Hello, recently I discovered a wonderful Scherzo fragment for string quartett by Mendelssohn from his last year in 1847 (published posthum as op. 81,3) As it is in a-minor I think I could use this as a Scherzo for my project of Mendelssohn's 6th unfinished symphony in C Major and so I orchestrated it in the last 4 days (actually nights ;-) - I like it a lot ... Would you say it could be used for a symphony Scherzo eventhough it does not have a Trio?
http://www.gerdprengel.de/Scherzo81.mp3
It would come after the first movement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsSbVr-RyqI
and before the Andante
http:// https://youtu.be/dzjXaJBPfBQ
Gerd
It sounds far too fast to me - sorry!
It's an attractive piece but I do agree with Alan, Gerd, the tempo is much too fast.
it is the same tempo as in all quartett recording that I have heard like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99QhMayyWNI ( at 5:20 ) or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUmz_CR87qM
Fair enough, I take your point, but they're string quartets and it just sounds too fast when orchestrated, or a least it does in this digital rendition.
You asked whether it would be an appropriate Scherzo for your "Mendelssohn's Sixth" project: the material is certainly very attractive and wouldn't sound out of place, but a Scherzo lasting only 3:35 in a symphony with opening and slow movements both lasting over 11 minutes would surely be inappropriately short? Maybe using it as the basis for the outer sections of a conventional ternery (ABA) Scherzo-Trio-Scherzo movement would be more typical of Mendelssohn's innate sense of balance, although I appreciate that you'd then have to find, or invent, a suitable trio passage. Doing that, though, might make the Scherzo movement overall come in at between 8 and 9 minutes, which strikes me as something one would expect in a Mendelssohn symphony with two other such substantial movements. I'm trying to be helpful, not critical, you understand. I couldn't begin to attempt what you're doing.
I must agree with Mark. Frankly, it's a 'gabble' for an orchestra at this tempo.
Dear Mark, I'll think about the tempo, eventhough I actually like it this way ... For a symphonic Scherzo indeed it is too short, you are right. Maybe I find a proper little work or song by Mendelssohn which I might use for a Trio...
Quotethe tempo, even though I actually like it this way
But it doesn't work!
Alan, Mendelssohn had made an orchestration of the Scherzo of his Octett and used this also for his 1st symphony and this has a comparable tempo and character. Would you here also say that it is too fast ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQN8GybGyQI
Irrelevant, I'm afraid. You are the one doing the orchestration, not Mendelssohn. You can't claim to know what he would have done in this particular case. And the fact is, of course, that he didn't orchestrate this piece!
There are great dangers in guessing what a composer might or might not have done. A modicum of humility is required!
to be clear, we're talking about op.81/3, the quite complete afaik capriccio (not scherzo) in E minor for string quartet from 1843? (There's also Op.81/2, a scherzo in A minor, op.81/2, a complete scherzo, from 1847.) I first heard these works in college (especially op.81/2 - op.81 nos.3 & 4 are marginally less performed than nos.1 & 2, but all of them were published in 1850.)
I'm afraid I also think it's too fast.
You have to think of the players especially the poor woodwind at that speed.
A useful rule of thumb is that fast movements are played too fast whilst slow movements are played too slow. This applies very much to Baroque music but pretty much in everything.
Don't get me started on metrenome markings!
"There's also Op.81/2, a scherzo in A minor, op.81/2, a complete scherzo, from 1847"
Oh, I am sorry, eschiss, - I refer indeed to Op.81/2 ! (op.81/3 however is also VERY beautiful, but not a scherzo...)
The op.81 set indeed is lovely.
I find them somewhat brief (concise...) but not fragmentary in the sense of incomplete. So I was confused. Or is the 1850 published version itself a completion and not just editing work (I know the lines can blur some), likewise Rietz' 1877 edition? Anyhow, cheers!
Whether a scherzo for a long symphony would necessarily be longer, btw, is not clear to me. Is there something about it being a symphony? Because Beethoven seemed to think a brief scherzo in a very long Hammerklavier piano sonata (which has been symphonically orchestrated by others) was -fine-...
But we're evading the issue here. What Gerd is proposing is far too fast. Try reducing the tempo and see where that gets us in terms of overall movement length.
AFAIK Mendelssohn's symphonic scherzos were actually quite short.
I'm on Gerd's side. What I hear is at the same tempo as the Midsummer Night's Dream scherzo is usually taken, with very similar woodwind figuration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUm41WqTix8
In fact it sounds like a crib of the latter...
I'm not at all convinced. It's garbled at that speed. Quite clearly.
And at this point there's clearly little point in simply batting back and forth disagreements over the tempo here. It's not getting us anywhere.
Gerd is perfectly entitled to proceed as he sees fit. Let him do so - and let's see where we end up overall with his project.
Dear Matesic, your hint to the Midsummernight Scherzo was very enlightning!! Thank you! I am amazed about the similiarity and I was not even aware of this Scherzo!! But I think the op. 81 Scherzo has a little more variabelity and as a whole I like it a little more (especially the great tutti passage at 1:55).
I reduced the tempo now slightly by 5%: www.gerdprengel.de/Scherzo81.mp3
I try now also a version with an additional Trio part with a variation of a most beautiful theme of an early Mendelssohn piano sonata ... let's see ...
Thank you for your interest :-) :)
Of course, I can't go back now and hear the first tempo, but to my ears this slight slow down has made all the difference and it now sounds fine. I suppose the question which that begs, given the small change to the tempo, is whether the issue was a software one in the first place? Anyway, to me the Scherzo's tempo now seems to be a natural one.
Yes, the reduction has made all the difference. Instead of sounding forced and mechanical, it now sounds natural and playable. Thanks!
Judging from the identical timings of Gerd's two clips it seems that by the time I heard it the tempo had already been reduced. Of 6 recordings of the string quartet version that can be heard on IMSLP the three fastest are more or less exactly at the revised tempo of 84 dotted crotchets per minute. The string orchestra recording on youtube is around 90 which I think is easily doable and wouldn't cause any problems for wind players familiar, for example, with the finale of the Italian symphony which usually goes at around 100. Take it away, maestro!
QuoteIt seems that by the time I heard it the tempo had already been reduced
Aha! Explains a lot!
Sorry Alan, you got in before my revision!
It's a relief to know that we're now all agreed!
After working all night I made it in 10 hours to write a trio for this symphony. I could have used an own trio theme but I wanted to have it as much of Mendelssohn as possible, so I used 2 tunes of some lesser known works by Mendelssohn: first the lovely theme in major key from the 3rd mov. of his piano sonata op. 106 from his youth and secondly the sad tune of my favourite song by Mendelssohn, the "Schilflied" from op. 71,4, published around 1847. In the repetetion of this second tune I overlayed the first theme (in C-Major) on it (a-minor) and finally I overlayed the motif from the Scherzo on this . The Trio has become a slow waltz and so it is a strong contrast to the fast Scherzo ... What do you think?
www.gerdprengel.de/Scherzo81.mp3
www.gerdprengel.de/Scherzo81.pdf (preliminary score)
Gerd
My first reaction was that, at over 9 minutes, this is now too long (after a first movement of 11:23). Consider for a moment that the 2nd movement of Beethoven 9 is less than a minute longer than this! By comparison I'd expect a Mendelssohn symphonic scherzo to last no more than 5-6 minutes overall.
If I'm honest, I also think it loses too much momentum in the trio section.
This is an odd creative process, but since the question has been asked... Yes, Alan's right, the movement loses too much momentum in the trio, which is too long, and maybe I was misguided in suggesting that the movement should last as long as nine minutes, although I do feel that five or six would be too short given the scale of the other two completed movements. Perhaps 7:30-8:00 would be a better target to aim for, and perhaps do so by reducing the trio and the restatement of the scherzo material? I don't know, it's your project Gerd.
I hesitate to say it, but I just can't conceive of such a long scherzo in a Mendelssohn symphony. Here, for example, are the proportions of three of his symphonies in Abbado's recordings, with the appropriate movements in bold:
Symphony 1: 10:39/6:40/6:45/8:14
Symphony 3: 16:54/4:04/11:28/9:55
Symphony 5: 12:13/5:48/3:45/9:09
My advice would be to wield the scissors!
Fair enough, it's up to Gerd of course - it's his symphony, not Mendelssohn's.
I listened to the work now over and over again and I must say that I love the trio as it is! First I was wondering whether I should refrain from the repetition of the first trio melody ...
The problem what I see is: The Scherzo part after the Trio has some repeated passages which I will try to cut out. For this reapeated Scherzo I find is a bit tiring after all ...
I think that would be a good move. Best wishes for your revision.
A "much briefer scherzo" is no hard-and-fast rule, though symphonies with scherzos almost in proportion (think Schumann's 2nd symphony from about the same time) often do something special to maintain interest (in Schumann's case, at the very least, 2 trios rather than one, as so often with him, for instance- and that latter 2nd symphony's scherzo does -many- things in that connection, between the very unusual scherzo material itself, the canonic 2nd trio, etc. so that it hardly feels stretched out.)
But Mendelssohn wasn't Schumann.
Actually, it was all done with mirrors, so I never noticed.
However, Mendelssohn was also not Mendelssohn. His early works are not a template for his late ones.
Well, since we're talking about a candidate for the scherzo movement of GP's proposed 'Mendelssohn 6', it's interesting to note how consistently brief the scherzos of Symphones 1 (1824), 5 (1832) and 3 (1842) are - over an 18-year period from age 15 to age 33, so I don't believe your argument stacks up, Eric.
So, I shortend now the repetition of the Scherzo only a little bit , BUT: I found also still another solution for the Trio - I use the wonderful Cappricio from op. 81.3 ! Isn't this a more logic and consistent solution as the Scherzo is based on op. 81.2 ? And it's a great piece of music... What do you think which Trio version fits better?
http://www.gerdprengel.de/Scherzo81-new.mp3
http://www.gerdprengel.de/Scherzo81-new.pdf
(if possible please listen to it with headphones)
Sorry - at 8:42 it's still too long. I found it tiring, if I'm honest. It's like Mendelssohn on steroids!
I'd suggest pulling something Berwaldish off, combining the scherzo with a slow movement, but Mendelssohn didn't much like Berwald's music, it seems? Still, there are multiple kinds of solutions to a given problem (I say as someone who sort of likes the idea behind Blackwood's what-if musics.)
Nah - just shorten the scherzo by cutting out all unnecessary repetitions and make sure the trio doesn't 'spread'. Mendelssohn, after all, was a classical romantic, if you see what I mean.
congratulations on a nice piece of stylistic orchestration. I only had time to listen to the first 5 minutes of your original version, but my comments are: tempo is good - no problem for flutes etc who are use to and enjoy playing Italian symphony at speed. It does feel a bit awkward at 0.17/18; 1.14; 2.37 and 3.05-3.20 where (without viewing the score) it seems to me that the orchestration might need adjustment. And at 4.0-ish it all seemed uncharacteristically lacking in oomph. Just my personal opinions on a first hearing, but overall I thought it very well done.