet (1843). After Beethoven's death it seems to have been more than a decade before anyone (except the 18-year-old Mendelssohn!) dared to venture onto ground which was hallowed for some, a minefield for others. But thanks to Santo for his list of brave ones including several I don't know. 

[Alan Howe]

After Beethoven's death it seems to have been more than a decade before anyone (except the 18-year-old Mendelssohn!) dared to venture onto ground which was hallowed for some, a minefield for others.

Well, that's true in virtually all musical genres...

[Double-A]

After Beethoven's death it seems to have been more than a decade before anyone (except the 18-year-old Mendelssohn!) dared to venture onto ground which was hallowed for some, a minefield for others.

Well, that's true in virtually all musical genres...

I don't quite understand.  Surely there is no second group of works quite like Beethoven's late quartets and sonatas.  I find it interesting that Mendelssohn--after boldly tackling late Beethoven as a teenager--retreated to the "safety" of middle Beethoven with his op. 44.  Even lectured his sister about it in a letter.

But I'd like to add some random observations on Hiller's quartets no 1 and 2 before the thread has run its course (which included some vey worthwhile deviations from the original topic).

Apart from his harmony Hiller has a tendency to obscure the reprise--or sneak it in--in sonata movements (unlike say Haydn or Beethoven who often make it a key event and carefully prepare the ground for it), and also to shorten the recapitulation.  Another feature is a somewhat fussy concern about getting markings right:  Tempo markings like "Andante poco agitato" or Adagio quasi andante" are one example.  More uncommon in the 1830's is the density of dynamic hairpin markings:  Sometimes greater than Reger's (and Reger put in so many hairpins it is almost impossible to execute them all).

To summarize:  My personal judgement about Hillers's op 12 and 13:  They are good, well written quartets, they do show some originality, especially in harmony.  They also seem to be modeled on Haydn (ins spite of the differences pointed out earlier--not on Mozart IMO) more than on any more contemporary models and are quite old fashioned (as opposed to conservative like Mendelssohn or Brahms) for Hiller's time in many ways.  At any rate Hiller's personal style--at least in the quartets--differs vastly from Mendelssohn's.  And while these two quartets are good they lack that lastly intangible quality of greatness.  Op 105 by comparison is rather a disappointment as already mentioned.  (BTW the extra note in that unplayable double stop could be given to the cello with no problems.  It may be smarter though to just omit the c sharp as it occurs in both violin parts anyhow.)

I have the theory that every composition is as good as its best possible interpretation.  If correct this means that somebody could come along at any time and prove in practice that these works--or any other composition we all thought was mediocre--are in fact great.

[matesic]

As a onetime-scientist, I understand the importance of not believing too strongly in your own theories, so I'm assuming yours is presented in the nature of a debating point! One would expect a musician of Hiller's eminence to display a high degree of technical competence and imagination, which is clearly demonstrated in the piece I listened to today (the G major piano quintet Op. 156). So I confess I'm surprised to find his string quartets so disappointing. The notation error in Op.13 is unimportant, but you mention his fussy concern about getting tempo markings right. Why, then, are we in disagreement about the intended tempo (and consequently mood) of the Andante poco agitato of Op.12 - did he not possess a metronome? To me this suggests an underlying uncertainty of what he was trying to convey. I'm inclined to think he was one of many who in the context of string-quartet writing found themselves tongue-tied by the spectre of Beethoven.

As I implied previously, the first two movements of Op.12 struck me as little better than pastiche and the finale as wholly uninspired. To be convinced that this is a "good, well-written" quartet I might well need to hear it in its best possible interpretation, but without more immediate evidence of originality, ingenuity or virtuosity I doubt it will ever attract players good enough to discover its hidden depths.

[Double-A]

I won't say anything more about Hiller, just about my "theory".  Disclosure:  I am a scientist myself.

The "theory" originated in a radio discussion about Heinz Holliger (I can't remember when, on which station, even in what language I heard it).  The summary of it was that Holliger was forced to look for pieces by minor composers by the narrowness of the repertoire for oboe.  And that he was able to play them in such a way as to make them worth listening to.  And I thought:  Maybe it is the other way:  By playing them that way he proved that they were  well composed.

Using this in my last post I intended to add a dash of irony, but it did not seem to come through; I guess I ought to have put "theory" in quotes.

[chill319]

I for one am very glad you are making more Hiller available, double-A. I was listening this afternoon to Balakirev's first piano concerto and was struck by how strongly influenced he was by Hiller (if one didn't know Hiller one might think the influence was mostly Chopin, but actually it's not).

The unplayable viola double-stop is perhaps a clue, but does anyone happen to know what kind of players the quartet was written for? Put another way, who was still gathering to play string quartets in 1830s Paris? Mostly amateurs? Mostly professionals? Mostly nobody? Onslow was very productive. Anyone else?

[Double-A]

I'd hypothesize that this first quartet was aimed at amateurs.  Technically it is quire a bit less demanding than the contemporary Mendelssohn quartets.  As to the role of the string quartet in the musical life of the time maybe Spohr's autobiography supplies some details (the copy on Gutenberg Project is a (bad) old English translation; the book is tedious at times but full of interesting details if you are interested in the musical life of the era).  The custom of the permanent professional quartet we have been used to is at any rate still way in the future in 1830.

[matesic]

I take it all back! Having written off Hiller's finale as uninspired, I think I now perceive where he was coming from. In 1834 what recently published masterpiece had an (allegro molto) vivace movement in a similarly unrelenting 6/8 rhythm, without a single semiquaver for variety? Once I had Beethoven's Op.131 in mind, suddenly the piece sounded completely different. OK, some passages still remind one of a music-hall tune, but it appears Hiller's youthful thinking may have been even closer to Mendelssohn's (in his Op.13 quartet) than we assumed. Now I shall have to find out how it plays!

[Double-A]

On the other hand there is a longstanding tradition going back into the baroque of just such movements as final movements (Beethoven's serves as "scherzo").  6 out of the 12 sonatas op 2 by Vivaldi for example close on such a movement (called Giga or Gigue).  Haydn has finales like this (the E flat quartet from op 33, G Major from op 64 etc.) and Mozart as well (string quintet in G major (?)).  Indeed Mendelssohn has quite a few final movements of this type.

[matesic]

We almost seem to have exchanged positions on the merits of this piece! If Hiller was merely reflecting classical models (which I previously assumed, based on the earlier movements), I'd say he was doing so incompetently. At this date I'm not sure what pieces of Mendelssohn might have served as his model - surely not Op.12? But if, on the other hand, he was struggling to embrace a radical new ethos of string quartet writing...well, you might award him only 4 marks out of 10 but I was quite surprised by how my response to what I was hearing was transformed by that change of mindset. I wonder if any of Hiller's other music from this period suggests similarly high ambition?

[Double-A]

Well.  I was never as "bullish" on these quartets as you seemed to be "bearish".  You had a point--I just felt you were overstating it and felt compelled to defend the piece as much as I judged possible.
I do think you need some more evidence to show that Beethoven was indeed present in Hiller's mind for the last movement of the quartet.  Which is why I brought up the tradition of 6/8 final movements.  Mendelssohn's op 12 (at least partially) and op 44/1 (this one is indeed somewhat tedious too) are examples, quoted more to show that the tradition was alive and well at the time, not that there is a Mendelssohn model for the Hiller movement--Hiller didn't need it given the tradition.
Beethoven's movement is quite different from the Hiller:  More transparent, more dialogue between the instruments, dynamics used more effectively, especially with those accents on the weak beat; it has a light touch.  Hiller's movement in comparison sounds compact and a little monotone.  I do think the beginning with its harmony makes a good opening statement and is quite original (I don't know all quartets by Spohr and Onslow, let alone Reicha, so there may be models in there somewhere though).  Of course the movement goes on too long.
Another idea that came to me:  What originality Hiller displays here--and there is some there demonstrably in all four movements--somehow moves sideways, orthogonal to history.  Maybe because his goal was just to find ways to write pieces in the Haydn/Mozart (more Haydn than Mozart IMO) spirit without repeating their style precisely rather than find a way to express the needs of an entirely new age the way say Schumann or Berlioz did.
And even more speculatively:  This--moving sideways--may similarly be the case for Reicha who is generally described as a brilliant theoretician with all sorts of innovative ideas (he was also an extremely successful teacher; a 19th century equivalent to Nadia Boulanger almost).  But IMSLP is a miserable source for Reicha's quartets (the parts for most or all of them are available from Merton music so if you want you can play them) and I haven't really had a chance to look into him more thoroughly.

[matesic]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as Schuppanzigh used to say. Under the fingers I found Hiller's finale somewhat gauche and unadventurous in its part writing, but musically inventive and enjoyable. There's a strong echo of Mendelssohn in the second subject and yes, I still believe Hiller may have been recalling Op.131 in an imperfectly digested way. Like quite a few others, he may have just been doffing his cap to the master. I'm not sure I'll get around to the other movements, but here at least is the finale.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/7rf8a9xowpboguv/hiller_sq1_mvt4.mp3

I didn't look hard for transcription mistakes but should mention a few - in bar 51 the pause is missing from v2, va and vc; in bar 47 v1 the last note should be G#; in bar 316 v1 the Bb should be C#; in bar 340 v2 the C should be C#.

I agree that Hiller should probably be seen as a forward-looking composer whose misfortune was not to progress as radically or in the same direction as the romantic "greats". I'm currently transcribing F.E.Fesca's Op.1 quartets, and they too I can envisage as building on Mozart and Haydn, contemporary with but completely independently of Beethoven.

I look forward to having my prejudices about Reicha dashed when I finally hear some of his quartets all the way through. As you know, the Merton Music catalogue is now available from Ourtext. 90% of Merton editions were placed on IMSLP before the transfer of ownership but some were left out by mistake, and I was unable to persuade the proprietor of Ourtext to surrender up the remainder. At around £5 for each set of parts, why don't I just buy a few?