h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: String Quartets - A1303381
Author: White Hole (Write a Haiku!) - U225119

This is a lot about the basics and origins of string quartets... corrections are welcomed!

This is interesting. It would be worth breaking it up into sections by putting in headers. Just put the header on a line on its own with a blank line on each side of it.

I like it! I just think that the second paragraph in italics and brackets would be better off in plain text, either as a footnote, part of the paragraph above or its own paragraph (I'm not sure what's best...you choose).

Niwt

Kronos and Turtle Island? (I think it's Turtle something) are two modern string quartets. Yo-yo Ma is part of two CDs that do Appalachian music via quartet & trio, so it's not just orchestras that are imitated.

Not one Viola or Violist joke in the entire article? You are more disciplined than most musicians I know.

This looks a nice entry to me. As I don't play andy of the instruments (banjo doesn't count!), I can't comment technically. However the entry is easy to read and well set out. Good work.

The third sentence, which starts "Quartets can be..." would be better split up using semicolons, so that it doesn't just look like a big long list of instruments:

"Quartets can be two violins, a cello, and a bass; one violin, a viola, a cello and a bass; two violins, a viola and a bass, or anything else you can think of."

The sentence ending "to which the player must stay in stride with." This doesn't sound right. Perhaps leave out the word "to". Some people don't like ending a sentence with "with", but I don't see anything wrong with it.

contemprary --> contemporary

1780's and 1790's --> 1780s and 1790s (that's the House Style)

did undoubtedly have --> undoubtedly had

Beethovern's --> Beethoven's

You should remove all the tags. The tag automatically puts the correct spacing around headings.

You should use the tag for the headings Haydn, Beethoven and The Future, rather than the Italics and Centring that you have done.

Hi White Hole,

As a big fan of the Beethoven SQs (in particular), it's great to see an entry on the form here at h2g2, .

I'd say that you're opening paras give a good idea of some background as well as some interesting comments from the practical point of view of how the aspiring musicician today can approach playing them, which is great.

One slight edit for you, "From that point until the late about 1775-1800" - I think you probably need to lose 'the late'.

And finally... well, i felt that having talked about Hadyn, Mozart and Beethoven (though only mentioning his first 6 of 32), the conclusion fell off rather abruptly.

How about telling us about some of the formal conventions of these pieces? Then about Beethoven's innovations? And those of the 19thC? and perhaps some mention of 'star' quartets over the years? Contemporary favourites (as someone in the thread has also mentioned)?

Anyhoo, I think you have the solid basis of a great entry here, , and whilst i think there is room for improvement (or rather, expansion), please take my comments with the customary , . It's your entry, of course.

good luck with this and future writings
spiff

Just so you know that I'm not ignoring comments, I have seen these postings, and I'll get to work on it as soon as possible. Just a note, though, you're correct in saying the conclusion is rather abrupt. This is because I finished the article late at night with the honest intent of writing more about Beethoven, but I didn't make it. Come back in a week or two, and I should have the article reworked a bit, and it might have a little more in it. Thanks for the help!

W_H

*cough*

Is this still being worked on?

I gather that White Hole is still around. Hey!

<>

Sorry to come in so late but there are a good few comments I'd like to offer.

" Generally, a string quartet consists of two violins, a viola, and a cello. However, this can vary greatly. Quartets can be: two violins, a cello, and a bass; one violin, a viola, a cello and a bass; two violins, a viola and a bass; and most likely anything else you can think of. It has also become acceptable to add in percussion and/or a guitar, as appropriate"

-- here I think you can simplify mercilessly. Obviously any four string instruments together are a quartet, but the term "string quartet" implies the classic four only. The others needn't (and shouldn't) be mentioned as there is such a large and influential body of work for the classic combination, that's what people mean when they say "String Quartet"; the others are strictly on the periphery. For analogy, you wouldn't include trains in an entry on cars, though if you think about it a locomotive is a sort of motorised car.

"The quartet combines almost all of the ranges of the full orchestra" -- well the middle bit; not generally so high as piccolos (with exceptions) and not so low as double-basses . . . perhaps it would be more meaningful to say "The quartet covers most of the range of the full orchestra"

"The quartet, though, allows for much more creativity than an orchestra" -- this is something you can't say! Creativity can be confined in certain ways, so that there is room for more creativity in chess than in draughts -- but that can't be the case between SQ and orchestra. You've got to think just what you want to get across and rephrase this, I'd suggest.

"faster and more complex music can be played" -- alas this is simply not so. All string quartet music can be played on a string orchestra; it gains power at the expense of focus, but it can be and is done.

". . . because there are no other instruments in the section with which the player must stay in stride. The player only has to worry about staying in rhythm with the other sections. The downfall of this setup is that every player must be competent and confident. Every player in the quartet represents a whole section of the orchestra. Unlike an orchestra, there are no other players to help you get back on track in your section. Also, no other players can play over you if you make a mistake, and you can't blame anyone else for your mistakes. It would seem, at this point, that no beginner belongs in a quartet." -- you start talking about beginners in the middle of what appeared to cover all musicians. This is confusing; it seems you think very lowly of professionals, until it becomes clear that you are taliking about beginners. Perhaps you could start a new section about beginners.

"it is possible that the original quartets came from other composers" -- you might mention Allegri (c1573-1648): Allegri seems to have been the first composer to specify the classic quartet combination in a publication; though not necessarily one-to-a-part.

". . . who had written music for string quartets in Germany and Austria during the early 1600s" -- were you thinking of Praetorius (Terpsichore collection)? He published versions in four and five parts of the French court dances of the 16th century. The French court orchestra consisted of violins, first and second (and sometimes third) violas, and cellos. At the same time other string ensembles had been playing much more complex and learned music one-to-a-part since the early 1500s: the viols. They continued their productive consort life until Purcell wrote the last great fantasies in the 1680s. It wasn't until after the viola, out of fashion in the 17th century, came back in again in the 18th, that string quartets of the classic type really began; therefore I would omit all reference to the trio-sonata form, as it's strictly not relevant here. Allegri's pieces, like Schütz and Schein and Praetorius, were essentially orchestral, and the viol consort literature is another genre altogether.

"1798, [Beethoven] composed the first (chronological) string quartet piece" -- "chronological" is a little awkward here; you mean "chronologically his first string quartet piece", but I don't think it's necessary to say that at all. It was his first, even if not published first: no problem, simply omit (chronological).

There -- I hope you don't take that as discouragement. Put in more about Haydn and Mozart and Beethoven, and mention the major 19th century quartet writers: Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Dvorák, don't forget Tchaikowsky, and Borodin deserves a mention. Then there's the 20th -- Debussy, Berg and Bartok for a start, and plenty more, go for your favourites or consult a reference book!

I have coached young quartets and find as you do that it is a wonderful medium for beginners. Sheila Nelson writes and publishes brilliantly tuneful characterful pieces for players in the very early grades. I've even written a few myself, not published but regularly used in a junior quartet summer course.

Courage!

Wow!

Sorry I didn't check in for a few days, but I appreciate the criticism. I'll have to check through all of that and see what needs changed, but thanks for reading this through.

W_H

Ya there, WH?

Hey, I'm sorry I haven't been around in a while. School really tends to get in the way at this time of year. I'm still open for comments, but I wouldn't look for a change in the article until February. Thanks for the interest!

W_H

Well? It's February now... Have you sorted it all out?

Whitehole hasn’t been around for 5 weeks.

Oh, and it’s April now.