In the Hummel thread a secondary subject has appeared, the one of Beethoven's real "revolutionary" contributions to the history of music. I think it should be valuable to discuss them and to focus on their real extent.
Even if I consider he was really an innovator, I also think that his role in the development of music between 1800-1830 has been excessively praised, mostly because of the general ignorance about his contemporaries. For instance, in my opinion the "Heroic Beethoven" of the so-called "middle period" is so related with French classicism, mainly Méhul and Cherubini, that its development is almost impossible to understand without consideration to those composers.
On the other hand, Beethoven was certainly an innovator in the best sense of the world. The first work that comes to my mind is An die ferne Geliebte, which opened the way for cyclical works in vocal music. I don't know anything like it before Beethoven, and not even Schubert was able to develop later a similar solution, for the six songs of Beethoven's work are inseparable for strictly musical reasons, while Die Schöne Müllerin and Winterreise's songs can be taken separately (even if this harms considerably any of those works).
Which are your thoughts on this? Which are your favourite Beethoven "innovations"? And, being exposed, does anyone think that they are not really "innovations"?
Beethoven didn't just innovate, he revolutionized.
He revolutionized the symphony.
He revolutionized the piano sonata.
He revolutionized the string quartet.
He revolutionized the piano concerto and violin concerto.
He further perfected the integration of counterpoint and fugue within the sonata form.
He further perfected the variations form (theme and variations).
He further perfected many facets of chamber music, especially with the string sonata and trio.
Quote from: D Minor on August 20, 2007, 03:15:34 AM
Beethoven didn't just innovate, he revolutionized.
He revolutionized the symphony.
He revolutionized the piano sonata.
He revolutionized the string quartet.
He revolutionized the piano concerto and violin concerto.
He further perfected the integration of counterpoint and fugue within the sonata form.
He further perfected the variations form (theme and variations).
He further perfected many facets of chamber music, especially with the string sonata and trio.
Can't believe
D forgot "He added a chorus in a symphony" when that work is in
D minor...
Quote from: D Minor on August 20, 2007, 03:15:34 AM
He revolutionized the piano concerto.
OK, let's stay here. Ideas?
And Peter von Winter put a chorus into a symphony before Beethoven did, so that was factually not a Beethoven innovation. I would bet money that von Winter wasn't first, either, he's just the earliest I know of.
People constantly say that Beethoven revolutionised this or had this innovation, then they name a musical form - ie. "the symphony" - and that's as far as they get. Thus far, every supposed Beethoven innovation that you can pry out of them (which is tellingly rare indeed), you can immediately name another composer who did that before Beethoven, making these false claims. So get specific: name one thing he did in any of those forms that another composer didn't do first. If you can't, then they weren't his innovations. Also, the argument "Well Beethoven did it better" does not change the fact that he didn't do it first (which is what "innovation" means; innovation has nothing to do with how "great" you think it is).
Lilly's Law:
Any statement "(ComposerX) was the first to do (InnovationY)", where "(ComposerX) = a very famous composer", will be a false statement
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 20, 2007, 05:26:00 AMSo get specific: name one thing he did in any of those forms that another composer didn't do first.
Just asking.
The first to write a five-part symphony? The first to use trombones in a symphony? The first to put the Scherzo before the Adagio? The first to write a seven-part SQ? The first to write a 45-minute piano sonata?
Does he has predecessors in any of these? I'd like to know who they are and in which works.
Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2007, 05:41:05 AM
The first to write a five-part symphony?
Five movements, you mean? I'll answer this one. Franz Joseph Haydn, Symphony in C major, number 60, "Il distratto", composed in 1774. It doesn't just have five movements, but six.
Well, it's not just a matter of doing something for the first time, but to transfigure this "something" in a great work of art. So for example the "Leitmotif" wasn't invented by Wagner, but in a certain way it was. The use he made of it was revolutionary, coherent, great.
Said that, I wouldn't say Beethoven revolutionized Piano concerto and Violin Concerto. And his sonata for strings aren't in my opinion masterpieces in the sense we could consider masterpieces his symphonies, piano sonatas or string quartets. They're more conventional.
Quote from: Gabriel on August 20, 2007, 05:49:06 AM
Five movements, you mean? I'll answer this one. Franz Joseph Haydn, Symphony in C major, number 60, "Il distratto", composed in 1774. It doesn't just have five movements, but six.
Yes, six... but not five. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2007, 05:52:03 AM
Yes, six... but not five. ;D
;) Well, even more!
QuoteThe first to use trombones in a symphony?
With the restricted credit we have to give to some internet sources, I found the following in Wikipedia: "The first use of the trombone in a symphony was in 1807 in the Symphony in E flat by the Swedish composer Joachim Nikolas Eggert, although the composer usually credited with its introduction into the symphony orchestra was Ludwig van Beethoven, who used it in the last movement of his Symphony No. 5 in C minor (1808)." It has a link for a more specific site: http://www.trombone-society.org.uk/resources/articles/kallai.php (http://www.trombone-society.org.uk/resources/articles/kallai.php)
Trombones were used in a symphony by Eggert before Beethoven. I'm sure Eggert wasn't first, but I actulaly have a recording of this symphony. It uses three trombones in all the movements. I think also Franz Ignaz Beck used trombones in a symphony sometime in the 1790s, but I don't know which one right off-hand.
Without looking, I can say Dussek wrote at least a piano sonata that lasts near to 40 minutes, and I'm not sure if that's even his lengthiest. I'll have to look into this and the others.
I know of five-movement symphonies in the 1700s, that one's easy, there are multiple answers to that in the 18th century. In fact, Wolfgang Mozart's daddy wrote one before his more famous son was even born! A Symphony in D that contains an unusual instrument for extra flavour: bagpipes! So that answers that, but you could even come up with a LIST, possibly of surprising length, of 5-movement symphonies predating Beethoven's 6th.
I started to leap at the answer on the 7-movement string quartet with "of course, Michael Haydn did that more than once!", before I remembered those were string quintets. He wrote a couple of those. I'm pretty sure he also wrote at least a 6-movement string quartet as well. I'll see about the 7. Does a work for 2 violins, viola, and cello count as a "string quartet" even if it has another name, such as "Cassation"? That makes it easy to answer.
I have to admit, if you're specifically looking for a movement labeled "Scherzo" that is specifically before a slow movement labeled "Adagio" (and not "andante" or "largo" or some other slow attribution), that's going to be harder to find. Indeed, maybe that doesn't exist before Beethoven, those two specifically-titled movements one before the other. I'm not sure. There was at least a symphony by J.A.Benda that went: (1)slow intro+fast, (2)scherzo, (3)slow, (4) fast, and this predated any of Beethoven's symphonies. But the slow movement is not Adagio, but rather "Andante con moto". Benda used the "Scherzo" label several times, but otherwise, it doesn't seem to have been really popular in the 18th century. Other composers used it, but not that often.
"Well, it's not just a matter of doing something for the first time"
Then that's not an innovation, is it? It's an improvement on something someone ELSE innovated.
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 20, 2007, 06:04:10 AM
Does a work for 2 violins, viola, and cello count as a "string quartet" even if it has another name, such as "Cassation"? That makes it easy to answer.
Of course it counts.
JoshLily, thanks for your very informative answer.
The problem with virtually all the statements so far is that they are confined to externalized features, and by and large miss the essence of Beethoven's contributions. To discuss these in any kind of responsible way might get very technical and would take hours - not that I wouldn't mind writing such a discussion, but I have other obligations, and the pay for writing these posts pretty much stinks - and those interested can read insightful guides such as Joseph Kerman on the quartets, Sir Donald Tovey on the symphonies, William Kinderman on the Diabelli Variations, Charles Rosen on the piano sonatas, sonata form, and the Classical style in general, and others.
For example, one poster comments that no one before Beethoven had written a piano sonata as long as 45 minutes. No doubt my friend Mr. Lilly, in his charmingly dogged literatist manner, will trot out some nearly forgotten predecessor who wrote a piano sonata lasting 50 minutes while Beethoven was still in diapers - all of this done, apparently, in an effort to knock Beethoven off the pedestal he has occupied for 200 years and reduce him to the level of his most mediocre contemporaries. But such efforts are all besides the point. The literal length of any Beethoven sonata is secondary; what matters in Beethoven's longer sonata-form works is how he expanded the concept of musical time - through such as means as harmonically significant notes whose full implications are explored only as the movement takes shape, increasingly complex transitions to and within the second group of the sonata exposition, more complex modulations, more elaborate and contrapuntal development, and a more elaborate use of the coda that serves both as a secondary development and a peroration. Again, so someone wrote a 7-movement sonata or symphony. But no one achieved the organic continuity of musical movement that was left for Beethoven to discover in his C# minor quartet, Op. 131.
And make no mistake: Beethoven's contemporaries understood him as a radical; when he produced a watershed work like the Eroica, the comments from reviewers unable to follow his expansion of the musical language were not, "Ah! I can see where composer X did this before Beethoven!" but rather, "These bizarre grotesqueries are the product of a deranged mind ready for the madhouse!" Anyone who thinks that what Beethoven was doing was not felt as new, ought to read Berlioz's account of how he took his old teacher, the honest conservative M. LeSueur, to hear the 5th symphony. Mr. Lilly's elegantly expressed theories cannot account for such reactions, nor can they deprive Beethoven of the stature which he has been accorded in the minds of performers, scholars, composers, and listeners throughout musical history.
I haven't talked about any theories, and wouldn't know how to do so. I'm talking only about chronological facts. I've leave the technical stuff to those who know it. But when it comes to biographical/historical information on the late 18th century, I will - without trying to be overly boastful - claim that I know far more than most music fans about the obscure composers of that period. When it comes to technical specifics of music I know practically nothing.
I'm talking only about facts, like specific years. Those are inarguable. I don't know why anyone would be upset or think it has anything to do with pedestals or anything else. I'm trying to leave opinion entirely out of this and talk only about years or, if necessary, months. Facts are facts. Why would this upset anyone, or cause them to make sarcastic statements about me? I'm not trying to account for reactions of anyone, including LeSueur's famous concert experience. I was thinking on an extremely dry level: facts are facts. A piece written in 1775 predates one written in 1805, by irrefutable fact. Therefore, if the piece written in 1775 does something prior to the one in 1805, it predates it, therefore it negates the possibility of that something being "innovated" in 1805. This is a fact. There is no way to argue against this. It is chronological reality.
"The literal length of any Beethoven sonata is secondary"
Nevertheless, that was the question. Facts are facts.
"Again, so someone wrote a 7-movement sonata or symphony"
The question was whether Beethoven was the first to do that. The question was answered. Facts are facts. Opinions of "well that earlier one sucked!" are irrelevant. Facts are facts.
Mr. Rinkel, you're talking about greatness. I like Beethoven more than any of the composers I have named. But that is NOT what I was discussing in my response. Why can't you see that? I was discussing cold, hard facts. 1775 predates 1805. There is no way around this. Something done in 1775 was done prior to 1805. This is cannot be changed, by all the will and wish and adoration of Beethoven in the entire world. Reality is reality. But how does it possibly take anything from Beethoven? Or how does it add anything to Beethoven? Not one note of his existing works is changed by this. It was just a factual discussion, someone seemed honestly interested in these questions of fact. It wasn't anything beyond that, and doesn't need to be.
No one, least of all myself, is getting upset or sarcastic. I regard you with considerable respect, Joshua, for your diligent research and your courage in questioning received assumptions. But I think in your literal-mindedness, you are missing what's most significant, and reducing musical history to a catalog of inessential (if interesting) details.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 20, 2007, 06:33:53 AM
But no one achieved the organic continuity of musical movement that was left for Beethoven to discover in his C# minor quartet, Op. 131.
In fact, this quartet is a formidable point for analysis on Beethoven's real contribution to music. The first thing that should astonish in it is the perspective of the harmonic development between the movements: a kind of arch with some very remote relationships. The first movement is in C sharp minor, while the second one is in D major, and the fourth, the Andante ma non troppo e molto cantabile is in A major (remote considering C sharp major, but not considering D major). Then it follows G sharp minor, E major, and finally back to C sharp minor. Not getting into other aspects of this wonderful work, I wonder if anybody before had attempted to achieve a similar sequence.
I was only trying to answer a specific post in a specific manner. I'm not saying it is more significant, nor am I getting into a discussion of greatness or whatever. And while I do question established assumptions, I'm not even doing that here, except with regards to the facts of years in which pieces were composed. That's what I'm into, those interesting but inessential details. I'm that way on a myriad of subjects, getting into trivia. The "big" stuff has been talked about so much, and I've read about it so much, that I just naturally go smaller. I'm big, big into chess history, and I'm more fascinated with talking about and researching on, say, Ignaz Kolisch than Paul Morphy. Morphy was stronger, and "greater", but I talk more about Kolisch. Yes, people say the same thing to me: "Why do you care about Kolisch when his contemporary Morphy was so much greater?" My answer is the same: I really don't know!
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 20, 2007, 06:33:53 AM
And make no mistake: Beethoven's contemporaries understood him as a radical; when he produced a watershed work like the Eroica, the comments from reviewers unable to follow his expansion of the musical language were not, "Ah! I can see where composer X did this before Beethoven!" but rather, "These bizarre grotesqueries are the product of a deranged mind ready for the madhouse!"
Excellent post, Larry.
Many books have been written about the
Eroica, and there just isn't enough time to get into it here. Let me simply cut and paste a snippet from BeethovensEroica.com (http://www.beethovenseroica.com/Pg1_why/whyeroica.htm)
Why the Eroica? Among history's innumerable examples of symphonic genius, the Eroica stands pre-eminent. Though few would contest the above proposition the question arises, why the Eroica? What sets it apart from the rest? Neither size, complexity or a profusion of soaring melodies distinguish the Eroica. So how is it that this one creation has come to be regarded as the
ne plus ultra of symphonic endeavor.
That distinction arose when it interrupted the evolution of symphonic development and appeared suddenly, without precedent or prototype. Forged in a fiery new style, the impact of this Grand Sinfonie was such that its influence would be heard for a generation to come. Equally significant, the Eroica initiated the notion that a symphony could be used as a vehicle to convey beliefs and the ideas associated with the Eroica are well known. Napoleon, heroism, death, apotheosis, revolution - the list goes on. Imagine a public accustomed to the proprieties of Mozart and Haydn having those ideas thrust upon them. They were not ready for a manifesto in the concert hall.
The changes brought about by the Eroica involve more than issues of harmony, counterpoint or the addition of a French horn. Post Eroica appreciation of a symphony involves not only attention to compositional technique but now includes the added dimension of meaning and interpretation. All the more remarkable since Beethoven, the high priest of absolute music, affected this change.
The Eroica is now one of the most written about and analyzed works in music history Scholars explore the historical and biographical dimensions of the work while musicologists deconstruct it piece by piece to see what makes it tick. We are driven to probe this amazing work of art on as many levels as we can. Yet, it is the Eroica's eloquence in the auditorium that pleases above all. Whether we discern this or that connection is irrelevant. Once the mighty E-flat chords resound we are transported in a manner that only Beethoven can affect. We will never know what lead him to put those exact notes to paper. We can only be thankful that he did.
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 20, 2007, 06:56:15 AM
I was only trying to answer a specific post in a specific manner. I'm not saying it is more significant, nor am I getting into a discussion of greatness or whatever. And while I do question established assumptions, I'm not even doing that here, except with regards to the facts of years in which pieces were composed. That's what I'm into, those interesting but inessential details. I'm that way on a myriad of subjects, getting into trivia. The "big" stuff has been talked about so much, and I've read about it so much, that I just naturally go smaller. I'm big, big into chess history, and I'm more fascinated with talking about and researching on, say, Ignaz Kolisch than Paul Morphy. Morphy was stronger, and "greater", but I talk more about Kolisch. Yes, people say the same thing to me: "Why do you care about Kolisch when his contemporary Morphy was so much greater?" My answer is the same: I really don't know!
Let's just say for the moment that I accept all this. (I don't, but I don't have time right now to respond in more detail.) How does Lilly's Law --
QuoteAny statement "(ComposerX) was the first to do (InnovationY)", where "(ComposerX) = a very famous composer [e.g., Beethoven]", will be a false statement
-- account for the indisputable fact that Beethoven's contemporaries (who presumably knew the music of their times better than we do) often regarded him as a wildly innovative radical?
In fact, Lilly's Law is totally uncertain. Any composer, very famous or very unknown, can introduce innovations to music.
By the way, Larry, Reicha's music was also held as radically eccentric during his lifetime. (It's a curious coincidence that both were friends in Bonn and then met again in Vienna before Reicha established himself in Paris).
Lilly's Law is just a joke. I'm fairly certain that several famous composers did totally new things. Berlioz or Schönberg, perhaps? I don't know much about either, sadly. But that thing is just a joke, an exaggeration of how often it really is true that a famous composer credited with something really wasn't the first. But that's not just true for music, is it? It goes for all types of technical inventions, &c.
Speaking of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, I read something - I think it was in the liner notes from Gardiner's set - that claimed that his 2nd Symphony was a more radical departure from the 1st, than the 3rd was from the 2nd. Has anyone else seen this said? Or, it didn't say radical departure, but some other wording, like the difference between the 1st and 2nd, was more than the difference between the 2nd and 3rd.
Quote from: Bonehelm on August 20, 2007, 04:01:54 AM
Can't believe D forgot "He added a chorus in a symphony" when that work is in D minor...
Which led to the popular expression, "I need a chorus in my symphony like I need a hole in my head." To bad Beethoven did not live long enough to replace the finale of the 9th with an instrumental movement, as he had planned (according to some biographers). Then the choral finale would take its place with Beethoven's other grotesque monstrosity, the choral fantasy.
Quote from: head-case on August 20, 2007, 10:07:39 AM
Which led to the popular expression, "I need a chorus in my symphony like I need a hole in my head." To bad Beethoven did not live long enough to replace the finale of the 9th with an instrumental movement, as he had planned (according to some biographers). Then the choral finale would take its place with Beethoven's other grotesque monstrosity, the choral fantasy.
Hmm... I somehow managed to read the title of this thread as "Beethoven the Infiltrator". 8)
But seriously, may I inquire about the source of your enmity, regarding choirs in symphonic music? In fact, if Beethoven had replaced the choral part of the 9th symphony with an instrumental movement, it might indeed have been great, even in the way of the Brucknerian "chorales"; but would it have been as exhilarating to hear?
Given that I think the point of the 9th symphony, in terms of its meaning, is greatly dependent on a climactic "catharsis" in the final movement, I do wonder what could have been better than a choir, at the time it was written...
Still, I'm definitely not the right person to contribute to the present conversation, with my meagre theoretical knowledge: so don't take my opinion too much into account. But that comment did strike me as one I thought to inquire about. ;)
Quote from: head-case on August 20, 2007, 10:07:39 AM
Which led to the popular expression, "I need a chorus in my symphony like I need a hole in my head." To bad Beethoven did not live long enough to replace the finale of the 9th with an instrumental movement, as he had planned (according to some biographers). Then the choral finale would take its place with Beethoven's other grotesque monstrosity, the choral fantasy.
Many consider the choral finale magnificent and the Choral Fantasy a highly worthy piece - I'm one of them. So I'll have to disagree with your view while possessing respect for it.
Beethoven's most significant innovation from the standpoint of generation of composers who followed him, was moving away from dominant and subdominant key relations within his sonata forms to mediant and submediant relationships. The Waldstein & Hammerklavier sonatas as well as the late SQ's all share this feature - as does the work of Chopin, Schumann & Schubert.
Quote from: Don on August 20, 2007, 11:39:50 AM
Many consider the choral finale magnificent and the Choral Fantasy a highly worthy piece - I'm one of them. So I'll have to disagree with your view while possessing respect for it.
The choral finale was controversial from the start. I can't imagine the symphony without it, but I can't blame anyone who has a problem with it.
As a composition, the Fantasy has always seemed to me a real mess.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 20, 2007, 11:51:20 AM
The choral finale was controversial from the start. I can't imagine the symphony without it, but I can't blame anyone who has a problem with it.
As a composition, the Fantasy has always seemed to me a real mess.
Sex is messy also, but a major treat. 8)
Quote from: bwv 1080 on August 20, 2007, 11:50:14 AM
Beethoven's most significant innovation from the standpoint of generation of composers who followed him, was moving away from dominant and subdominant key relations within his sonata forms to mediant and submediant relationships. The Waldstein & Hammerklavier sonatas as well as the late SQ's all share this feature - as does the work of Chopin, Schumann & Schubert.
My question here would be if Beethoven was alone in introducing other key relationships, or if it was shared with some of his contemporaries, like Reicha or Hummel.
QuoteAs a composition, the Fantasy has always seemed to me a real mess.
But, Larry... A delightful mess it is! ;)
I've nothing to contribute but praise. Gentlemen, what a fascinating thread!
Josh, thanks so much for sharing your detailed knowledge of the subject.
Quote from: Gabriel on August 20, 2007, 11:58:43 AM
But, Larry... A delightful mess it is! ;)
I know, and it doesn't contradict my previous point.
Or Don's. :D
How about the bizarre form of the last movement of the Ninth? Quotations of the prior three movements, followed by a theme of variations and a double fugue and god knows what else. Was there any precedent for that?
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 20, 2007, 07:31:24 AM
Lilly's Law is just a joke. I'm fairly certain that several famous composers did totally new things. Berlioz or Schönberg, perhaps? I don't know much about either, sadly. But that thing is just a joke, an exaggeration of how often it really is true that a famous composer credited with something really wasn't the first. But that's not just true for music, is it? It goes for all types of technical inventions, &c.
Speaking of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, I read something - I think it was in the liner notes from Gardiner's set - that claimed that his 2nd Symphony was a more radical departure from the 1st, than the 3rd was from the 2nd. Has anyone else seen this said? Or, it didn't say radical departure, but some other wording, like the difference between the 1st and 2nd, was more than the difference between the 2nd and 3rd.
Yes, Nicholas Marston says that in his notes to the Gardiner CDs. I disagree, but no matter. Marston also refers to the Eroica's "overwhelming novelty." But considering your unwillingness to grant Beethoven any originality, why refer to this issue at all?
Quote from: scottscheule on August 21, 2007, 05:00:13 PM
How about the bizarre form of the last movement of the Ninth? Quotations of the prior three movements, followed by a theme of variations and a double fugue and god knows what else. Was there any precedent for that?
Fugues in the finale of a symphony - Mozart symphony no.41
Quote from: scottscheule on August 21, 2007, 05:00:13 PM
How about the bizarre form of the last movement of the Ninth? Quotations of the prior three movements, followed by a theme of variations and a double fugue and god knows what else. Was there any precedent for that?
The problem is to defend the position that the finale for the Ninth symphony is satisfactory. The quotations of the prior three movements are an attempt by Beethoven to give some coherence to the unexpected last movement, so different in nature from the other ones.
QuoteFugues in the finale of a symphony - Mozart symphony no.41
What you find in the finale of the Jupiter symphony is not a fugue, but fugato passages, like in the finale of the Ninth. Those fugato ("fugati") of the 41st symphony are almost miraculous and I prefer them to what Beethoven shows, in this issue, in the finale of the 9th. And, besides, for great counterpoint in symphonies, you have a lot of good Haydn music to enjoy. ;)
I'm not sure LvB necessarily revolutionized the Piano Concerto. They all seemed to owe one helluva lot to Mozart, and the 5th even directly quotes from more than theme from Mozart's works. Perhaps as vehicles of extraordinary/borderline "superhuman" improvisation.
In fact (as unpopular as this might make me) I hear more "revolutionary Piano Concerto" music in of Brahms, Schumann, Chopin.
I mostly hear "revolutionary" (as opposed to "one-upping" Haydn, Mozart, and J.S. Bach) in the later works of LvB.
Quote from: scottscheule on August 21, 2007, 05:00:13 PM
How about the bizarre form of the last movement of the Ninth? Quotations of the prior three movements, followed by a theme of variations and a double fugue and god knows what else. Was there any precedent for that?
The Finale of Beethoven's ninth strikes me as being a very disorganized cantata. If you take off the slap-dash intro with the parading of themes from the first three movements it would be a free standing piece (which is how I listen to it, generally).
Quote from: Haffner on August 22, 2007, 04:44:12 AM
I'm not sure LvB necessarily revolutionized the Piano Concerto. They all seemed to owe one helluva lot to Mozart, and the 5th even directly quotes from more than theme from Mozart's works. Perhaps as vehicles of extraordinary/borderline "superhuman" improvisation.
I certainly agree. Beethoven increase the scope of the piano concerto, but it is put together exactly like a Mozart concerto. To claim that the increase in duration of the music is an "innovation" or to cite another obscure composer who wrote a concerto that is even longer misses the point entirely. Any half-wit can write a concerto twice as long as a Mozart concerto. That Beethoven conceived a work which is much longer and was a compelling masterpiece was the feat.
Quote from: head-case on August 22, 2007, 09:24:06 AM
I certainly agree. Beethoven increase the scope of the piano concerto, but it is put together exactly like a Mozart concerto. To claim that the increase in duration of the music is an "innovation" or to cite another obscure composer who wrote a concerto that is even longer misses the point entirely. Any half-wit can write a concerto twice as long as a Mozart concerto. That Beethoven conceived a work which is much longer and was a compelling masterpiece was the feat.
Interesting. We could also posit the "Eroica's" first movement as being a longer, younger brother to the finale of Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony.
Quote from: head-case on August 22, 2007, 09:24:06 AM
I certainly agree. Beethoven increase the scope of the piano concerto, but it is put together exactly like a Mozart concerto. To claim that the increase in duration of the music is an "innovation" or to cite another obscure composer who wrote a concerto that is even longer misses the point entirely. Any half-wit can write a concerto twice as long as a Mozart concerto. That Beethoven conceived a work which is much longer and was a compelling masterpiece was the feat.
Speaking of, how about the soloist starting the concerto by himself at the beginning of the 4th? Precedent out there for that?
Quote from: scottscheule on August 22, 2007, 10:16:43 AM
Speaking of, how about the soloist starting the concerto by himself at the beginning of the 4th? Precedent out there for that?
The closest precedent I know is Mozart's KV 271, but the orchestra precedes the soloist for a couple of seconds. (But, in this sense, Mozart's innovation is bigger than Beethoven's, because normally - in classical concertos, I mean - you would have to wait a complete orchestral exposition before the piano gets in).
Quote from: head-case on August 22, 2007, 09:24:06 AM
I certainly agree. Beethoven increase the scope of the piano concerto, but it is put together exactly like a Mozart concerto. To claim that the increase in duration of the music is an "innovation" or to cite another obscure composer who wrote a concerto that is even longer misses the point entirely. Any half-wit can write a concerto twice as long as a Mozart concerto. That Beethoven conceived a work which is much longer and was a compelling masterpiece was the feat.
The "length" element is certainly an element in which Beethoven tried to figure out a reasonable solution. If you want to invent a huge sonata form first movement, and keep the balance with the rest of the work, how would you do it? Imagine, for example, the violin concerto, where the first movement lasts for about 23-25 minutes. If he had followed Mozartian proportions, he would have needed either a concerto of about 75 minutes, or a rondo of about 20 minutes (I know I am oversimplifying, but otherwise it would be very hard to discuss this). The solution was to blend the 2nd and 3rd movements, what happened in the last two piano concertos, the violin concerto, and the triple concerto. (In the triple concerto he could have been able to preserve the equilibrium, without the "continuity" solution, considering that the third movement is almost as long as the first one, but the disproportion is related to the slow movement, which lasts 1/3 of the other ones).
Quote from: Gabriel on August 22, 2007, 10:45:10 AM
The solution was to blend the 2nd and 3rd movements, what happened in the last two piano concertos, the violin concerto, and the triple concerto.
The triple concerto isn't something I can really bring myself to listen to, but I don't see how there is any "blending" of the second and third movements. The fact that the finale theme suddenly leaps up while the final chords of the slow movement are droning is neither here nor there. If you want to talk about blending, there is Mozart 22, where a weird slow movement is embedded in the finale.
Quote from: scottscheule on August 22, 2007, 10:16:43 AM
Speaking of, how about the soloist starting the concerto by himself at the beginning of the 4th? Precedent out there for that?
This was done multiple times in the second half of the 18th century. It would appear to be more common in Italy during that time period. I think I already answered this above, but I can't recall. Even if you don't want to get really obscure, Antonio Salieri did it in his own Triple Concerto, which starts out with the violin soloist all by itself. I actually have a Violin Concerto by an Italian composer, written in the 1770s, where the violin soloist gets to have quite a bit of fun before any other instruments appear. I'll get the exact piece when I get home. I'm sure it wasn't the first. Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rössler) wrote a Concerto for Two Horns in E-Flat where the two horns open it up by playing a hint of the main theme, and then give it over to the orchestra for a bit. He wrote three Concerti for Two Horns in E-Flat, so you have to find the right one! It's not KIII-51 or KIII-53.
"The closest precedent I know is Mozart's KV 271, but the orchestra precedes the soloist for a couple of seconds."
W.A. Mozart did not innovate this idea, either. His own dad did something very similar, where the orchestra plays for like 2 seconds, starting to introduce the theme, before the soloist comes in and "steals" the honours of presenting it from them, in his French Horn Concerto in D. In addition, if you go back to the Baroque, this was probably even more common than in the late 18th century. Mozart's major rival Leopold Kozeluch did this in his Sinfonia Concertante in E-Flat for Mandolin, Trumpet, Double Bass, and Piano (haha, yep!), which I think predates Mozart's K.271. The trumpet in that Sinfonia Concertante "cheats" and jumps in way early, before the orchestra gets to do more than introduce itself, and long before the other soloists make their more "proper" appearance.
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 22, 2007, 11:24:53 AM
This was done multiple times in the second half of the 18th century. It would appear to be more common in Italy during that time period. I think I already answered this above, but I can't recall. Even if you don't want to get really obscure, Antonio Salieri did it in his own Triple Concerto, which starts out with the violin soloist all by itself. I actually have a Violin Concerto by an Italian composer, written in the 1770s, where the violin soloist gets to have quite a bit of fun before any other instruments appear. I'll get the exact piece when I get home. I'm sure it wasn't the first. Antonio Rosetti (Anton Rössler) wrote a Concerto for Two Horns in E-Flat where the two horns open it up by playing a hint of the main theme, and then give it over to the orchestra for a bit. He wrote three Concerti for Two Horns in E-Flat, so you have to find the right one! It's not KIII-51 or KIII-53.
"The closest precedent I know is Mozart's KV 271, but the orchestra precedes the soloist for a couple of seconds."
W.A. Mozart did not innovate this idea, either. His own dad did something very similar, where the orchestra plays for like 2 seconds, starting to introduce the theme, before the soloist comes in and "steals" the honours of presenting it from them, in his French Horn Concerto in D. In addition, if you go back to the Baroque, this was probably even more common than in the late 18th century. Mozart's major rival Leopold Kozeluch did this in his Sinfonia Concertante in E-Flat for Mandolin, Trumpet, Double Bass, and Piano (haha, yep!), which I think predates Mozart's K.271. The trumpet in that Sinfonia Concertante "cheats" and jumps in way early, before the orchestra gets to do more than introduce itself, and long before the other soloists make their more "proper" appearance.
Where can one fine a more convincing argument for the pointlessness of keeping track of who did what first?
Quote from: head-case on August 22, 2007, 12:34:44 PM
Where can one fine a more convincing argument for the pointlessness of keeping track of who did what first?
I'm finding this dialogue fascinating.
Quote from: head-case on August 22, 2007, 12:34:44 PM
Where can one fine a more convincing argument for the pointlessness of keeping track of who did what first?
Actually, I find it to be fascinating information, but then, I'm actually as interested in history as Josh is. Perhaps you are not, but it doesn't make the information any less relevant.
The artificial constructs of "periods" that we have devised to make things easier to grasp tend to obscure the fact that music is an uninterrupted continuum from X to Y. For example, "Modernists" didn't invent dissonance, it was used in greater or lesser degree from the beginning of music. They simply brought it to the forefront for a time.
Beethoven was evolutionary, not revolutionary. Very few major composers became major because they invented something new, they became major because they took all the things that they absorbed from their predecessors and used it in different ways and to a degree of perfection that captured the imaginations and aesthetic sensibilities of their audiences. Why make it more complicated than what it is? :)
8)
Beautiful words, Gurn.
In fact, the same could be said about Beethoven's inclusion of old modes in some of his later works, like the Et incarnatus in the Missa Solemnis, and the Molto adagio - Andante in the string quartet op. 132.
Quote from: Gabriel on August 22, 2007, 02:46:49 PM
Beautiful words, Gurn.
In fact, the same could be said about Beethoven's inclusion of old modes in some of his later works, like the Et incarnatus in the Missa Solemnis, and the Molto adagio - Andante in the string quartet op. 132.
Oh, I thought he
invented old modes... :-\
;D
Thanks, Gabriel, I've been enjoying this thread, just been too busy to post. :)
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 22, 2007, 02:21:10 PM
Beethoven was evolutionary, not revolutionary. Very few major composers became major because they invented something new, they became major because they took all the things that they absorbed from their predecessors and used it in different ways and to a degree of perfection that captured the imaginations and aesthetic sensibilities of their audiences. Why make it more complicated than what it is? :)
Beethoven was both evolutionary and revolutionary.
You can be revolutionary without "inventing" new forms, without "inventing" new instruments .......
((As an example, even if Stravinsky's
Rite of Spring was somehow confined to sonata form, it would still be revolutionary.))
Quote from: D Minor on August 22, 2007, 02:51:18 PM
Beethoven was both evolutionary and revolutionary.
You can be revolutionary without "inventing" new forms, without "inventing" new instruments .......
((As an example, even if Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was somehow confined to sonata form, it would still be revolutionary.))
Yes, "even if"...
I think "revolutionary" is a sadly overused adjective, particularly in music. :)
8)
Quote from: Haffner on August 22, 2007, 04:44:12 AM
In fact (as unpopular as this might make me) I hear more "revolutionary Piano Concerto" music in of Brahms, Schumann, Chopin.
Allow me to join you in your unpopularity. ;D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 22, 2007, 03:01:10 PM
Yes, "even if"...
I think "revolutionary" is a sadly overused adjective, particularly in music. :)
8)
Your approach is refreshingly revolutionary,
Gurn .......... >:D
((PS: I've always felt that the word "overused" has been overused .......))
Quote from: D Minor on August 22, 2007, 03:50:37 PM
Your approach is refreshingly revolutionary, Gurn .......... >:D
((PS: I've always felt that the word "overused" has been overused .......))
And you just managed to overuse it twice more. :D
IMO, putting the accent on particular devices that have not had the accent on them before (take your pick, there are thousands of them) is evolutionary. If you choose to call that an innovation, we won't argue about it. I do too. In that sense practically all memorable composers are innovative. I just draw a distinction between innovative and revolutionary, I don't view them as synonyms. Perhaps I am irreconcilably conservative... :-\
8)
Got the Italian violin concerto I was thinking of:
Giovanni Giornovichi (1735-1804): Violin Concerto #3 in G. The solo violin opens up and it is several measures before any other instruments appear. This specific piece just came to mind, and I said I'd look up the info later, so here it is! Almost certainly not the first time this was done, though. Hmm, I'd forgotten how tuneful his violin concerti were! Even leaving aside the less-than-usual opening, I like this work pretty well.
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 22, 2007, 04:04:43 PM
Got the Italian violin concerto I was thinking of:
Giovanni Giornovichi (1735-1804): Violin Concerto #3 in G. The solo violin opens up and it is several measures before any other instruments appear. This specific piece just came to mind, and I said I'd look up the info later, so here it is! Almost certainly not the first time this was done, though. Hmm, I'd forgotten how tuneful his violin concerti were! Even leaving aside the less-than-usual opening, I like this work pretty well.
Interesting Josh, can you steer me to a performance? Late 18th century Italians are still off my radar (my loss :( )
8)
I only know of the Arte Nova CDs of his complete violin concerti. I have Volumes 1 and 2, and there had to have been at least 3 CDs to hold them all. Unfortunately, I've never found any evidence for this third CD. Arte Nova is a German label, and I got a number of CDs of theirs in the late 1990s, but I don't find them any more at all.
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 22, 2007, 04:04:43 PM
Got the Italian violin concerto I was thinking of:
Giovanni Giornovichi (1735-1804): Violin Concerto #3 in G. The solo violin opens up and it is several measures before any other instruments appear. This specific piece just came to mind, and I said I'd look up the info later, so here it is! Almost certainly not the first time this was done, though. Hmm, I'd forgotten how tuneful his violin concerti were! Even leaving aside the less-than-usual opening, I like this work pretty well.
Very interesting, Josh. Thanks a lot.
Quote from: JoshLilly on August 22, 2007, 04:23:37 PM
I only know of the Arte Nova CDs of his complete violin concerti. I have Volumes 1 and 2, and there had to have been at least 3 CDs to hold them all. Unfortunately, I've never found any evidence for this third CD. Arte Nova is a German label, and I got a number of CDs of theirs in the late 1990s, but I don't find them any more at all.
Follow the link I posted for you in the WAYLTN thread. There are currently 203 disks in their catalog, not these, however. Vol 1 is available "used" at Amazon for $60... ::)
8)
Quote from: scottscheule on August 21, 2007, 05:00:13 PM
How about the bizarre form of the last movement of the Ninth? Quotations of the prior three movements, followed by a theme of variations and a double fugue and god knows what else. Was there any precedent for that?
I don't understand how this movement coming up before that, or how this vocal section was put into this is a big deal. The point is, there is a decided deviation from the set standards of classical music form. Someone put the Scherzo before the adagio or vice versa at some point. Once the departure from the tradition has started, what difference does it make who put what movement where? These are all forms that were already in existence. If he had opened with the quotations followed by a fugue
then the variations, we'd be equally amazed, no?
What matters is how is the quoatation, how good is the fugue, and how revolutionary is the theme and variations themselves. I think the general agreement is that they are almost uniformly at a high level.
Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2007, 05:41:05 AM
Just asking.
The first to write a five-part symphony? The first to use trombones in a symphony? The first to put the Scherzo before the Adagio? The first to write a seven-part SQ? The first to write a 45-minute piano sonata?
Does he has predecessors in any of these? I'd like to know who they are and in which works.
I don't think any of those are really such important or impressive contributions. I think that as an innovator, Beethoven runs a little deeper then that. The fact he was the first to write avant-garde music for instance (and the consequences have been incalculable). The fact he was the first to use hidden 'programs' as a way to maintain structural unity (which was then exploited in full by Liszt and Wagner). The way he twisted and expanded the forms and techniques of his day (including fugue and counterpoint) to serve his expressive needs.
Before Beethoven, music was considered a mere craft. After him, it became an artform. I think that's a bit more relevant then adding a trombone to a symphony, nay?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 22, 2007, 05:32:50 PM
I don't think any of those are really such important or impressive contributions. I think that as an innovator, Beethoven runs a little deeper then that. The fact he was the first to write avant-garde music for instance (and the consequences have been incalculable). The fact he was the first to use hidden 'programs' as a way to maintain structural unity (which was then exploited in full by Liszt and Wagner). The way he twisted and expanded the forms and techniques of his day (including fugue and counterpoint) to serve his expressive needs.
Before Beethoven, music was considered a mere craft. After him, it became an artform. I think that's a bit relevant then adding a trombone to a symphony, nay?
Yes, lucid analysis.
But do you really believe this?
QuoteBefore Beethoven, music was considered a mere craft. After him, it became an artform.
This is an old trite cliché built and sold by the Romantics; I'm surprised it is still believed. Great music has always been an artform, back to Leoninus and Perotinus. Or you consider your beloved Bach as a mere craftman?
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 05:39:45 PMGreat music has always been an artform, back to Leoninus and Perotinus.
Yes, and the Romantics would have agreed. They considered Bach an artist, didn't they? Which is a bit anachronistic, since Bach saw himself as a craftsman.
You can say that Beethoven merely popularized the idea, but even that is a remarkable achievement in itself. He was also the one to introduce the concept of 'individuality' in music, which is also part of his legacy. Even if genius has always been pervasive in the history of art, you can't deny people begun to see music quite in a different way after Beethoven. It didn't necessarely change the general incidence of genius, but i think it made lesser composers a whole lot of easier to listen to. ;)
"He was also the one to introduce the concept of 'individuality' in music"
............. yeah......
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 05:39:45 PM
Yes, lucid analysis.
But do you really believe this?
This is an old trite cliché built and sold by the Romantics; I'm surprised it is still believed. Great music has always been an artform, back to Leoninus and Perotinus. Or you consider your beloved Bach as a mere craftman?
Without going into a lot of detail, I suggest a reading of Lydia Goehr's "The Imaginary Museum" to answer your question. It is a very important work for understanding the transition from a concept of music as craft, not as a "work" that is a composer's personal intellectual property, to a concept of music as "art." And Beethoven is the key figure in that paradigm shift.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 22, 2007, 06:12:58 PM
Yes, and the Romantics would have agreed. They considered Bach an artist, didn't they? Which is a bit anachronistic, since Bach saw himself as a craftsman.
You can say that Beethoven merely popularized the idea, but even that is a remarkable achievement in itself. He was also the one to introduce the concept of 'individuality' in music, which is also part of his legacy. Even if genius has always been pervasive in the history of art, you can't deny people begun to see music quite in a different way after Beethoven. It didn't necessarely change the general incidence of genius, but i think it made lesser composers a whole lot of easier to listen to. ;)
The key study to read here is Scott Burnham's "Beethoven Hero," which discusses how the archetype of the heroic in certain Beethoven works has unalterably shaped our sense of music and the role of the composer ever since his time. I admit this is very difficult, very dense reading, but Charles Rosen has called it the most important contribution to the philosophy and theory of music in two decades. And this is more important, as has been stated before, than the use of a trombone or the number of movements or the placement of the scherzo.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 22, 2007, 03:01:10 PM
I think "revolutionary" is a sadly overused adjective, particularly in music. :)
And then came "maverick" . . . . 8)
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on August 22, 2007, 06:56:00 PM
Without going into a lot of detail, I suggest a reading of Lydia Goehr's "The Imaginary Museum" to answer your question. It is a very important work for understanding the transition from a concept of music as craft, not as a "work" that is a composer's personal intellectual property, to a concept of music as "art." And Beethoven is the key figure in that paradigm shift.
Larry, I'm quite familiar with those philosophical positions, since I've read them in many books and essays.
I'm not saying I completely reject this "theory", but it didn't fully convince me. I don't share many of its implications. For many reasons. I agree on the fact that Beethoven introduced individuality, and
"twisted and expanded the forms and techniques of his day (including fugue and counterpoint) to serve his expressive needs"
in a way was never done before at the time. But I think my agreement stops here.
Whether a composer conceive himself as a craftman or a God messanger, a Saviour or something else, to me has no bearing on his musical genius and the quality of his music. Great music has always existed, as I said.
Said that, I'd really like to read the book you named. Unfortunately I didn't find an Italian translation, the only way for me to get to it, it's through Amazon.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 23, 2007, 12:28:53 PM
Larry, I'm quite familiar with those philosophical positions, since I've read them in many books and essays.
I'm not saying I completely reject this "theory", but it didn't fully convince me. I don't share many of its implications. For many reasons. I agree on the fact that Beethoven introduced individuality, and
"twisted and expanded the forms and techniques of his day (including fugue and counterpoint) to serve his expressive needs"
in a way was never done before at the time. But I think my agreement stops here.
Whether a composer conceive himself as a craftman or a God messanger, a Saviour or something else, to me has no bearing on his musical genius and the quality of his music. Great music has always existed, as I said.
Said that, I'd really like to read the book you named. Unfortunately I didn't find an Italian translation, the only way for me to get to it, it's through Amazon.
Of course I agree that great music has always existed. But regarding Goehr, let me quote something I wrote here in early 2006, when the subject was "relationships among movements in a work of music," and I think you can see I'm not using her theory to create value judgments:
QuoteThe idea of organic coherence in a musical work seems so self-evident to us today
that some posters here have argued violating that coherence by making cuts,
substitutions, and the like "will result in an abortion of the work." And yet historically
speaking, organic coherence is a relatively recent concept in music, and in music
prior to Beethoven it was perfectly common for movements from longer works to be
played separately, for movements from one work to be inserted in another or used
again in different contexts, for composers to borrow freely from other composers
without being accused of plagiarism or lack of originality (think Handel on several of
these points), etc.
In general, music until the 19th century was not used as something to be listened
to for its own sake, but rather to be experienced in religious, educational, social, or
other contexts. The Mozart divertimento we listen to in rapt silence on our CDs
could well in its time have been no more than the background music accompanying
an aristocrat's dinner party. The Bach cantata we swoon over was not experienced
as art for its own sake but as part of the Sunday Lutheran service in the
Thomaskirche. And so forth. Seen in this way, the music does not really exist as a
"work" that is the composer's intellectual property. And that being the case,
considerations such as organic unity and intricate relations between movements do
not emerge to the degree they do starting in the early 19th century. So long as
they are in the appropriate keys, for example, you could probably mix and match
various sonata allegros, slow movements, minuets, and finales from many of the
Haydn quartets and symphonies, especially the earlier ones, and no one would be
the wiser.
The shift (and this is discussed very well in Lydia Goehr's "The Imaginary Museum of
Musical Works," if you can locate this interesting book) comes not surprisingly with
Beethoven. Though motific relationships between movements in the 5th symphony
have been in my opinion exaggerated, they do exist, and more important, the work
is experienced as an overall progression from tragedy to triumph, with the emphasis
being placed more on the finale as outcome of the work than (as with much of
Mozart and Haydn) with the first movement as being the most weighty and the
finale a kind of dessert to the menu. Thematic relationships between movements
seem even more deliberate in a work like the Sonata Op. 110, where the fugue
theme echoes the main theme of the first movement, and the arioso is a variation
on the main theme of the scherzo. And again, there is the sense of a musical
narrative in the sonata - not a story in the programmatic sense, but a progression
of moods and emotions that seems organic in a way the music of some previous
composers did not. With Beethoven above all the idea of the "work" for its own sake
starts to emerge, and this is accompanied by parallel developments such as the
emancipation of the composer from the patronage system, the growth of a listening
public, and the emergence of a permanent canon of musical works as opposed to a
culture where new works were expected all the time and there was relatively little
interest in preserving the music of the past.
Once this new "Beethoven Paradigm" (as Goehr puts it) emerges, then overall
coherence of the individual work becomes something we can point to with greater
confidence. It occurs in numerous ways: for example, the cyclic form used by
Schubert in his Wanderer Fantasy, Saint-Saëns in his Organ Symphony, and even
Debussy in La Mer. Or in the way a motif dominates an entire work such as the
descending perfect fourth that is so characteristic of the Mahler 1st. Or the re-use
of earlier material in a later part of the work as can be found in the Mahler 2nd. Or
the tendency - very common in Bruckner - to present thematic material in a
harmonically unstable form at the outset of a symphony, ultimately to have the
same material blaze forth at the very end in greater harmonic clarity. This tendency
(think of the 6th and 8th symphonies for obvious examples), is present in that
Mahler 1 as well, and has relations to cyclic form. Other types of overall unity can
be found as well, say in 12-tone music. For example, virtually every sonority in
Webern's Concerto for Nine Instruments is built from a tone row that emphasizes
thirds, sixths, seconds, and sevenths both major and minor, but not fourths or
fifths.
And so while I believe the urge to find overall coherence in works starting with
Beethoven is often justified, in music prior to Beethoven it often is not. This
fallacious assumption of organic unity is the sort of practice that leads pianists
to present an entire book of the WTC in concert as if it were a "work," when
far more probably Bach conceived of each book as an anthology or collection.
Even when we hear the Goldberg Variations today, we should be aware that
in Bach's time only a few of the variations might have been played at a time,
and then there is the (possibly apocryphal) legend that the work was written
to entertain an insomniac nobleman. It is almost a by-product of the original
context of the work that it succeeds for us so well today as an organically
unified whole.
Very interesting, Larry, though I don't completely agree. Think I'll come back on your points.