Here's a review of a new book by Maynard Solomon on Beethoven's late period.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/29/books/29OEST.html
Based on the review, I don't know how much light the book's author throws on it. But since it resurrects again the classical/romantic dispute, maybe people would be interested in seeing it. Perhaps the book is clearer than the review.
It doesn't seem to touch (at least in the review) on the more technical issues of classical and romantic harmonics which Peter convincingly cites as determinants of the styles.
The reviewer implies that Beethoven's late interest in ancient culture may be evidence of a 'lingering classicism.' To me, an interest in distant antiquity can be as much romantic as classical, as in Byron. So that in Beethoven it is not useful to assign it to the one or other tendency, it could mean either - or perhaps both at once.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/29/books/29OEST.html
Based on the review, I don't know how much light the book's author throws on it. But since it resurrects again the classical/romantic dispute, maybe people would be interested in seeing it. Perhaps the book is clearer than the review.
It doesn't seem to touch (at least in the review) on the more technical issues of classical and romantic harmonics which Peter convincingly cites as determinants of the styles.
The reviewer implies that Beethoven's late interest in ancient culture may be evidence of a 'lingering classicism.' To me, an interest in distant antiquity can be as much romantic as classical, as in Byron. So that in Beethoven it is not useful to assign it to the one or other tendency, it could mean either - or perhaps both at once.
Comment