Finale of the 2nd Symphony, op.36

[Sophia]

Greetings. I know it sounds strange but it's true: I am not interested in anything other than very detailed info on the finale of Beethoven's second. I have a paper to do on it and it's due in 10 days or so. I have completed my own analysis, I have gone through some books and studies regarding Beethoven's early period and the classical style in general, but I am still not satisfied with the results of my research. I have concluded that the movement is in sonata-rondo form, it has 3 very distinct subjects (two subjects in it's A=Tonic section and one subject in it's B=Dominant section in the exposition). It has a rather short development (which doesn't sooo very developmental, having heard the developments of the later symphonies) and a persistence on F# minor towards the end of the development. It has a coda twice the size of the development, which is also characterized by a persistence/attraction towards F# (at first as a chord, a dominant seventh of B minor, and later as a unison F#).

But all these musical happenings are there, on the score. It's not difficult to distinguish them. What is difficult for me is to make a suggestion on what causes them. For instance, why is the coda so large? Is it because it constitutes an "additional area of thematic development" as some analysts suggest regarding Beethoven's codas or something else is going on?

Anyway, I have plenty of questions regarding this movement, and I am having great difficulty seeing this movement in itself rather than a part of a whole, but I have no choice: the assignment is very specific and I have to work IN this restricted frame. Besides there is no time to embark on a detailed study of the whole work.

I think I may have bored you with my babbling. If anyone has an opinion on this movement, please respond. As you can see, I am tooo open for ideas (as I myself have discovered absolutely nothing!).

Thanks in advance

[Andrea]

I don't know if you have read this book,"Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies" by George Grove. Here's a bit of what he wrote on the Finale of the Sym.#2:

"It is in the form called a Rondo (though not strictly that) and starts in the most abrupt fashion and very fast (Allegro molto). Then comes a passage which can hardly be called a subject or episode but its high spirits are in excellent keeping with that which precedes it, and it leads well into the second subject, which, though not extraordinary in itself, is most spontaneous, and very pleasant in sound, with its vocal passages for oboe and bassoon, and would be well calculated to allay the fever with which its predecessor started if its lively accompaniment were not too full of motion (notice here again especially the fiery instrusions of the violins).
Long as this subsidiary themem is (unusually long for Beethoven) it is immediately repeated in the minor; and then, after a passage of padding, comes the peptition of the initial notes, and accompanied by the bassoon in arpeggios. This leads into a working-out, with a great deal of humorous play, before the reprise of the original material is reached. In the reprise the second subject is repeated in D, and this again is followed by a long and very original Coda. This begins with the opening subject, but soon comes to a pause, first on the chord of A, with the dominant seventh on C sharp, and then on the chord of F sharp upon A sharp. And now begins the most individual and Beethovenish part of the entire work. It is as if, after the chord of F sharp, we had passed through a door and were in a new, enchanted world. All that we have heard before vanishes. Earth is forgotten, and we are in Heaven. The rhythm changes; the bass goes down octave after octave pianissimo, distinctly heard through the thin scoring. A freash subject comes in in the wind; the opening theme is once more alluded to, but only to lead into an entirely new thought- a magic shimmering, impressive as the evening sun shining broad and low on the ocean; a lovely flowing melody in the oboe and bassoon, accompanied in notes of equal value by the basses, and with a pedal D through three octaves in the horns and violins. The beauty of this passage words cannot describe; it is pure Beethoven, a region full of magic and mystery, into which no one before ever led the hearers of music. After further working we arrive at another pause, this time on F sharp itself; a short resumption of the former new rhythm follows, intensified by the bass being pizzicato; but it does not last; a rapid ending, and the whole is over!"

[Sophia]

Thanks very much, Anrdea, for taking the time to copy all this from Grove. The truth is that I already have this book and I have taken into account some things that Grove, but I am treating it as a source, not a modern study regaring the subject. After all, this book is over 80 years old and it can't be trusted very much. In a contemporary essay/study on a subject, one must consult the most recent related studies on the same subjetc.

And, I would like to make clear that I am not asking for bibliography material, I am looking for personal opinions on the subject by people how may have studied it in detail, so that we can discuss and support each one's findings, and hopefully, persuade one another. Basically, I am looking for help through discussion.

Thanks very much Andrea

[urtextmeister]

Sophia,

Greetings, fellow junior member!
It has been a few years since I have done any kind of formal analysis, but I was intrigued by your remarks, so I have been looking at the score for wonderful finale.

I don't entirely follow your basic analysis--as I see it, the piece can function in sonata allegro form: an A theme, a B theme (more lyrical) and a C theme (cadential material). There is a development of sorts, a recap--A, B and C all in tonic key, but instead of the cadential material finding a conclusion in D major, it proceeds to the coda.

Here are some points for you to pursue in writing this paper:
In what sense is this movement a rondo? In what sense a sonata-allegro movement?
You question the shortness of development and lengthiness of coda. Are there elements of development in the coda? What does this mean for the form of the movement?
You go the route of Mr Grove in your statement that there is original material in the coda. How much is closely related to themes from the movement? Look particularly at what he calls the "new thought--magic shimmering" etc. Is this really a new thought?
What is the significance of f# as a key area? Where does it lead? What are the ramifications of it?

Tell me what thoughts you have based on these questions and I will tell you if I agree with you.
Happy analyzing!

[Sophia]

Fellow member, Urtextmeister.

Your comments were very helpful to me. But I would like to support my position about the basic form, a sonata-rondo, mainly because of the fourfold appearance of the first subject. Of course it does not appear intact all 4 times, but it does appear, and it's stated in the tonic all 4 times.

But it's true that in my analysis, I have already given the movement a sonata treatment. We know that the general form of the sonata-rondo is ABA C ABA, with a coda or no coda. The C of course is the development section. Of course in the score of the finale of the second symphony, we can clearly see those sections, but there is a big difference: the second and fourth appearances of A (A1 in this particular case)are not only truncated, but also they don't "stick" with what preceeds them, but on the contary, they both signal the beginning of a new section (the second appearance signalizes the beginning of the development and the fourth signalizes the beginning of the coda).

Also, Dahlhaus says that it is a "textbook" sonata-rondo, but it has the dynamic of sonata form. And I accept that, that's why in my sketch I don't devide it like a textbook sonata-rondo (ABA C ABA coda) but like AB(exposition) AC(development), AB(recap.) and A+coda. Of course I am taking into account that A consists of two themes not one, and that's why I am talking about A1 and A2. I think that it's not entirely wrong to treat it as a sonata-rondo, besides you can see that there are some opinions of analysts that do treat it like that.

The other thing: I don't think I said that the coda has entirely new material. I don't agree with Grove's "new thought" (the magic shimmering) but I can see why he said it: in that specific point of the coda, the material used is almost exclusively that of the head motive of the opening theme. It may have been heard before, but the way in which he uses and develops it now makes it sound new. The piano dynamic, the playful character etc. Also we have heard something like that "shimmering" before: in both transitions to the development (mm.98-107) and to the coda (mm.282-293), only in those two parts, there is a stronger sense that he is trying to find something, trying to find a way to get back to his main theme in the tonic. But in the coda, he uses that same "shimmering" in a sequential manner and he uses it as a poin of origin to create a new melody, that seems to be "born" somehow out of thiw "shimmering" and out of the stepwise motion in the bass.

I think I have said to much and without meaning. Damn!

Anyway, close by saying only this: there is a developmental character in the coda. And there an emphasis on F#, which seems to be a unifying element in the whole (it happens also in the first movement, development). Something seems to be going on with the notes f# and g in general. See (mm.334-337)where the g with which the movement started, establishing great instability, is indeed resolved in an f# (m.336-7), but in the wrong register and with the wrong harmony (F# as dominant of Bminor). So maybe the F# has something to do with that. That's just a thought.

I am awating for your reply. And I don't think I going to change my treatment of the movement as sonata-rondo. I am more interested in what's going on inside the sections and the coda. Apparently there are many opinions as to whether it is sonata or rondo-sonata, and apparently even recognized analysts can't decide. So I guess that it's not something which can be right or wrong. Now if I had said that it is plainly rondo, now that would be wrong.

Thanks for comments. Please write again.

Sophia

[urtextmeister]

Sophia,
First of all, I have to apologize for referring to myself as a junior member. Just as I sent that I became a full-fledged member. I am no longer Urtextmeister-junior member! (Actually, I kind of enjoyed being considered a "junior" anything at my age).

I think I understand your basic analysis of the form, but I think it is a bit confusing. You include in your A theme the first theme plus the contrasting more lyrical theme. I think these are two clearly different themes and should be A and B. One reason for doing this is the development (m.108-). You can call it A' or whatever, but wouldn't it be clearer if you had the first two themes separate so you could say the expo is A B and the Dev. just A?
As I said before, I haven't formal analysis for a long time, but I think your version is a little unconventional.

I didn't mean to imply that this piece is not a sonata/rondo. I think it is. I think the form can be analysed as a sonata allegro, but, like you said, because he uses the A theme to start the dev. and the coda, it sounds like a rondo. Other elements that make it a rondo: the use of that transitional material you refered to (first appearing in m.98); the short and inconsequential development; the ease with which the threatening F#s are dismissed in favor of the home key. How often does Beethoven actually spend time away from his home key? Not much, in my opinion, and that is what gives it more the feeling of a rondo.

Your comment about the opening g resolving to the big octave f# is quite brilliant. Is that an original idea? Can you go any further with it? That is the type of thing that would make an interesting paper.

The Magic shimmering that Grove talks of is, I think beginning in m. 358. He speaks of a pedal D in the vns and hn. This is, I think just a version of that second, lyrical theme that spans a perfect fourth. It is simply slowed down and given a different meaning.

I think what you say has meaning. Maybe you just need to go further with one or two of the ideas that you already have. You say there are elements of a development section in the coda. Does this mean the coda could be acting as "false development section?" What about the use of humor in this movement? Is Beethoven with our expectations regarding sonata form or Rondo form?

I had one teacher who really turned around my view of analysis and music criticism. Her name is Susan McClary and there is one book I know of "Feminine Endings--music, gender and sexuality." It is published by University of Minnesota press. See if your library has that or could order it.

Talk to you later,
Urtext.

[Sophia]

Hello, fellow member Urtexetmeister,

First of all, I would like to make clear that, at this point, i am only interested to finish this damn thing and just pass this course. I admit that, when I was assigned this particular subject, I was intriged, but now I really see that analysis is the last thing I wanna do. I write notes, not words and this is what I really want to do.

And 3 days ago I started writting the paper, and I realize that... I don't have it: I can't talk about music in a convincing way, in a way that others will understand a little bit of what I am talking about. So, I am just writting in order to pass, nothing more than that.

Second of all, I am very grateful for your remarks, and I decided to distinguish between the themes, as you suggested, because you 're right. You can't just call both themes A just because they are both in the tonic! Although I was ready to call them A1 and A2, now I am just goin to call all the themes A,B and C.

So the overall scheme goes like this:

ABC=Expo A+Dev=Dev ABC=Recap A+Coda=Coda


What I wanna make clear in the essay, is that I believe that the second and fourth appearances of A are not IN the exposition and recapitulation, but IN the developmant and coda. I can't figure out any other scheme that show both things: 1) that the main theme A appears 4 times, and 2)that the second and fourth time it appears, it signals the beginning of the development and the coda, and not the end of the exposition and recapitulation.

That's about it. Thanks for the nice remark for my observation in mm.334-6. It is mine, or at least I think it is. Anyway, I am not an analyst, I don't know what can be considered original and what can't.

About Susan McClary, I was really impressed that you said she was your teacher. I found 2 books of hers in the library and I read a little and I found it really interesting. I don't remeber the titles, because it was last year and I was looking through some books that had interesting titles.

Anyway, thanks for all your remarks and observations.

Oh, I found a book by Rosen (the classical style). It's supposed to be a classic. I have read the first 2 chapters and it is reeeaally good. I am gonna read the whole thing. But I read very slow because english is not my native language.

[urtextmeister]

Sophia,

I am confused. You have had many valuable and interesting things to say about this piece and yet you negate this by saying no one will understand you?!
I would not have guessed you were not a native english speaker.
I agree with your current analysis, but I would present it first with just letters.

Many composers are also theorists. I consider myself a composer who is only mildly interested in music theory. However, it is a great way to learn about what makes music "tick." Studying a Beethoven symphony can be very beneficial to a composer even if he or she is composing in a totally different style. Don't you agree?

I admire the fact that you are reading music criticism. Some of it is boring and a waste of time (it makes you wish you listening to the piece instead of reading about it), but some of it can be imaginative and interesting.
Good luck on your paper and don't just try to pass the course. You do yourself a disservice.

[Sophia]

Fellow member Urtextmeister,

Thank you for your words.

Of course I believe that analysis is essential in order to understand how music is composed, and of course everyone who wants to study composition, must be at least acquainted with the concept of music analysis. Beside it is really helpful. I am just saying that (for composers at least) it should be confined to the study of the score. Everything is the score. If you start talking about it and if you analyse in order to write a paper on another person's work instead of using this knowledge to compose a piece of your own, that is when the game is over (at least for me): because things may seem just fine -on the surface- when I am "describing" music, but when I have to create it out of thin air everything becomes sooo overwhelming that I get drowned in my own chaotic ideas.

I have to go now.

See ya later!

P.S My native language is Greek