The Ninth: Putting on Heirs (Romanticism, etc.)
Roger Lustig
Mendelssohn, either. Keep trying. 8-) ]
In article <salem.657489461@racquel> sa...@racquel.sri.com (Bruce B. Salem) writes:
>Have I touched a nerve? Is this your pet peeve?
No, and no. The only thing I have a problem with is assuming that the
terms "classic" and "romantic" wrt music are simply designations for
adjacent eras, and that the meanings of the labels are deeper than tha
at the same time.
You've touched a pet piece or two (or twenty) though.
ro...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>Can we really agree on all that? [Richard Strauss being included
>among the romantics] I don't see much Romanticism in
>>Strauss (Richard). What do Elektra and Salome have to do with
>>Romanticism, in subject or sound? What of the "knowing" charm of
>>Rosenkavalier and Ariadne auf Naxos? Where is Romanticism in Die Frau
>>ohne Schatten? Insofar as the second set of works I mentioned sounds
>>like older music, how does this come about? Romantic music doesn't tend
>>to quote/refer to Mozart! It sounds like a totally different approach
>>to tradition has come to pass.
>>The earlier tone poems? Well, I cant imagine that a piece about
>>Nietzsche's Zarathustra would be Romantic in any sense other than "19th
>>Century Music."
> So what about Ein Heldenlaben?
Not knowing the piece beyond slight recognition, I can't say. Sure,
there are many aspects of Romanticism in his music; but he's moved far
beyond the attitudes and ideas of the Romantic era as any other field
would construe the term.
>>Much the same holds for Mahler, late Wagner, and Bruckner. The ideas of
>>Romanticism are gone; their music is quite different from that of the
>>1830 generation.
> Quite True. So?
So the Romantic label doesn't fit! Post-Romantic would be far more
accurate; there are aspects of all kinds of esthetic things here, not
least realism, decadence, naturalism, that are NOTpart of Romanticism.
>>You see, if we simply call the big-orchestra/piano miniature/ultragrand
>>opera world "Romantic" and be done, then we've labeled a century of
>>music with a term it doesn't really need, and which has all kinds of
>>connotations concerning art and literature and philosophy. Why do we do
>>that?
> Well then, how would you characterize the period from 1830 to
>1920? How would you subdivide it. Would you make Wagner's Tristan some
>kind of watershed?
Well, yes, I'd subdivide it, and Tristan is an important point. Brahms
is also an important figure; he goes beyond Schumann, Chopin, and
Mendelssohn, and takes a radically retrospective view that the 1830
crowd did not have.
IN general, the fragmentation of musical style in the 19th century is
what characterizes it as much as anything else. Mussorgski, Brahms,
Bruckner, Mahler, Tchaikovski -- all composing at the same time, all
radically different. Throw in Saint-saens and Franck and Verdi.
Then you have to consider the concerns of all the nationalist composers,
who had agendas of their own. Nationalism was a pretty romantic
movement, in the main; but its consequences for art were not always that
obvious, nor does much of nationalist art have much in common.
>>I'll agree that there are "backward-looking" things in Op. 132; but what
>>do you mean wrt the 9th?
> Material destined for the Ninth are found with sketches for
>Op. 132. The use of Plain Chant in the late quartets, the figures that
>bind Opp. 130, 131, 132 and 133 together, and the learned styles in
>the Ninth and Missa Solemnis bind these works together in a
>retrospective look at the Classical and earlier periods.
That's a pretty strong statement. First of all plainchant is hardly a
major feature of the quartets; second, the figures binding the quartets
together don't' make them retrospective, do they? (and it's 131 and 135
that share motives!); third, learned style doesn't mean that he's
being retrospective. I think he was actually being pretty radical about
things such as texture and integration of movements.
>> "big operatic piece with the ritornello
>>repeated twice" -- I never heard an opera anything like that!
> The Finale has a double introduction. The D minor forte
>passages and recititives and the variations on the "Joy" theme
>are repeated for the voices.
Well, sort of. The second time around, the first bit of the recitative
passage becomes the baritone's entry.
>This is closer to the double exposition
>in the concerto, but that comes from the double exposition, use of
>a riternello, in the arias of the Classic period. I agree that the
>theme and variations are not an aria, but there is a riternello
>comprized of the introduction, recitatives and variations. That
>is what I meant.
Well, just because something happens twice, that doesn't make it a
ritornello. In fact, the hallmark of a ritornello is that it appears
beginning, middle, and end -- especially end originally, but not later
on. As I pointed out elsewhere, there are lost of other things that
happen twice in the movement, and you can hardly relate them to the
ritornello principle.
Also, what's a recitative doing in an initial ritornello, if that's what
it is? And why would a ritornello be a variation set? I think the
"metaphor" of ritornello is being carried way too far here.
>>As to Op. 132 some more, since when does the Classical Style make use of
>>canzona variations? Also, note the peculiar way of integrating the
>>piece -- with a pair of semitones, nowhere more blatant than in the
>>piece in the Lydische Tonart.
> You are forgetting about the middle section in D major, a
>gallant dance theme. It is very Classic period stuff. If you consider
>only the F major sections, you get a set of three conzona variations.
>I agree that the means of integrating the sections is odd, but is
>it so uncharacteristic of Beethoven? What about the diinished chord
>that binds the slow movement and the following scherzo of op. 95.,
>the F-minor Quarter? It is odd in a similar way.
I don't think you caught my meaning. The movements of Op. 132 have in
common Beethoven's exploitation of the semitone within the context of
the minor scale -- using it in the "Lydian mode" is a twist he reserves
for the slow movement; the Lydian is a major scale with a semitone where
you don't expect it, right under the dominant -- and Beethoven makes use
of this.
The semitone play is obsessive, though, and Beethoven exploits it in a
hundred different ways.
>>I couldn't tell you what it is that the Eroica means,
>>but I'm sure that it says something far more individual and
>>irreproducible than any Haydn symphony. Beethoven's treatment of
>>motive, of the idea of "theme" in the first movement, etc. is something
>>you just don't find in Haydn or Mozart. Their pieces, wonderful as they
>>are, just don't set up new, one-time rules the way Op. 55 does.
> I will need to find an example of transitions and changes
>within the works of Haydn and Mozart that are just as remarkable. I
>think they exist, but they may not be as striking or have the effect
>of the Eroica. I agree that the things doen by Beethoven have a
>dramatic new effect, but I don't think that they are without precident
>and that Beethoven comes closer to being the hier of Haydn in the
>way the latter played with nuances of form and thwarted expectations
>than did Mozart.
That there are Haydnesque techniques all over the Eroica is true, of
course. That there may be something like a funeral march in one Haydn
symphony or another is equally possible, just as there are variation
sets that end symphonies. But, no, the Eroica is unprecedented. I'm
not talking about technicall detail, I'm talking about the technique of
the whole: a symphonic movement as long as the first movement -- 840
measures, counting the repeat. The use of constant transfromation and
retransformation of the few, related motives that make up the movements
thematic material goes beyond Haydn't motivic transformations, wonderful
though they are. You are right -- they AREN'T as striking as the
Eroica, because they aren't as pervasive, or on such a scale. Beethoven
wrote the first successful piece on such a scale, and had to use sonata
form in a new way, to integrate it even further than Haydn had, to carry
it off.
>>> I would argue that it is Mahler's Resurection Symphony that is
>>>the direct descendant of the legacy of Beethoven's Ninth. I don't
>>>think that the Brahms C minor Symphony has that much to do with it
>>>with the exception that the C minor 1st movement and the C minor
>>>Introduction to the Finale may have been inspired by it, but not much
>>>else.
>>Hmmm... I guess that broad C major tune in the finale was inspired more
>>by the Mahler 3rd...8-)
> You mean Mahler Second? Anyway, I do know about the figure in
>the main theme of the finale of Brahms 1st that is identical with
>part of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy". Tell me, does Brahms say that the
>Symphony was inspired by the Beethoven Ninth? Surely, the Brahms First
>doesn't need the Beethoven Ninth as a precident the way the Mahler 2nd
>might. Agreed?
NO, I mean the 3rd. The opening of the 3rd. The rhythm of hte opening
of the 3rd.
> By the way, I have heard that Brahms First String Quartet in
>C minor Op. 51 #1 is inspired by Beethoven Op. 131? Is that true? I
>don;t think the Brahms is very much like the Beethoven.
I don't know about that; I doubt it. The Mendelssohn quartet in a, Op.
13, is inspired by Op. 132 in a big way.
Roger
Bertram Walsh
movement of op. 132 -- or a very close relative -- form the subject of
op. 133 (contra assertion that only 131 and 135 are linked)?
At least it should be possible to cut through this fog about the
"Romantic" Bruckner 4th. The old man put the label on the symphony
himself: his autograph fair-copy says "romant." at the end of the
title. He did this voluntarily according to various biographers, none
of whom quote a specific statement of his. He WAS later prevailed
upon to invent programmatic content for the various movements. But
when he said "romantic" he seems to have meant something that could be
Englished into "mediaeval" or "feudal", as others well know. There's
a highway route in Germany that you can take southish from Wuerzburg
to Rothenburg o. d. Tauber called the "romantische Strasse" -- the
"Romantic road." That doesn't mean the highway was built between
1800-1830 or that you might want to park on it at night for the
submarine races, rather that it would have appealed to (one aspect of)
the sensibility of the Romantics. Bruckner's "programmatic content"
featured knights riding out into the countryside, etc.
One notes with pleasure the distinction being made between Romantic
/romantic. I could argue for the former period having as its start
MacPherson's invention of Ossian, and there are arguments that it
hasn't ended yet; none of this is relevant to rmc (except that Brahms
did set some Ossian, and there are occasional references to rock).
b
Bruce B. Salem
>Memo to R. Lustig: Doesn't the chromatic figure that begins the first
>movement of op. 132 -- or a very close relative -- form the subject of
>op. 133 (contra assertion that only 131 and 135 are linked)?
There is a famous book entitled "Chanber Music", I wanted to
get the reference before I commented on this but feel compelled to
cite it improperly, which discusses the connection between the
white note theme used in Op. 132 i, The outer movements of Op. 131,
especially the fugue subject of Op 131 i, and The Gross Fugue, Op 133.
The subjects are varients of the same sequence. I wonder out loud
if Roger is claiming that the "Mus es Sein?" from the last movement
of Op. 135 is linked. Of course, since Op 133 was originally part of
Op. 130, one could say that all the Galitzen Quartets are bound
by common themes. (I think that is Op. 130, 131, 132 with the original
form of Op 130. I am wondering if Op 127 is included.) Now, Op 127
does not have anything is common with the others by way of thematic
material.
I will, at my earliest convenience, get the citation and
page numbers.
The reason I brought this up is that it shows Beethoven's
peroccupation with the Learned Style going back to Rennisance
counterpoint at the time he composed these late quartets and the
Ninth Symphony, and later the Missa Solemnis. I have argued that
the deaf and mature composer looked back in time through the
Classical period and before for inspiration by putting Classical
period devices in contrast to learned techniques. The example from the
Hielger Dankesang is that the D major section is a gallant Classical
Dance in contrast with the F major sections that form a conzona
variations.
None of this negates Beethoven's contribution to what follows
him, especially in the way he expanded the Symphony and related forms.
I acknowledge Roger's major distinction between earlier and
later Romantic periods with a major departure from Romanticism as
an aesthetic in Wagner and later. I would argue that we would have to
acknowledge the debt paid to Beethoven by Mahler in the Resurection
Symphony.
Bruce Salem
Bertram Walsh
>>Memo to R. Lustig: Doesn't the chromatic figure that begins the first
>>movement of op. 132 -- or a very close relative -- form the subject of
>>op. 133 (contra assertion that only 131 and 135 are linked)?
> There is a famous book entitled "Chanber Music", I wanted to
>get the reference before I commented on this but feel compelled to ...
Joseph Kerman's _The Beethoven Quartets_ (Knopf, NY, 1971) devotes its
Ch. 9 to this and related questions: the chapter begins (p. 269) with
a line from a Beethoven sketch book indicating the evolution of the
>white note theme used in Op. 132 i
into the subject of op. 133 (the quondam last movement of op. 130).
If we're all to pursue the thread of the relations among the late
quartets, I guess it's time to reread his last 190 pages and make a
thorough start.
b
Roger Lustig
>Memo to R. Lustig: Doesn't the chromatic figure that begins the first
>movement of op. 132 -- or a very close relative -- form the subject of
>op. 133 (contra assertion that only 131 and 135 are linked)?
Well, let's say that only 131 and 135 are BLATANTLY linked. (The slow
mvt. of 135 was sketched as an 8th mvt. for 131, wouldja believe!
Imagine the C# minor quartet ending in Db!) The motives from the mvts 1
and 5 (5? The scherzo) that show up in 135 are much closer than
anything else that passes between quartets.
Yes, 131 has a pair of semitones at the start. But they both go up! G#
to A, B# to C#. This motion pervades the movement (Jeff Nichols, where
are you?).
>One notes with pleasure the distinction being made between Romantic
>/romantic. I could argue for the former period having as its start
>MacPherson's invention of Ossian, and there are arguments that it
>hasn't ended yet; none of this is relevant to rmc (except that Brahms
>did set some Ossian, and there are occasional references to rock).
Funny; the New Oxford History of Music vol. that just appeared is The
Romantic Era, 1830-1890. Some of us were shaking our heads over this at
the AMS meeting.
Roger
Bruce B. Salem
>This follows up Bruce Salem's followup to a memo of mine:
>>>Memo to R. Lustig: Doesn't the chromatic figure that begins the first
>>>movement of op. 132 -- or a very close relative -- form the subject of
>>>op. 133 (contra assertion that only 131 and 135 are linked)?
>> There is a famous book entitled "Chanber Music", I wanted to
>>get the reference before I commented on this but feel compelled to ...
>Joseph Kerman's _The Beethoven Quartets_ (Knopf, NY, 1971) devotes its
>Ch. 9 to this and related questions: the chapter begins (p. 269) with
>a line from a Beethoven sketch book indicating the evolution of the
Yes, thanks for the reference. I read the book by Kerman and
found it quite stimulating, especially as regards the history and
relations between the late quartets. A number of items mentioned in
the "Romantic" thread that began this discussion relate to this.
Kerman acknowledges the thesis, mentioned by several writers
the white note theme used in Op. 132 i is a "cantus firmus" adapted
as the subject for both the Grosse Fugue and the fugue that begins
Op 131, it also appears in the last movement of the same piece.
Kerman deemphesizes this connection for others linking Opp 127 and 132,
and Opp 130 and 131. Roger Lustig cites a connection between the
latter and Op 135 based on the appearence of the Adagio of Op 135
with sketches for Op 131. I could imagine the Db movement as the
movement that would have originally been written in place of #6
(G-sharp Minor?). Op 135 is a refinement on a smaller scale of the
large edifaces of Op 130 and Op 131.
The opus numbers doen't reflect the history of the
six last quartets. The proper sequence is 127, 132, 130 ( with 133),
131, 135, replacement last movement of Op 130.
The connections Kerman chooses is based on two shifts of
emphesis in going from Opp 127 and 132 to the other quartets. First
is in the expansion of forms, addition of movements, and second is the
shift in emphesis away from the Variation form. This is subtle, for
even though one may want to compare the variations of Op 127 with
those of Op 131 and not with the Hieleger Dankesang, it is the form
of the four movements, and some of the methodology of the outer
movements of Op 127 and Op 132 that link them, while at the same time
the number of movements in Op. 131 shifts the balance away from its
variation movement. This shift is increased in Op 130 and 135 as
the scale of variations is reduced to interludes between larger
movements. Consider the size, if not the intent of the Danse alle
Tedesca and the Adagio of Op 135 with Op 127 ii and Op 131 ii.
The traditional variation proceedures of the latter two, and of
Op 111 ii and Op 109 ii, are reduced, and Op 130 and 135 movements
function as interludes between other movements.
Kerman's comments on Beethoven's use of fuge is well taken,
especially in light of what one can think of the late piano sonatas
Opp 106, 110. It is that Beethoven wanted to expand upon the forms
he had available, expecially for large movements, by using fugue as
a means to create expanded development, but more importantly, to
create contrasts. One sees this in Op 110, and very much in the
Grosse Fugue, fugue as a device used to create contrast, with
contrasting adagio in the first case, and with contrasting
sections in a kind of suite in the second. Kerman discusses the
idea that Op 131 i is a kind of "Art of Fugue", an idea that
does not originate with him. Someone might comment as to whether
Beethoven knew the Bach piece, but the opening fugue, whatever
its proceedural merits, does provide an introduction to the succceding
D major movement by way of the striking semicadence to V (G# major)
followed by C# acting as the leading tone to D. Fugue is no longer
an end by itself (Op 95 ii, a contrasting complete section), nor is it
even a device to use in the development of a sonata movement ( Opp 18
and 59), but it is a means to create larger forms.
I appears that the use of Fugue in the Ninth Symphony and the
Missa Solemnis is more traditional than in the chanber music. The
places in the Mass are cannonical for the 18th century sacred music,
and already well used as devices in the movements of a Symphony. I
am talking about the triple fugue (in G minor) in the development
of the first movement, and the orchestral fugue in the last movement
variations.
Bruce Salem
Michael Jude Schiano
Motives in late Beethoven 4-tets:
Forgive me if you've heard this before:
A Rabbi, a priest, and three computer scientists...
Oooops, sorry. Where was I?
Forgive me if you've heard this before:
Deryck Cooke's book (collection of essays) called
"Vindications" has an interesting essay about the
network of motives that occupies Beethoven in these
quartets.
Of course, you can wait till my dissertation gets out and
read about this as part of a general theory of motivic
network relations...:-). OK, just read the essay. :-).
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________ _________________________________________
________________________________________ ___________________________
_______ __________________________________________________________