Talk:Violin Concerto (Glazunov)

Movements

What does it mean that

• The work contains three movements but there are no pauses between them.

1. Moderato
2. Andante sostenuto
3. Allegro

The slow second movement is seamlessly inserted by the composer into the middle of the first movement ... The main cadenza at the end of the first movement ... ?

IMSLP gives instead

• 4 movements:

I. Moderato

II. Andante sostenuto

III. Più animato

IV. Allegro

• Heifetz/Barbirolli 1934 gives

1. Moderato -
2. Andante -
3. Cadenza -
4. Animando

• Milstein/Steinberg 1957 gives

1. Moderato - Tranquillo
2. Andante - Tempo I - Cadenza
3. Animando - Allegro - Più animando

It almost seems as though the violinist and conductor are expected to make up or rearrange the sequence of sections as they may prefer. In any event, WP's description is certainly confusing. (I suppose the animato - animando distinction may be just a difference in translation.) Any suggestions? Milkunderwood (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What I'm guessing, without access to a score, is that since there are no pauses the designation of "movements" is somewhat arbitrary; and that the sequence goes something like this:

1. Moderato
2. Tranquillo
3. Andante [or Andante sostenuto]
4. Moderato
5. Cadenza
6. Animando/[Animato]
7. Allegro
8. Più animando

I would have no idea how to rephrase the article so that it makes sense. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "without access to a score"? There is an external link at the end of the article to a score. Is that not adequate to your needs?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can figure out, you have to sign in to Partifi to get beyond the first page. Maybe I'm just not understanding how it works. I'm not about to order, or purchase, a score. A number of IMSLP scores are freely viewable, but neither of the two shown for this concerto. I don't want the music; I was simply wanting to look at the tempo indications. And not even that so much - the real problem is that the present wording of the article makes no sense. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just download it, and open it on your PDF viewer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Snap! And, having done just that with the Eulenberg edition, I can report that the concerto is in one uninterrupted movement, with the cadenza dividing it into sections in 4/4 (before the cadenza) and 6/8 (after the cadenza), with short passages of 2/4 alternating with 6/8 from p. 82 to the end. I haven't the patience to check the Russian edition against this, to see if there are any significant differences.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason that is not worth my while to try to puzzle out, my computer does not want to "snap" onto the score. Maybe it's the same reason I've never yet got any of WP's sound files to open and play. Neither of these failings is of consequence to me. I'm never interested in playing the sound files; and I cannot read music. Nor, in many cases where I've wanted to look at a score, can I figure out what typography is used to designate the start of a new movement - but frequently enough, I can, with guidance from liner notes that I'm looking at.

I'm aware that this concerto is played without breaks. I still think - maybe I'm just being a little stupid - that this sentence does not make sense as written:

• The slow second movement is seamlessly inserted by the composer into the middle of the first movement [...]

What defines the word "movement" in this instance? I would have thought the theme and tempo of the "first movement" is returned to as a "third movement", following an intervening "second movement". So in a sense, I'm counting more or less eight "movements" that I listed at the end of my OP. Contrariwise, if the concerto is considered to be in the form of one single movement, then again, the text of the article ought to be clarified. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Here’s a site that talks about the oddity of the 2nd movement being surrounded by parts of the 1st movement. And this alludes to it by showing the 2nd movt in brackets as part of the 1st movt. But I wonder if these folks aren’t applying their own OR. Glazunov did not mark any movements in the score, so where do these commentators get their information from? In form, it’s more of a rhapsody than a concerto; it seems to me it was never meant to be conceived as having movements, as such, at all. There are fast passages and there are slow passages, that’s as far as it goes. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack, that is helpful. If there is general consensus that the "second movement" does occur in the middle of the "first movement", it might be a good idea to reference that statement in the article where I got hung up. And "The work contains three movements" does sound like OR to me - I think that ought to be rephrased. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sure that some designations of movements in various compositions that I've run aross here at WP have been taken from recordings rather than from scores. Liner notes to recordings are never reliable, although they may in most cases be accurate (or consistent). The musicians almost never write the notes themselves; as far as I can figure out that job is just given to someone who may or may not know what they're talking about. The reason I came to this article to start with was trying to reconcile the Heifetz and Milstein recordings. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)