The Subtle Joys of the Quartet
Jan. 29th, 2001 12:59 amI got a comment (from Sunil) asking about string quartets, and my answer turned out to be more appropriate to the length of an entry rather than a comment, so that is the purpose of this entry. The question was:
So what is so appealing about quartet music in particular? How does it differ in sound from sestets, quintets, trios, duets, solos, and such? How is that this magic number of 4 instruments pleases your ear so much? I always thought "Threeeeee, is the magic number, oh yes it is."
And my reply:
I suppose that part of the appeal in a string quartet is the music that is written for it. It tends to be damn good stuff. Also, I think it's the combination of instruments: two violins, viola, cello. Stringed instruments have always been my favorites, particularly the viola, once I was introduced to it. It is in string quartet music that violas tend to have good parts. Good meaning importand and/or not boring. Actually, all the instruments in a piece for string quartet have an important role; things are more equal. You don't have the first violins going off on there atmospherically high melodies and the rest of the instruments merely supporting, perhaps occasionally getting their own chance. In a string quartet, all the instruments get their chance; generally no instrument is emphasized much more than another, especially in 20th century quartets, which is what I've been listening to recently. The string quartet was described early on as "a conversation between four intelligent people," which I think is pretty accurate. The sounds just blend in some special way. Apparently the quartet has the most possibilities for the way sounds can blend, according to some mathematical process having something to do with permutations but which I very vaguely remember from one day when we talked about quartets in orchestra. Once you add a fifth instrument, something changes. Perhaps it is because of tradition, but the fifth instrument becomes more of a soloist and the rest of the group takes on more of a supporting role. And perhaps intimacy has something to do with it, since you have one player on each part as opposed to an army of players. There is a point at which there are too many players for a feeling of intimacy to exist. Does that mean that pieces like Steve Reich's Triple Quartet do not have that feeling of intimacy that quartets generally do? (The Triple Quartet was composed for three separate quartets playing at the same time. Or, in the way Kronos perfomred it, two of the quartet parts recorded and the third played live. Do you know how strange it is to see a quartet getting ready to play but the music has already started? Or for what you're seeing them play be out of synch with what you're hearing?) Beyond that, the question of why quartets are so appealing is what I hope to find out in this class that I'm taking.
It's funny, but although the string quartet is the most common of chamber groups, Reed doesn't have any. Probably because that requires a viola or two, and there aren't that many of us here to begin with, and I don't think there are any signed up for chamber music.
So what is so appealing about quartet music in particular? How does it differ in sound from sestets, quintets, trios, duets, solos, and such? How is that this magic number of 4 instruments pleases your ear so much? I always thought "Threeeeee, is the magic number, oh yes it is."
And my reply:
I suppose that part of the appeal in a string quartet is the music that is written for it. It tends to be damn good stuff. Also, I think it's the combination of instruments: two violins, viola, cello. Stringed instruments have always been my favorites, particularly the viola, once I was introduced to it. It is in string quartet music that violas tend to have good parts. Good meaning importand and/or not boring. Actually, all the instruments in a piece for string quartet have an important role; things are more equal. You don't have the first violins going off on there atmospherically high melodies and the rest of the instruments merely supporting, perhaps occasionally getting their own chance. In a string quartet, all the instruments get their chance; generally no instrument is emphasized much more than another, especially in 20th century quartets, which is what I've been listening to recently. The string quartet was described early on as "a conversation between four intelligent people," which I think is pretty accurate. The sounds just blend in some special way. Apparently the quartet has the most possibilities for the way sounds can blend, according to some mathematical process having something to do with permutations but which I very vaguely remember from one day when we talked about quartets in orchestra. Once you add a fifth instrument, something changes. Perhaps it is because of tradition, but the fifth instrument becomes more of a soloist and the rest of the group takes on more of a supporting role. And perhaps intimacy has something to do with it, since you have one player on each part as opposed to an army of players. There is a point at which there are too many players for a feeling of intimacy to exist. Does that mean that pieces like Steve Reich's Triple Quartet do not have that feeling of intimacy that quartets generally do? (The Triple Quartet was composed for three separate quartets playing at the same time. Or, in the way Kronos perfomred it, two of the quartet parts recorded and the third played live. Do you know how strange it is to see a quartet getting ready to play but the music has already started? Or for what you're seeing them play be out of synch with what you're hearing?) Beyond that, the question of why quartets are so appealing is what I hope to find out in this class that I'm taking.
It's funny, but although the string quartet is the most common of chamber groups, Reed doesn't have any. Probably because that requires a viola or two, and there aren't that many of us here to begin with, and I don't think there are any signed up for chamber music.