BEETHOVEN Piano Trio No. 3 in C minor (Op. 1, No. 3) Score

[@LearnCompositionOnline]

Pizzicato is not only a technique for chordal accompaniment, but the best solution for when you want to keep the instruments busy, avoiding total emptiness, but would be disturbed by the notes they play. Instruments are rarely solo here, and when they do it is for a more expressive moment. The II teach us these things.

[@r0mmm]

Even that is early Beethoven, this is a masterpiece

[@Ασημίνα-Μίνα]

You are right!!

[@tarikeld11]

Early Beethoven was not even less master than old Beethoven. Of course his music got deeper but he's always been a master

[@elaineblackhurst1509]

@@tarikeld11 Not entirely; during the 1790’s - the years of the Opus 1 piano trios, Opus 2 piano sonatas, Opus 18 string quartets, and the 1st symphony - he was taking regular lessons in Vienna most obviously from Haydn and Albrechtsberger in counterpoint, and Salieri in Italian vocal music - there were others as well.

[@los6416]

@@elaineblackhurst1509 that's right, but I think considering early beethoven pieces as "student music" is an insult

[@elaineblackhurst1509]

@@los6416 They are not student pieces at all and nobody is suggesting they are; anything with an Opus number in Beethoven is very fine,* and there is virtually no immature (‘student’ music) at all post-1792 and his arrival in Vienna. However, as I made clear in my original post, Beethoven’s learning and study requirements lay in very particular areas, and his counterpoint had not really been brought up to standard by Neefe in Bonn before he came to Vienna (in spite of playing a lot of JS Bach) - hence the lessons needed from Haydn then Albrechtsberger, ditto his skills in Italian vocal music. Beethoven was not a complete composer in the early/mid-1790’s, that came later; none of that is an insult, it’s just explaining where he was at. * Apart of course from the two facile piano sonatas Opus 49 that were published behind Beethoven’s back.

[@tomgilpin8629]

early Beethoven is my favorite Beethoven the perfect mix of classical and crazy

[@zaramayne2444]

Tom Gilpin I agree totally .his early works are amongst his best .!! .Each period of Beethoven's works all very distinct and unique in content This particular works is supremely vibrant and uplifting & aiming those arrows upwards towards the transcendant & the divine 💞

[@DanyDoublebass]

The late Beethoven is much better in both technical and musical quality lmao 😂

[@Atticuswhitman1788]

Early Beethoven was basically "new and improved mozart" lol

[@Trooman20]

@@Atticuswhitman1788 also "darker and more serious" but still, very distinct dynamic changes

[@BANERJEEWB]

​​@@Atticuswhitman1788 He has a motivic approach that's entirely different from Mozart, more reminiscent of Haydn this concerto doesn't have anything above Mozart's 24, with a bold chromatic opening. Both even deal with different emotions.

[@lucabrignole]

Bravo Ludwig. Under the classic dress of these early works you can already see your magnificent and disruptive soul

[@phoenixskill5478]

Gotta love it when your music camp gives you a grand total of 2 weeks to prepare this.

[@bennygotthard6641]

Depends on which part u need to play😁 for the strings 2 weeks are long enough, for the piano rather not😅. However you can play these kind of pieces a lifetime long, and still discover hidden.....

[@drakke125Channel]

took me 2-4 weeks just to be able to play the first movement only at music camp....i am an extremely untalented pianist and you can imagine how frantic i was with my face glued to the keys when my page turner forgot to turn.....

[@samuelbergman7597]

I had the exact thing but only 1 week. And I was the pianist!😬 Granted it was only the first movement

[@phoenixskill5478]

​@samuelbergman7597 we ended up only playing first & last mov. still some of the most stressful time I've ever had tho Good Luck Brother, stay strong

[@texwiller4029]

This really sounds updated Mozart, brings my mind "Kreutzzer" and "Tempest". So early! He also was generous in his opus catalogue, first three opuses contain all three large-scaled works.

[@lhering]

[this comment is only for personal purposes] Exposition 1 - Exposition 2 - Exposition 3.1 0:04 Exposition 3.2 0:42 Solo Corda 1:22 Durchführung 1:09 Durchführung D 2:05 Reprise C 4:23 Reprise! 8:27 2. 9:03 V1 10:44 V2 12:03 V3 13:24 V4 14:21 V5 16:11 3. Satz Mittelteil in Dur 20:05

[@renarddegaulle1204]

Wonderful. You can hear the beginnings of the virtuoso cadenzas that grace the last three piano concertos.

[@michaelazimmerman8321]

I get to perform the first movement at Studio class today. I will eventually perform the entire trio at some point later this semester. I love this piece.

[@SCRIABINIST]

It's always interesting to compare this to the Op.104 rework

[@pantoleonantonio9653]

14:33 the violin is so beautiful and sad. That little glide at the end sounds like crying

[@nachito2002x]

The fourth variation made me shed a tear... It's just beautiful 😢

[@brianbernstein3826]

such a master, even at his beginning!!!

[@Ασημίνα-Μίνα]

Indeed❣️

[@elaineblackhurst1509]

Basically, if it has an Opus number, Beethoven thought it was good enough to carry his name; this has, and is. The two little Sonates faciles for piano Opus 49 are just about the only exception to this, but they were sold to publishers behind Beethoven’s back by his brother, and about which he was very angry; Opus numbers were to be reserved for his best works only.

[@krisk1650]

So beautiful!

[@superlofi4758]

beautiful , mind messer

[@Ασημίνα-Μίνα]

Such a great masterpiece ❤️❤️

[@tobusko_2468]

🥺

[@krisk1650]

Amazing!

[@dzinypinydoroviny]

The third variation from the second movement seems to foreshadow the style of Beethoven's later piano sonatas. I couldn't but notice how similar it is to the third variation from the third movement of the Op. 109 sonata. See kzbin.info/www/bejne/bnu9eJyPYpJlgq8 at 11:56.

[@Joe_Yacketori]

Nice observation! This variation resembles the third variation of op. 109 in style, but I think a key difference between the two is that, in op. 109, the left and right hand alternate which one plays the 16th notes a few times, and the two parts sort of coalesce. In the third variation here, in op. 1, the bass part seems more improvisational and less interconnected to the right hand part, and it kinda reminds me of basso continuo. So that's my main takeaway from this, it's very very similar to op. 109, but Beethoven had a lot to refine and master still. In my opinion, the third variation here in op. 1 no. 3 always reminded me of op. 26; not in the way it sounds, but in the way it foreshadowed his late period. Both pieces give hints of the thought process behind late Beethoven, but they still have the aural qualities of the early period.

[@dzinypinydoroviny]

@@Joe_Yacketori That's right! The hands alternating make a big difference. I only meant the texture and the mix of two melodies that you cannot decide which one is the main and which one is accompanying. Op. 26 is such a great reference! It's almost as if Beethoven was telling us he's up to something more...

[@apostolismoschopoulos1876]

i can hear some tempest in the beggining

[@ahmadti]

Finally , I found someone agree with me

[@NovicebutPassionate]

"Haydn found the Trio in C minor, Op. 1, No. 3 too strong for him." George Grove, Beethoven And His Symphonies, Dover Publications, 2012, P. 99.

[@elaineblackhurst1509]

This opinion is now very dated and largely discredited by modern scholars.

[@NovicebutPassionate]

Could you be a bit more specific, please?

[@elaineblackhurst1509]

@@NovicebutPassionate Haydn thought the work might be too difficult for the public; in this he was probably mistaken. The other part of this story is Haydn allegedly telling Beethoven not to publish the c minor trio, Opus 1 No 3. It has now been established that when Beethoven played the trios to Haydn in August 1795 - immediately after his return from the second visit to England - *the trios had already been published* - so Haydn telling him not to publish them cannot be right, and is clearly nonsense. I think it is also worth pointing out that Haydn arrived in England on 1 January 1791 and remained there for 18 months; he then spent the whole of 1794 and half of 1795 in England on his second trip. During the period in-between he was largely at the Eszterhazy palace at Eisenstadt; in short, I think it likely that Haydn was out-of-touch with the Viennese scene having been so immersed in that of London for the 1791, 1792, 1794, and 1795 seasons - hence his unnecessary concern over the trio’s possible adverse reception. (Beethoven played the three Opus 1 trios to Haydn within days of his return to Vienna in August 1795). There are always difficulties with translation, but I think you will find that Haydn said that he *would have advised* Beethoven not to publish the trio…, rather than the version often used in English that he told him *not* to publish the trio; there is a big difference. If you wish to know more, a great examination of the actual facts - rather than spurious hearsay - is James Webster’s study ‘The Falling-out between Haydn and Beethoven’ which can be found on the internet. Modern Beethoven biographies, and HC Robbins Landon’s five volume biography of Haydn (Volume 3), also cover this story far better than the older Beethoven biographies which rely too much on unreliable, and sometimes very dubious, spurious, and apocryphal 19th century evidence. Additionally, many of these 19th century sources told the story entirely from Beethoven’s point of view using stories only from Beethoven’s circle, with almost no attempt to understand what Haydn was trying to say - they instead almost all focus on Beethoven’s dismay and frustration at his misunderstanding of what Haydn said. Almost all the sources quoted in the early Beethoven biographies were *not* written down contemporaneously, but retold years later, and then written down much later still, often after Beethoven’s death with all the adverse consequences of fading memories over many years. For a variety of reasons as explained above, a number of these early sources therefore clearly need to be treated with some caution. I have written some more detailed explanations if interested on some of the other KZbin performances of this great trio. Hope that helps!

[@NovicebutPassionate]

@@elaineblackhurst1509 It does, Thank You!!

[@dzinypinydoroviny]

Show this to anyone who says that Beethoven was bad at writing melodies.

[@CP-dv8nc]

The first mov is really good, The fourth is lethalllll

[@jabra48]

Someone said that?

[@dzinypinydoroviny]

@@jabra48 Some people do.

[@antoniogentile250]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@jamjam9253]

There are exceptions of course but I think catchy melodies was not what beethoven was really able of. And probably he wasnt interested either. Doesnt matter - his music has its own qualities!

[@dihydrogenmonoxide5994]

14:21 is exquisite.

[@nachito2002x]

The fourth variation made me shed a tear... It's just beautiful 😢

[@Atonal_Virtuo]

14:22 😢👌

[@baldrbraa]

Those are not triplets in the piano at 1:03

[@dzinypinydoroviny]

True, but the Beaux Arts Trio may have a different edition of the score.

[@XavierMacX]

Can confirm, there are definitely some different editions around. It's a particular problem with Beethoven's early-middle and middle periods. The changes are *usually* very small.

[@EmilianoManna]

@@XavierMacX I've never seen an edition with triplets in that passage tho, even in urtext/first edition

[@heron6462]

And I believe that Pressler's right hand comes in two bars early at 4:49 and is then snatched away; but overall it's a great performance.

[@1SuonD]

18:00 nothing to add, One of the Better closing cadence ever written

[@山本優子-c9w]

I woke up now, such a nice and excellent player

[@alanleoneldavid1787]

20:49 like waldstein gliss?

[@anhducduong0105]

perhaps

[@anhducduong0105]

or at least split the passage into two-hand scale run

[@Joe_Yacketori]

For real. How was this created so early??? It foreshadows later Beethoven in so many ways!

[@peev2]

25:01 The pathetique?

[@tempII]

straight up got this from my eng test, amazing music.

[@antoniocarlosantunesantune3217]

This work is better in comparation with "arquiduque trio " . Amazing!

[@felmusik5043]

Arichuduque is no 7??

[@fazliddinerkaboyev6568]

​@@felmusik5043 Yes, it is. I agree with this statement too. This trio is better.

[@gerardbegni2806]

As soon as the opening measures, we can perceive how the motive work will be the key of his most outstanding works. And this is only the op.1, dating from 1795...... ❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@juanmanueldiz764]

Very interesting that in the last movement (being a sonata form), the recapitulation don't came with the opening phrase of the first theme...

[@NN-df7hl]

I wondered the same! Thanks for pointing that out! And doesn't he dive straight into the 2nd Theme after the opening phrase in the Development? That also is unusual! ;) BTW, this version leaves out the repeat. 24:03 is the start of the Development, I believe. And I think 25:17 is the start of the Recap. Is that right? I'm not a musician, just a listener! Cheers! :D

[@juanmanueldiz764]

@@NN-df7hl What you point is correct!

[@cesares7782]

Sublime , Sublime, Emozionante. ❤❤❤

[@cesares7782]

Anche gli esecutori, come l'avrebbe voluto Beethoven. Penso non si possa interpretarlo meglio. Grazie.

[@tobusko_2468]

banger😎

[@Swaroque]

5:00 is very important.

[@HYLNDR]

What is the publication info for this edition, I have to write a paper on it and I want to cite this score since i used some of the rehearsal numbers.

[@Schwammerl]

Editor: Carl Herrmann (1810-1890) Publisher Info: Trios für Pianoforte, Violine und Violoncello; Leipzig: C.F. Peters, No.166a, n.d.(ca.1885). Plate 7126.

[@mary9167]

0:06

[@brianfarrell7829]

Why does he play the 16th broken octaves like triplets? Another edition?

[@makaan699]

A bit of inspiration by Mozart´s Fantasy in d minor for piano? :) Very nice

[@TempodiPiano]

In the introduction do you mean?

[@ProdigyImprovisation]

I can see that

[@afifi21]

This is merely a pure coincidence, since these trios were published in 1795, and the first edition of Mozart's D minor Fantasy was published in 1804, nine years later. A statement which probably suits this coincidence between these two works is: "Great minds think alike" :)

[@liebermann3487]

22:08 3 mvt

[@JohannesBrahms-1833]

25:16

[@LearnCompositionOnline]

This trio explains why i only compose in c minor

[@김여명-b4z]

1:12 1:12 1:12 1:12

[@Swaroque]

Last movement is like a horse ride!

[@marielynmarte5203]

The cello was very silent, well played though.

[@jonasbaes3914]

2nd mvt 9:03

[@8nwon]

自分用 2:34

[@pdr770]

מלחמת העולם השלישית שמח ושחרזי. ואז בית המקדש השלישי בקודש נורא. איטי מאוד ומלא פטישים בסוף ושחרזות עם סיום ב2 מוסיקה דנטלית לגן עדן בחלק האחרון.

[@henryopitz3254]

shekel

[@YoavZad]

לא הבנתי

[@TempodiPiano]

Beethoven + ut mineur => je suis déçu !

[@jiangr3932]

noooo my piano playing is not superior

[@vaslav4171]

Kalos me lene.

[@steve40004]

The piano was far too loud. Sorry But well played.

[@jackattack2352]

a piano trio is basically a piano concerto with strings, it is supposed to be loud.

[@steve40004]

@@jackattack2352 It is a fine performance, only it's the loudest piano in this trio I've heard.

[@bennygotthard6641]

I'd rather say the cello was too silent.

[@Atticuswhitman1788]

@@bennygotthard6641 I'd have to agree. Cellos in piano trios are often sidelined for the pianist and violinist.

[@terr4c0]

That's because this is a piano trio. It's not a sonata for violin, cello and piano.

[@OuaghlaniAlaa]

The first movement is too fast, which make the sixteenth notes not in quality.

[@jiminsohn9696]

5:43

[@mary9167]

5:03

[@mary9167]

0:14