Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

[karlhenning]

I have been listening to LvB5 this month, a lot - going back and playing all my recordings of it.  Funny how that symphony may be a victim of its own success, but in listening to it again after a long hiatus I could not help but be struck by just how great the work is.

Agreed!

[DavidW]

When Beethoven's 5th premiered they saw the first mosh pit spontaneously form!

[Opus106]

Aye, 'tis but a passing phase, Ray . . . probably we've all had Op.67 overload at one time or another . . . .

That covers the least favourite part, but calling it "least interesting", I think, requires a little more justification other than "I've heard it too many times". I suppose that, for someone on this side of 1808, the first movement of the Fifth ought to be more interesting than, say, the first movement of the First.

[not edward]

I think sometimes all burnout requires is fresh ears, or a fresh approach.

I was very negative about the Eroica for some years; then I heard the (in)famous 1958 VSOO/Scherchen and its extraordinary "whole first movement almost as one phrase" reading (yes, to me that's what's extraordinary about it, *not* the tempo). And it leapt straight back to being one of my favourite symphonies.

I'll admit that I'm probably more than a little burnt out on the Fifth, but I don't think I could ever regard the linking passage between the last two movements as anything other than one of the most extraordinary creations in all of music.

[Brahmsian]

That covers the least favourite part, but calling it "least interesting", I think, requires a little more justification other than "I've heard it too many times". I suppose that, for someone on this side of 1808, the first movement of the Fifth ought to be more interesting than, say, the first movement of the First.

Well, I do find the 1st movement to be the 'least interesting', for ME.  That requires absolutely no explanation.

Having said this, I love the symphony as a whole, and the fantastic transition from the 3rd to Final movement.

I just don't understand who in the universe decided "OK, we are usuing the first 4 notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as his signature calling card for all the world".  Is it because that is all the 'pop music' people can wrap their puny brains around?

Why not the opening bar to the Hammerklavier Sonata or the opening to String Quartet No. 12?

Who had this boardroom meeting and decided on the opening of Beethoven's 5th as 'the only Beethoven you'll ever need to hear'?   

[Renfield]

Myself, I think the opening of the 5th is one of the few cases where something is both 'iconic' (in the pop/marketable sense) and genuinely a great cultural artifact. The sheer violence of the first bar (cf. that famous 'end of civilization' quote from its premiere [whose source presently escapes me]), the way it declares its presence, isn't something trivial, or something that easily leaves you - or at least me. And the subsequent exploration, the leonine ferocity of the Battle of the Themes, the unremitting momentum of the structural line from beginning to end, make the movement special to my ears.

I can see (or rather, given my limited knowledge of theory, suspect) that from a purely structuralist point of view, Beethoven did indeed write more interesting opening movements: ones with more 'interlocking parts', as it were, or with more sophisticated counterpoint - see for instance the Hammerklavier. But one may also argue, setting Fate and whatnot aside, that the relative simplicity of that Allegro con brio may be interesting in itself, for how well it works.

Maybe worth another shot, Ray?

[Brahmsian]

Maybe worth another shot, Ray?

OK, let me re-iterate for the 1,000th time.  I love Symphony No. 5 as a whole.  I LOVE IT.  I just don't see why so much focus is put on the opening movement, while the rest of the symphony is so great.  It is such a disservice, because the general public (meaning 90% of all people) will probably never hear more than the opening 4 notes of this wonderful symphony, or only the 1st movement at that.

If you played any other movement of the 5th symphony to the 'pop music' junkies, they'd have no clue what it was or who composed it.

[Renfield]

OK, let me re-iterate for the 1,000th time.  I love Symphony No. 5 as a whole.  I LOVE IT.  I just don't see why so much focus is put on the opening movement, while the rest of the symphony is so great.  It is such a disservice, because the general public (meaning 90% of all people) will probably never hear more than the opening 4 notes of this wonderful symphony, or only the 1st movement at that.

If you played any other movement of the 5th symphony to the 'pop music' junkies, they'd have no clue what it was or who composed it.

Easy on the trigger!

Let me re-phrase: maybe the first movement's own, discrete brand of symphonic magic is worth another shot, Ray?


Also, it's a first movement whose main theme is in the first bar. That's convenient for sharing.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Also, it's a first movement whose main theme is in the first bar.

Not quite. As Sir Donald Tovey write, "no great music has ever been built from an initial figure of four notes . . . . The first movement of the C minor symphony is really remarkable for the length of its sentences; the first sentences, instead of being "built up" from a single figure, break up into other sentences of even greater variety and breadth." In other words, this movement is not epigrammatic but rather amazingly organic in its sweep and power. But Beethoven as well was doing something here never yet heard in music: an exceptionally concise treatment of sonata form, at the opposite pole to the exceptionally expansive treatment he demonstrated in the Eroica and the F major Quartet. These extremely concise, taut movements occur sometimes in Beethoven's work but not exclusively; other examples would include the first movements of the F minor quartet and the E minor piano sonata op. 90, as well as the finale of the 8th symphony. But none of these movements demonstrated so strong an obsession with a single motif as the first movement of the 5th.

At the same time, the 5th attempts a new kind of overall coherence that resolves itself only in the triumphant finale. (But not because the dadada dumm repeats throughout the symphony; that just doesn't happen.) In much earlier music, the finale tended to be lighter than the opening movements; often in rondo form or sonata-rondo, it tended to throw the weight of the work towards the first movement. Here however such elements as the drum passage connecting the scherzo to the finale, the return to the scherzo (and please, let's keep that taut, concise movement ABA as was B's final intention, and not ABABA), the expanded orchestration with piccolo, trombones, and contrabassoon, etc. - all these elements tend to throw the weight of the symphony more towards the finale and thus make it overall a more coherent, ending-oriented progression of emotions than had yet appeared in absolute music. These tendencies, along with the progression from the angry, snarling C minor opening to the unalloyed C major triumph, helped give rise to the somewhat overstated but still convincing image of Beethoven as a heroic figure overcoming fate.

[Renfield]

Not quite. As Sir Donald Tovey write, "no great music has ever been built from an initial figure of four notes . . . . The first movement of the C minor symphony is really remarkable for the length of its sentences; the first sentences, instead of being "built up" from a single figure, break up into other sentences of even greater variety and breadth." In other words, this movement is not epigrammatic but rather amazingly organic in its sweep and power. But Beethoven as well was doing something here never yet heard in music: an exceptionally concise treatment of sonata form, at the opposite pole to the exceptionally expansive treatment he demonstrated in the Eroica and the F major Quartet. These extremely concise, taut movements occur sometimes in Beethoven's work but not exclusively; other examples would include the first movements of the F minor quartet, the E minor piano sonata op. 90, and the finale of the 8th symphony. But none of these movements demonstrated so strong an obsession with a single motif as the first movement of the 5th.

At the same time, the 5th attempts a new kind of overall coherence that resolves itself only in the triumphant finale. (But not because the dadada dumm repeats throughout the symphony; that just doesn't happen.) In much earlier music, the finale tended to be lighter than the opening movements; often in rondo form or sonata-rondo, it tended after the entire work was head to throw the weight towards the first movement. Here however such elements as the drum passage connecting the scherzo to the finale, the return to the scherzo (and please, let's keep that taut, concise movement ABA as was B's final intention, and not ABABA), the expanded orchestration with piccolo, trombones, and contrabassoon, etc. - all these elements tend to throw the weight of the symphony more towards the finale and thus make it overall a more coherent progression of emotions than had yet appared in absolute music. These tendencies, along with the progression from the angry, snarling C minor opening to the unalloyed C major triumph, helped give rise to the somewhat overstated but still convincing image of Beethoven as a heroic figure overcoming fate.

I take your point, and thank you for the characteristically knowledgeable analysis. It was that "exceptionally concise treatment of sonata form", that I was trying to offer as a reason to appreciate the 1st movement as a formal entity.

Edit: Which of course your analysis illustrates to a considerably more useful extent!

[snyprrr]

If it weren't so good, it wouldn't have been able to be turned into a disco song.

[snyprrr]

Does there seem to be a lot of serious, depressing Composers at the top of this 'Composers' section? LvB, Berg, Schnittke, Brucker...

[snyprrr]

Does there seem to be a lot of serious, depressing Composers at the top of this 'Composers' section? LvB, Berg, Schnittke, Brucker...

[Renfield]

Does there seem to be a lot of serious, depressing Composers at the top of this 'Composers' section? LvB, Berg, Schnittke, Brucker...

Yeah, we need something uplifting at the top, like Mahler Mania, Rebooted, or the Snowshoed Sibelius. Oh, wait.

[Opus106]

Well, I do find the 1st movement to be the 'least interesting', for ME.  That requires absolutely no explanation.

I was not expecting an explanation from you, per se -- I was just pointing out that Karl's 'diagnosis' seemed incomplete.

I just don't understand who in the universe decided "OK, we are usuing the first 4 notes of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as his signature calling card for all the world".  Is it because that is all the 'pop music' people can wrap their puny brains around?

Why not the opening bar to the Hammerklavier Sonata or the opening to String Quartet No. 12?

Who had this boardroom meeting and decided on the opening of Beethoven's 5th as 'the only Beethoven you'll ever need to hear'? 

I just don't see why so much focus is put on the opening movement, while the rest of the symphony is so great.  It is such a disservice, because the general public (meaning 90% of all people) will probably never hear more than the opening 4 notes of this wonderful symphony, or only the 1st movement at that.

Now, I'm just confused. How are these two issues even related: that of its inherent 'non-interestingness' (to you) and its popularity among non-classical listeners? [This of course isn't new. Anything (in classical music) that is popular with the 'masses' is generally looked down upon.]

If you played any other movement of the 5th symphony to the 'pop music' junkies, they'd have no clue what it was or who composed it.

But if they show any interest at all, the constructive thing to do, then, would be to tell them what it is and who composed it. Simple, really.

[karlhenning]

Does there seem to be a lot of serious, depressing Composers at the top of this 'Composers' section? LvB, Berg, Schnittke, Brucker...

You find Beethoven depressing? . . .

[karlhenning]

. . . the return to the scherzo (and please, let's keep that taut, concise movement ABA as was B's final intention, and not ABABA) . . . .

Please say more, (poco) Sfz!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I don't think I could ever regard the linking passage between the last two movements as anything other than one of the most extraordinary creations in all of music.

It is.

Here however such elements as the drum passage connecting the scherzo to the finale, the return to the scherzo (and please, let's keep that taut, concise movement ABA as was B's final intention, and not ABABA)

Yes, please. The repeat takes away the 'shock and awe'.

[Renfield]

I saw this on MDT earlier, as a future release.




To begin with, the price is good even for middling performances of the epic amount of content in it.

More so, I recall someone having waxed lyrical about Ms. Biret here in the past. However, I am hugely suspicious over lesser-known pianists who are alleged to 'magically' manifest talent and experience beyond more established artists. The question therefore is, can anyone sell me (and anyone else interested) Idil Biret, as a Beethoven pianist?

I want to like the idea of this set enough to buy it, at £53; but not if it's anything other than exceptional.


Edit: Just to clarify, I'm asking if anyone can cite any recorded examples of her being a great pianist.

[Renfield]

To answer my own question, with apologies for the double post, she seems to have been Wilhelm Kempff's pupil.

That's significant!

Edit: And Cortot?