Beethoven and the English Monarchy

[Frohlich]

Reading Beethoven's letter to King George the 1V, I am puzzled about a number of things;

1. Why did he send the Battle Symphony score direct to the King in the first place.

2. What on earth was going on with the performance of this work given that it had a great success in London and Beethoven recieved not even a acknowledgement and it looks as though not even payment for the work.

3. Is there any reason why the King, apart from being fat and self indulgent did not acknowledge Beethoven or invite him to London?

4. Beethoven seems to have been shabbily treated and to have felt the insult keenly in that clearly the King had released the work for performance without even bothering to acknowledge even by letter the reciept of the work from Beethoven's hands.

5. Given the way that Haydn was feted in England some 30 years before it is nothing short of tragic that Beethoven, an incomparably greater musician was treated in the way he was, but nevertheless to his credit he doesn't seem to have harboured any grudged against the English, and indeed we partly redeemed ourselves when he was dying of course with the very generous gift from the Philharmonic Society..

It would be a nice thought wouldn't it if the present Queen or Prince of Wales could give this belated recognition even now, which I am sure Beethoven, in the supernal realm would be pleased with.

[Peter]

Perhaps Beethoven was under the illusion that the British Royal family were somehow cultured - not much chance today either unless he came by horse! I'm reminded of Wagner's thoughts when asked by Queen Victoria how he found the music in England, he was tempted to answer that he was still looking for it!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Frohlich]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]Perhaps Beethoven was under the illusion that the British Royal family were somehow cultured - not much chance today either unless he came by horse! I'm reminded of Wagner's thoughts when asked by Queen Victoria how he found the music in England, he was tempted to answer that he was still looking for it!

We totally agree with you Peter! My Husband tells me that when Wagner came to London he later told a friend that he had now seen the models for the Niebelungs in his Ring Cycle,and when he took a trip to the East India Docks and saw the Stevedore's there and was so shocked by their brutalized existance that he thought that he had entered the underworld by mistake. He said he could scarcely recognize them as human beings, they were so savage and degrading.
But there again there has always been a rivalry between England and Germany.
I suppose it has to be said that whilst Germany was the birth place of Wagner's great music drama about the universe, redemption, love, etc. we were writing about the Pirates of Penzance and the Mikado!





[This message has been edited by Frohlich (edited October 28, 2003).]

[Frohlich]

In addition to the above post.

The problem is not that we don't have good English composers, but that there is an enormous 2 century gap between the death of Purcell and the music of Elgar and the void was only partially filled by Handel, who was German anyway.

There really are quite a lot of Elizabethan composers and it is great that the rest of the world is becoming aware that we did have first rate composers. I suppose we have the authentic movement to thank for that.

Amalie

[Peter]

Originally posted by Frohlich:

In addition to the above post.

The problem is not that we don't have good English composers, but that there is an enormous 2 century gap between the death of Purcell and the music of Elgar and the void was only partially filled by Handel, who was German anyway.

There really are quite a lot of Elizabethan composers and it is great that the rest of the world is becoming aware that we did have first rate composers. I suppose we have the authentic movement to thank for that.

Amalie

Yes I agree the 16th century produced some fine English composers and they were fortunate to have a highly intelligent and cultured monarch in Queen Elizabeth I. Wagner was of course fortunate to have the tragic Ludwig II, without whom the Ring wouldn't have seen the light of day.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Frohlich:

In addition to the above post.

The problem is not that we don't have good English composers, but that there is an enormous 2 century gap between the death of Purcell and the music of Elgar and the void was only partially filled by Handel, who was German anyway.

There really are quite a lot of Elizabethan composers and it is great that the rest of the world is becoming aware that we did have first rate composers. I suppose we have the authentic movement to thank for that.

Amalie

Notwithstanding the great composers England had in certain centuries, each nation has its strengths and weaknesses in the arts. The English strength is undoubtedly poetry and literature, and there is less consistently great work in other spheres. I think the second best achievement in English arts is architecture. They are like the Romans in their achievements in these two art forms, and also like the Romans in their world-straddling empire and ability to impose order throughout it. I think the Roman character and the English one are quite similar during their great days. This is odd because the present day Italians are so different from the English.

[melvyn]

Originally posted by Frohlich:
I suppose it has to be said that whilst Germany was the birth place of Wagner's great music drama about the universe, redemption, love, etc. we were writing about the Pirates of Penzance and the Mikado!

There's nothing wrong with The Pirates Of Penzance and The Mikado!!

Melvyn.

[Frohlich]

Originally posted by melvyn:
There's nothing wrong with The Pirates Of Penzance and The Mikado!!

Melvyn.

Yes ok, but there is something of a musical and philosophical difference between the two and that is putting it mildly!
The English of course are very uncomfortable with philosophy, have a far more empirical approach to life, and Wagner was really only a hit with sections of the upper middle classes in London, when he first came to attention in the 1860's.
I get the sense that the theory of decay in 'Ring' was a bit too close to home as far as the British were concerned, and don't forget this was the height of the British Empire. But a bit like Wotan and the Gods, Wagner shows us in the 'Ring' the rotteness of all imperial structures and how ambition is ultimately doomed, in the rock of human imperfections.

[Frohlich]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frohlich:
[B]
Yes ok, but there is something of a musical and philosophical difference between the two and that is putting it mildly!
The English of course are very uncomfortable with philosophy, have a far more empirical approach to life, and Wagner was really only a hit with sections of the upper middle classes in London, when he first came to attention in the 1860's.
I get the sense that the theory of decay in 'Ring' was a bit too close to home as far as the British were concerned, and don't forget this was the height of the British Empire. But a bit like Wotan and the Gods, Wagner shows us in the 'Ring' the rotteness of all imperial structures and how ambition is ultimately doomed, in the rock of human imperfections.
This applies of course to the British and Roman Empires of yesterday and the American empire today. Wagner's message, which is a timeless one, is that all empires must pass away and give place to new orders, a new heaven and a new earth.
Beethoven's 9th, like Wagner at the end of the 'Ring' looks joyously forward to this new world of purity and hope.

[Frohlich]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Notwithstanding the great composers England had in certain centuries, each nation has its strengths and weaknesses in the arts. The English strength is undoubtedly poetry and literature, and there is less consistently great work in other spheres. I think the second best achievement in English arts is architecture. They are like the Romans in their achievements in these two art forms, and also like the Romans in their world-straddling empire and ability to impose order throughout it. I think the Roman character and the English one are quite similar during their great days. This is odd because the present day Italians are so different from the English.

I agree with you Chaszz,

Only I would say that on my darker days when I look at the state of British society, I begin to doubt the present day English have anything at all in common with our Empire building forebears of the past.
Without being rude to Italians, a country I greatly love, I think I have to say, I can see no trace in present day Italians of the Romans of the past, and that applies to the Greeks also, (which is something Byron became all too tragically aware of).
I suppose we have to say that in a sense, Britians inheritance has now been transmitted to the US, and it is a spirit that now resides there rather than in this green and pleasant land. Certainly American social and political attitudes mirror quite closely the philosophy of Britians empire builders of the past, and also the religious matrix whereas present day Britian is frankly is a liberal and amoral mess!
English literature is incredible. Unless you happen to be very wealthy, kids do not learn anything about Britians past, indeed they are hardly taught anything at all from what I can see, and as for Christianity, Britian becam a pagan society many, many years ago. In America at least, people at least in a sense have to sign up to the American constitution, but there is nothing, literaly nothing in Britian that acts as a social glue, and the historical point here is that any society like Britians today without beliefs is doomed to collapse.
We are like Pygmies today trying to stand on the shoulders of giants eagerly consuming what remains of the Capital of the past.

I have always been fascinated with Russian literature, and at the moment I am into Prokofiev's 'Alexander Nevsky' introduced to me by a collegue at work, who sings in the London Symphony Choir. Stirring stuff!
I also adore Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet, I love this piece, you can feel the searing hatred and menace between the two warring factions, the Montague's and the Capulet's.



[This message has been edited by Frohlich (edited October 29, 2003).]

[Grillparzer]

Ms. Frohlich,
One question only, since I have no opinion concering the British cultural level, why do you make the obviously inflammatory and hopelessly inane statement that Beethoven was an incomparably greater musician/composer than Haydn? Such a view is totally unsupported by evidence, and in my humble opinion it would have you make of yourself a laughingstock if you tried to defend it against a musicologist. Remember one thing, if there had been no Haydn, there would have been no Beethoven, or not one that you would have recognized.


------------------
Adieu,
Franz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[spaceray]

Originally posted by Grillparzer:
Ms. Frohlich,
One question only, since I have no opinion concering the British cultural level, why do you make the obviously inflammatory and hopelessly inane statement that Beethoven was an incomparably greater musician/composer than Haydn? Such a view is totally unsupported by evidence, and in my humble opinion it would have you make of yourself a laughingstock if you tried to defend it against a musicologist. Remember one thing, if there had been no Haydn, there would have been no Beethoven, or not one that you would have recognized.

Grillparzer,
I completely agree with everything you say here,without Haydn there would not have been the Beethoven we love.It is a great mistake to believe that the master composers could have surivived in a vacumn.Each one had a part to play in the formation of great music.And remember that Beethoven himself had respect for other composers works including Haydn .

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Grillparzer:
Ms. Frohlich,
One question only, since I have no opinion concering the British cultural level, why do you make the obviously inflammatory and hopelessly inane statement that Beethoven was an incomparably greater musician/composer than Haydn? Such a view is totally unsupported by evidence, and in my humble opinion it would have you make of yourself a laughingstock if you tried to defend it against a musicologist. Remember one thing, if there had been no Haydn, there would have been no Beethoven, or not one that you would have recognized.

Franz,
Well, feeling a little harsh today? In any case, I think you are correct that Haydn is unjustly put into the background by the way Amalie phrased that remark, but perhaps she was merely carried away with enthusiasm. In any case, I agree that Haydn got his just desserts when he went to England, certainly nothing undeserved. He was the greatest living composer in the 1790's, no doubt. The real question in my mind about this whole deal is not whether B needed an invitation from the king to go to England, but why he didn't accept the generous offers of the Musical Society to bring him there. He desperately needed the money, and the adulation of the people woouldn't have hurt him either. In 2 consecutive years he solemnly promised to go, but in the event he never did it. Why? Thayer offers no plausible explanation that I can see. Any ideas?



------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Stargazer78]

Originally posted by Frohlich:

an incomparably greater musician was treated in the way he was.

Well, i do personally think Beethoven was both a greater musician (Haydn was never a virtuoso in any instrument) and composer, but 'incomparably' ?!?

As others have said, that's a little harsh to Haydn, who was after all some 40 years older then Beethoven. The latter simply started where the old Papa had left, without Haydn, there might not have been a Beethoven.

In other news, maybe one of the reasons why Haydn was so succesful is that he was an incomparably greater individual... ;-)




[This message has been edited by Stargazer78 (edited October 30, 2003).]

[Frohlich]

There is an interesting comparison between Beethoven and Haydn in terms of musical, intellectual and emotional depth.
It is rather like Dr. Johnson's analogy of two differing sizes of cups, both of which are full but the larger cup is simply bigger than the other.

*Beethoven certainly learnt from his older teacher, but went on to develop the scale of the symphony, particularly in respect of harmony, instrumentation and sheer length. In his very first symphony the first chord
( C major with the flattened 7th ) immediately veers away from the tonic, an unprecedented innovation*.

The stately minuets are transfigured into energetic, even frenetic scherzi. Trombones are brought from the opera theatre into the concert hall (symphonies, 5,6, & 9), a chorus is used in the 9th, a major development paving the way for Mendelsson, Berlioz, Mahler etc.
Timpani are tuned an octave apart, piccalo and contrabassoon are introduced, the whole realm of symphonic construction was expanded exponentially by this one composer, who established a four-movement format as standard, and suffused the form with drama. All this within a quarter of a century of from the death of Haydn.


Whatever one thinks of Haydn, and I greatly admire him, as I have said in the past, but surely nothing compares with the unspeakable sublimity, emotion and dignity of Beethoven's string quartets.
Haydn's string quartets are magificent and pleasurable , I greatly enjoy listening to them, and I highly respect Haydn both as a great moral individual and a great composer.
However, one simply has to say that nothing ever written by, or indeed anyone else can remotely compare wtih the unspeakable and unfathomable emotion, sublimity and dignity of the late string quartets of Beethoven.
I can only say personally that they have a profound effect on me when I listen, and I can only compare it with a kind of dialogue with the almighty in which he speaks and I listen, and Beethoven is the musician/magician that wonderously brings this about.

Can you vividly compare for instance, the Opus 18 set of Beethoven's with the Opus 77 of Haydn, I think not.
Both sets are beautiful but Beethoven already speaks with an individual voice which is unmistakably his.
He follows Haydn's pattern of movements including minuets, but there is no confusion as to Beethoven's grasp. He is not copying, rather I think, he has already surpassed his teacher!!


Amalie.

[This message has been edited by Frohlich (edited November 01, 2003).]