| Movements/SectionsMov'ts/Sec's | 3 movements |
|---|---|
| First Publication | 1881 ca. |
| Genre Categories | Quartets; For violin, viola, cello, piano; Scores featuring the violin; |
Full Score
*#06483 - 4.31MB, 42 pp. - (-) - V/V/V - 1703×⇩ - Quaerendo Inven...
PDF scanned by US-R
Quaerendo Inven... (2007/5/27)
PDF scanned by US-R
Quaerendo Inven... (2007/5/27)
|
Score and Parts
*#17786 - 5.33MB, 71 pp. - (-) - V/V/V - 520×⇩ - Carmar1791
PDF scanned by Unknown
Carmar1791 (2008/7/2)
|
| Work Title | Piano Quartet in A minor |
|---|---|
| Alternative. Title | |
| Composer | Bériot, Charles-Wilfrid |
| Opus/Catalogue NumberOp./Cat. No. | Op.50 |
| Internal Reference NumberInternal Ref. No. | ICB 3 |
| Key | A minor |
| Movements/SectionsMov'ts/Sec's | 3 movements
|
| First Publication. | 1881 ca. |
| Dedication | Dedicated to his friend, F. A. Gevaert (François-Auguste Gevaert, 1828-1908) |
| Composer Time PeriodComp. Period | Romantic |
| Piece Style | Romantic |
| Instrumentation | Piano, violin, viola, cello |
Hrm. Thought this work had been recorded already, but I guess not- his piano trios are the chamber works I may have been thinking of, it seems they have been.
BNF catalog entry attributes this work to Bériot fils (Charles-Wilfrid Bériot) (given the Gevaert/Taffanel/orbit connection and that Taffanel was the dedicatee of a flute sonata by the younger Bériot, maybe so; also- late publication date; favors the piano I think rather than Charles-Auguste's violin, no?... -- ) and gives a (>1870, note) publication date of 1881 (and of course does not give a composition date of 1841 - but where does that come from, anyway?) - Schissel (1881, not 1878; in 1878 Hamelle was still in transition from Maho, apparently. One will, in any case, find no Hamelle items in BdlF 1878 but a few from J. Maho still.)
And again, an 1841 date of composition would establish Charles-Auguste as the composer, as too early for his son Charles-Wilfrid- if only, if only there were some hint of proof (as of now, not even evidence. or even more than bold and bald assertion) for the claim. I don't see a reason not to remove it (the claim, I mean, not the piece.) - ES