Cello sonatas

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Sorry, no! You have the wrong track. The sonata is I think the one below the last of the 3 pieces in that listing. It's just set that way beacause Spotify doesn't show all the tracks.

Argh! Curse this newfangled wireless technology!

However tracks 4-6 are the little pieces, also by Webern. Thanks for highlighting these. Probably can listen to all these Webern finds in under 15 minutes.

At another extreme, Richard Barrett mentioned Feldman's Patterns in a Chromatic Field for 'cello and piano, which is available (all 80mins of it) via youTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntpmn0YXXWI&list=PL425BD5EE976D5915

[verismissimo]

With a duo, the two instruments share equally the musical argument and neither assumes a dominant role. With a sonata, the explicated instrument will lead, and the second or implied instrument takes a supporting subordinate role. I'm often on these boards, if you ever have technical music issues that you need a steer on.

This exposition might do for GCSE or Wikipedia, Beefie, but not in real musical life!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... generic titles seem in reality to be by no means as clearly defined as one might like them to be or imagine that they are.

Cultural politics plays an important rôle here, too: in the Nineteenth Century, the word "Sonata" was reserved for "serious" works for one or two instruments; works whose composers sought to place themselves in an Austro-German tradition for which the paradigm was seen and heard in the sonatas of Haydn, Mozart and (especially) Beethoven. This "placing" allowed for a variety of responses, with composers generally "siding" with the Mendelssohn/Brahms "conservative" mindset of continuing that tradition, or with the Lisztian "radical" mindset that explored means of regenerating it. (The cautionary inverted commas are intended to make it clear how I'm aware that I'm oversimplifying.) Works for duo with more modest aspirations were given titles like Albumblatt, Fantasiestücke or suchlike - and it is this dualistic attitude that I think lies behind Webern's decision that his works were Bagatelles, Stücke or (and something closer to a "real" "Sonata" suggested here) Satz.

By calling a work "Sonata" in the 19th Century, composers were often making clear their "allegiance" to that Austro-German tradition even(?/especially?) composers born outside Germany and Austria. Composers who resented the tradition's hegemony tended to avoid writing Sonatas (Tchaikovsky wrote a Piano Sonata, M(o)us(s)orgky didn't) - but attitudes began to change at the end of the Century. Debussy only used the title for his last three works, written when France was at war with Germany - nothing further from Brahms could be imagined than the (astonishing) Sonata for Flute, Harp & Viola; it's a political point that Debussy is making, referring back to the way the title was used by French Baroque composers - not a fixed way of writing (with at least one movement in "Sonata Form") but a work for instruments to play/"sound" (as opposed to a cantata, a work for voices to sing - and it's interesting for those of us with nothing better to do with our time, to ruminate on how the cantata genre didn't continue into the 19th Century with the same aesthetic significance as that of the sonata).

The cultural resonance of the word "sonata" continues to today: in general, it's "conservative" composers who write works that use the title; "radical" (by which I mean those composers who re-investigate the very roots of Musical communication) either avoid using the word in their titles, or pointedly refer to the pre-Classical origins of the word.

[Dave2002]

Argh! Curse this newfangled wireless technology!

Indeed! I have been trying to reply and correct some aspects of my msg 28 for over half an hour without success. My 1st Gen iPad is now absolutely useless for this kind of thing - crashes most of the time - certainly on this board. Maybe I should now send it off for microwaving.

Thanks to Roehre for pointing out why Webern's sonata is so short - even shorter than some of his other pieces.

Two other Webern pieces - in a rather different and many might feel rather beautiful style - are the two pieces for cello 1. Langsam 2.Langsam -
see http://open.spotify.com/track/2bMfNqfcroAVydE8jca1h3 - tracks 9 and 10 and you may have to open the whole thing up to see all the tracks, though clicking on the image with the "play" button if you see that should play the first of these, then the second.

While exploring these I also found Liget's solo cello sonata - http://open.spotify.com/track/4YETFqLEOs2AoHse0N3bIv and http://open.spotify.com/track/4vgTyzsCp9kbAiQHzR0mvS

[ahinton]

Richard Barrett and fhg have expressed far more eloquently than I could have done the issues that arise out of the question "what was/is a sonata?". Many thanks for this. M Leboeuf please note...

[Beef Oven!]

This exposition might do for GCSE or Wikipedia, Beefie, but not in real musical life!

I was only trying to help.

I'll stick to rissoles.

[kea]

The cultural resonance of the word "sonata" continues to today: in general, it's "conservative" composers who write works that use the title; "radical" (by which I mean those composers who re-investigate the very roots of Musical communication) either avoid using the word in their titles, or pointedly refer to the pre-Classical origins of the word.

Worth noting that (a) there no longer seems to be any cultural cachet attached to the word "sonata" or sonata form—indeed where the sonata was the proving ground for the conservative composer in the 19th century and the symphony in the 20th, the opera seems to be in the 21st—and conservative composers of the present day are no more likely to title extended instrumental works "sonata" than anything else; (b) inexplicably, no one has yet mentioned Poulenc.

[Richard Barrett]

where the sonata was the proving ground for the conservative composer in the 19th century and the symphony in the 20th, the opera seems to be in the 21st

I hadn't thought of it like that, but yes. (Of course the very idea that there is or should be such a "proving ground" implicitly refers to conservative composers!)

One aspect of the decline of (so-called) sonatas would also be the decline in necessity for a piano "accompaniment" (in the sense(s) prevalent between say 1750 and 1950) to a solo melody instrument. I would imagine that pieces for "unaccompanied" cello are now more often encountered than pieces for cello and piano, whatever their title.

[Sir Velo]

One aspect of the decline of (so-called) sonatas would also be the decline in necessity for a piano "accompaniment" (in the sense(s) prevalent between say 1750 and 1950) to a solo melody instrument. I would imagine that pieces for "unaccompanied" cello are now more often encountered than pieces for cello and piano, whatever their title.

No doubt you have Britten's masterly suites for solo cello in mind.

Not sure, however, why compositions for cello would no longer have the "necessity for a piano accompaniment" since 1950. Has the cello changed significantly in its configuration and construction as an instrument?

[kea]

I hadn't thought of it like that, but yes. (Of course the very idea that there is or should be such a "proving ground" implicitly refers to conservative composers!)

Perhaps—I think it refers more to The Establishment, and the notion that any composer who doesn't write an X isn't really serious about it. Which ties in somewhat to conservatism, but also composers who were quite progressive and forward-thinking in many respects (eg Mahler, Schoenberg) supplied symphonies and string quartets (another favourite proving ground, which has survived to this day largely on the advocacy of Mr. Arditti and co.) to demonstrate their mastery whilst stretching the definition of the traditional genre (reducing the symphony to a chamber orchestra, expanding it to hundreds of players and singers, adopting more fluid tonalities and forms and means of expression etc; to say nothing of adding a soprano to a string quartet).

early 19th century to early 20th century -> domestic music-making -> demand for sonatas -> example of Beethoven to follow, making the sonata a "serious" genre
early 20th century to ??? -> rise of virtuoso string quartets and chamber music concerts, in tandem with the decline of domestic music-making -> demand for string quartets -> example of Beethoven to follow, making the string quartet a "serious" genre
late 19th century to late 20th century -> rise of superstar conductors and orchestras -> demand for symphonies -> example of Beethoven to follow, making the symphony a "serious" genre
late 20th century to ??? -> decline of orchestras, superstar conductors jump ship to opera houses -> demand for operas -> example of Wagner to follow, making the opera a "serious" genre

I mean I'm oversimplifying but hopefully this makes sense

One aspect of the decline of (so-called) sonatas would also be the decline in necessity for a piano "accompaniment" (in the sense(s) prevalent between say 1750 and 1950) to a solo melody instrument. I would imagine that pieces for "unaccompanied" cello are now more often encountered than pieces for cello and piano, whatever their title.

Of course, the whole reason piano accompaniments were needed was because sonatas existed for domestic use (at least at first). The violin/viola/cello (or whatever) player couldn't be expected to be a conservatory-trained virtuoso, so their part couldn't be very difficult; every house had a piano (or some kind of keyboard instrument) and playing the piano gave young ladies something sexy to do that wasn't unfeminine. Chamber music was useful for getting whole families or groups of friends involved in music-making. The exception being solo piano sonatas, which consequently tended to be longer, more involved and more difficult. Nowadays, with domestic music-making a thing of the past, the solo piece is a showcase for a particular performer, so there's not any need for an accompaniment (it might actually detract from the purpose of the piece, and extra instrumentalists are expensive to hire).

[ahinton]

One aspect of the decline of (so-called) sonatas would also be the decline in necessity for a piano "accompaniment" (in the sense(s) prevalent between say 1750 and 1950) to a solo melody instrument. I would imagine that pieces for "unaccompanied" cello are now more often encountered than pieces for cello and piano, whatever their title.

I think that there is indeed a greater proportion of solo cello works nowadays as distinct from works for cello and piano but, again, there's also probably a greater proportion of works in recent cello and piano repertoire that are not called "sonatas". Your mention of "conservative composers" here reminds me, however, that in the output of David Matthews (who could presumably be considered as one in the sense in which I take you to you mean it) there are seven symphonies with an eighth currently in progress and twelve string quartets but not one sonata for an instrument with piano and hardly any other works entitled "sonata" either; likewise, Colin Matthews has no sonatas in his output other than two extant works for orchestra (nos. 4 & 5 - I don't know what became of 1, 2 and 3). Maw wrote no sonatas for a single instrument and piano, there are none from (Richard Rodney) Bennett, Adès, Knussen, Goehr, Anderson, Stevenson or Musgrave - and Benjamin has just one; it might seem that the days of the "sonata" for one instrument with piano are numbered, even among "conservative" composers (fluid a term though that inevitably is).

[Boilk]

By calling a work "Sonata" in the 19th Century, composers were often making clear their "allegiance" to that Austro-German tradition ... Composers who resented the tradition's hegemony tended to avoid writing Sonatas

It's a shame that the term String Quartet (unlike Sonata or Symphony) represents both the medium and the title of the work. The "dilemma" for the composer who wanted to write for the medium yet distance the work from any "allegiance" to the Austro-German tradition of 'Sonatas for String Quartet', was how to title the work to make that clear. Hence Bagatelles for String Quartet (Webern) or Microludes for String Quartet (Kurtág).

Even so, I can't help feeling that a new work for string quartet (regardless of any elegant title/musical originality) is an implicit statement of a certain "allegiance" to an old tradition -- more so than a new work for orchestra, even though the orchestra has as much (if not more) historical baggage.

[amateur51]

Couldn't agree more with Suffolkcoastal. One of the meatiest Cello sonatas ever.
Actually it's almost a duo, given how demanding and interdependent the two parts often are!

My favourite recording is with Fred Sherry (Cello) and Paul Jacobs on the Nonesuch label.

A wonderful discovery and many thanks to Boilk & Suffs for bringing it to my attention

[ahinton]

It's a shame that the term String Quartet (unlike Sonata or Symphony) represents both the medium and the title of the work. The "dilemma" for the composer who wanted to write for the medium yet distance the work from any "allegiance" to the Austro-German tradition of 'Sonatas for String Quartet', was how to title the work to make that clear. Hence Bagatelles for String Quartet (Webern) or Microludes for String Quartet (Kurtág).

Well, one composer had the best of both of these particular worls by entitling his official first (though actually his second) string quartet thus - i.e. Sonatas for String Quartet!

Even so, I can't help feeling that a new work for string quartet (regardless of any elegant title/musical originality) is an implicit statement of a certain "allegiance" to an old tradition -- more so than a new work for orchestra, even though the orchestra has as much (if not more) historical baggage.

You might have a point there but it would, I suspect, have to be a rather restrictive one in that writing for any ensemble with a substantial track record of works behind it (piano trios/quartets/quintets as well as sonatas for one instrument and piano) could likewise be accused of being "an implicit statement of a certain "allegiance" to an old tradition" - and where would the line be drawn? Does a work described by its composer as a piano sonata have to be regarded as "an implicit statement of a certain "allegiance" to an old tradition" purely by virtue of the historical precedent of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven et al? There are, I think, rather more examples from a wider variety of composers since WWII of works called piano sonatas than there are of works for one instrument and piano called "sonata for × and piano". Liszt and Alkan could be said already to have transformed the piano sonata into something way beyond what Haydn and Mozart had envisaged as fulfilling that title category and, even before those two seminal (though very different) mid-19th century works, some of Beethoven's piano sonatas has already come a very long way from any such "old tradition" established in the generation or so before him. I'm therefore less than convinced by your notion of "an implicit statement of a certain "allegiance" to an old tradition" in this context.

That said, there are notably few composers of any persuasion in any time since Haydn's youth who have entirely eschewed the string quartet medium but, whilst Carter spoke of his indebtedness to Haydn in quartet writing, could quite the same be said of, say, Ferneyhough, Dillon or others including our own member Richard Barrett?

[ahinton]

A wonderful discovery and many thanks to Boilk & Suffs for bringing it to my attention

It's terrific, isn't it?! If you've not already heard it, Carter's slightly earlier piano sonata deserves a spin or ten, too!