Although I can understand the purpose of the author, part of me thinks Beethoven's music is on such a higher plane than current politics. Or maybe that WAS his message....
When people talk about "desert island" picks, I prefer to modernize it to what one would choose to take with them on a long space flight, or (if we use deep sleep) to a new space colony. I don't know how many bytes of storage I'd be allotted, but I have a feeling Beethoven's late string quartets would be included. And Steely Dan....
There is very little that is more unifying to so many people than Beethoven's music. I'm sure you are aware that the 9th symphony was played to mark the re-unification of Germany, and the fall of the Soviet Union, famously replacing the word "freude" (joy) with the word "freiheit" (freedom). It was chosen as the EU anthem for a good reason.
I personally think that was the message: this is a man whose father's brutal abuse likely caused his future deafness and an awful case of bipolar depression. His music was always lauded, but he was personally the subject of intense ridicule throughout his life and career. And as a result he gave us lots of music that represented that torment vividly, and plenty more that told us to rise above it.
I haven’t read the reviewed book. However, it seems close enough to on topic to recommend Beethoven: Anguish and Triumph by Jan Swafford, which is one of the best biographies I have ever read. Beethoven’s story is hardly believable - from his early exposure to the Bavarian Illuminati, through his years of piano showdowns, through his triumphant 9th symphony when he was nearly deaf. If you are looking for book to dig into, I strongly recommend it.
I’ve been studying 7th symphony 2nd movement as a beginner and it’s incredible to me. It’s so simple. Dull, almost, when you’re reading the notes. And yet those notes in just the right way evoke such incredible emotions.
…Although I've found some of Beethoven's much more complex to follow. I reckon you're right about the 7th though, it remains one of my favorite and exciting of his works. Still, I know some who disagree citing it repetitive and boring (why they've arrived at this view beats me, must be their brains are wired very differently to mine).
On the matter of notes on paper and how they sound in actual performance, I reckon nothing betters Mozart. On reading the scores of some of his piano concertos some passages look so simple and trite that one wouldn't bother with them but upon performance they open out into a whole world of wonderful, complex emotions.
There's this wonderful passage in in Shaw's letters when he expressed the same opinion:
>By all means put Mozart in his place; but don't be led into thinking that it was not a very high place. And don't read his scores; sing and hear them. If you look at his blessed old dominant sevenths,they will never be anything but dominant sevenths to you. If you listen to them only, you will sometimes find yourself going to the score to find what a strange chord it is you have heard, and being astonished and infuriated to find that it is as plain and platitudinous a seventh on paper as anything in "When Other Lips."
You're right, the 7th symphony is a fantastic piece, but have you taken the time to truly appreciate the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony? It's an extraordinary blend of simplicity and complexity that never fails to amaze. Beethoven's prowess in this composition is truly awe-inspiring.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the 3rd movement is how Beethoven skillfully melds the background and foreground instruments together. The way they intertwine is reminiscent of DNA strands, and it adds a level of depth and richness to the music that is hard to come by in other works. It's a testament to Beethoven's genius as a composer.
If you haven't had the opportunity to listen to the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony, I highly recommend doing so. It's a breathtaking musical journey that showcases the true power of music to touch our emotions and elevate our spirits.
I'm listening now. Goodness. It's such a hopeful piece. Each instrument (or perhaps section?) is taking their turn carrying the hope on to the next set of measures.
Going to keep listening to the rest of the movement--- actually I'm just going to put the whole symphony on today while I work.
The book under review consists of a collection of remarks about individual works by Beethoven. For each individual work, the author lists some historical anecdotes and follows it up with a list of notable recordings. Of course, the recording review is quite helpful, and it's often helpful to hear someone else's thoughts even on recordings that you know very well. However, it is frustrating that the author says so little about the music itself, and I feel that many people, like me, do not feel the anecdotes of a work's creation and reception improve our enjoyment of the music. I'm afraid the book doesn't quite live up to the title in that way.
There is also the issue of the inaccuracies underlying some of the author's statements which can lead to a misleading picture of the composer. The reviewer has rightly picked up the different social aspect of music in the 18th and 19th centuries that undermines the simple comparison between the reception history of Beethoven and Bach done by the author, but there is more in the same (concluding) chapter. The author states that "[Beethoven] is practically unquotable, yielding few spinoffs." and after listing a few minor borrowings concludes "But that’s about it...". He has omitted to mention Schumann's C major fantasy, which surely is one of the most astonishing and effective works that is explicitly based on a direct quotation of Beethoven. Shortly after the author states "He is empirically inimitable. Nobody has emulated the ninth symphony, the Hammerklavier, the Archduke trio or the late quartets.", this is simply not true. Brahms made a point of specifically emulating Beethoven's 9th symphony in his first symphony, and when people pointed out the similarity, Brahms reportly said "Any ass can see that!". Brahms' 1st piano sonata is also so closely based on the Hammerklavier such that the resemblance is unmistakable. The fact that Brahms burned several sonatas before he published the "first" one shows how carefully he treated Beethoven's legacy. Mendelssohn also wrote a much less effective piano sonata based on the Hammerklavier, but he had the sense of never publishing it. In his youth he was much more successful, Mendelssohn's Op 13 string quartet is also explicitly modelled on the late Beethoven quartet in the same key, mirroring Beethoven's successful emulation of Mozart's K 464 quartet in his own first quartet collection. It's one thing to gush over Beethoven's reputation concerning the impossibility in following in his footsteps (and it is true that when 19th century composers tried to emulate Beethoven the result was often disastrous, the examples I've given are the exceptions which prove the rule), it doesn't give us any understanding as to why this is the case if one make vague blanket statements.
16 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 43.9 ms ] threadWhen people talk about "desert island" picks, I prefer to modernize it to what one would choose to take with them on a long space flight, or (if we use deep sleep) to a new space colony. I don't know how many bytes of storage I'd be allotted, but I have a feeling Beethoven's late string quartets would be included. And Steely Dan....
If memory serves me correctly, the fifth movement of the Op.130 _is_ on a long space flight.
I personally think that was the message: this is a man whose father's brutal abuse likely caused his future deafness and an awful case of bipolar depression. His music was always lauded, but he was personally the subject of intense ridicule throughout his life and career. And as a result he gave us lots of music that represented that torment vividly, and plenty more that told us to rise above it.
…Although I've found some of Beethoven's much more complex to follow. I reckon you're right about the 7th though, it remains one of my favorite and exciting of his works. Still, I know some who disagree citing it repetitive and boring (why they've arrived at this view beats me, must be their brains are wired very differently to mine).
On the matter of notes on paper and how they sound in actual performance, I reckon nothing betters Mozart. On reading the scores of some of his piano concertos some passages look so simple and trite that one wouldn't bother with them but upon performance they open out into a whole world of wonderful, complex emotions.
>By all means put Mozart in his place; but don't be led into thinking that it was not a very high place. And don't read his scores; sing and hear them. If you look at his blessed old dominant sevenths,they will never be anything but dominant sevenths to you. If you listen to them only, you will sometimes find yourself going to the score to find what a strange chord it is you have heard, and being astonished and infuriated to find that it is as plain and platitudinous a seventh on paper as anything in "When Other Lips."
One of the most fascinating aspects of the 3rd movement is how Beethoven skillfully melds the background and foreground instruments together. The way they intertwine is reminiscent of DNA strands, and it adds a level of depth and richness to the music that is hard to come by in other works. It's a testament to Beethoven's genius as a composer.
If you haven't had the opportunity to listen to the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony, I highly recommend doing so. It's a breathtaking musical journey that showcases the true power of music to touch our emotions and elevate our spirits.
Going to keep listening to the rest of the movement--- actually I'm just going to put the whole symphony on today while I work.
There is also the issue of the inaccuracies underlying some of the author's statements which can lead to a misleading picture of the composer. The reviewer has rightly picked up the different social aspect of music in the 18th and 19th centuries that undermines the simple comparison between the reception history of Beethoven and Bach done by the author, but there is more in the same (concluding) chapter. The author states that "[Beethoven] is practically unquotable, yielding few spinoffs." and after listing a few minor borrowings concludes "But that’s about it...". He has omitted to mention Schumann's C major fantasy, which surely is one of the most astonishing and effective works that is explicitly based on a direct quotation of Beethoven. Shortly after the author states "He is empirically inimitable. Nobody has emulated the ninth symphony, the Hammerklavier, the Archduke trio or the late quartets.", this is simply not true. Brahms made a point of specifically emulating Beethoven's 9th symphony in his first symphony, and when people pointed out the similarity, Brahms reportly said "Any ass can see that!". Brahms' 1st piano sonata is also so closely based on the Hammerklavier such that the resemblance is unmistakable. The fact that Brahms burned several sonatas before he published the "first" one shows how carefully he treated Beethoven's legacy. Mendelssohn also wrote a much less effective piano sonata based on the Hammerklavier, but he had the sense of never publishing it. In his youth he was much more successful, Mendelssohn's Op 13 string quartet is also explicitly modelled on the late Beethoven quartet in the same key, mirroring Beethoven's successful emulation of Mozart's K 464 quartet in his own first quartet collection. It's one thing to gush over Beethoven's reputation concerning the impossibility in following in his footsteps (and it is true that when 19th century composers tried to emulate Beethoven the result was often disastrous, the examples I've given are the exceptions which prove the rule), it doesn't give us any understanding as to why this is the case if one make vague blanket statements.