Beethoven and the English Monarchy

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Frohlich:


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).]

I appreciated reading your words in regards to Haydn. I, too, greatly respect this man, both as composer and as individual. And you are exactly right in saying that Beethoven exceeded his teacher. I enjoyed very much that read. Thank you!

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
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?

His obligations to his nephew Karl, ill health and increasing deafness must have been the main factors in preventing him from such a trip.

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

[Gurn Blanston]

s1

Originally posted by Peter:
His obligations to his nephew Karl, ill health and increasing deafness must have been the main factors in preventing him from such a trip.

Peter,
Well, I think those were certainly contributing factors, but really, the thing was not impossible. I really think that he was not going to travel beyond that summer resort areas anymore, no matter that he gave his word otherwise. There must have been a more compelling reason, and I think that it was in his mind rather than one of those you've given, because those were in no way insurmountable, given the rewards and generally good things that would have been the outcome of making the trip. Perhaps he had developed a phobia about travel. He wouldn't even go to Bonn to visit his dear friends, although he said that he really wanted to. It seems unusual to become a homebody suddenly and without cause, I just wonder what the cause may have been, it doesn't seem to be something that we know about, unless I have just missed it somewhere.


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

[Grillparzer]

Originally posted by 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).]

Ms. Amalie,
Well, my answer will be shorter than yours. I respect what you are saying about Beethoven and even agree with much of it, however the difference bewteen our outlooks is really quite simple, I do not find it difficult to appreciate more than one composer at a time. Also, I will say this which really should put an end to this; the language that we both agree was used so well by Beethoven was INVENTED by Haydn. So how one can judge B to be "incomparably greater" is a mystery to me. Haydn gave him his voice. What else can be said?




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

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Grillparzer:
Ms. Amalie,
Well, my answer will be shorter than yours. I respect what you are saying about Beethoven and even agree with much of it, however the difference bewteen our outlooks is really quite simple, I do not find it difficult to appreciate more than one composer at a time. Also, I will say this which really should put an end to this; the language that we both agree was used so well by Beethoven was INVENTED by Haydn. So how one can judge B to be "incomparably greater" is a mystery to me. Haydn gave him his voice. What else can be said?

Haydn didn't invent the classical forms but along with Mozart he was one of the greatest exponents - Beethoven of course built on their achievements. The language used by Haydn and Beethoven was based on Bach's revolutionary 'well temperament' leading eventually to 'equal temperament'. It is to this single factor that subsequent western music owes most.

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

[Joy]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
s1 Peter,
Well, I think those were certainly contributing factors, but really, the thing was not impossible. I really think that he was not going to travel beyond that summer resort areas anymore, no matter that he gave his word otherwise. There must have been a more compelling reason, and I think that it was in his mind rather than one of those you've given, because those were in no way insurmountable, given the rewards and generally good things that would have been the outcome of making the trip. Perhaps he had developed a phobia about travel. He wouldn't even go to Bonn to visit his dear friends, although he said that he really wanted to. It seems unusual to become a homebody suddenly and without cause, I just wonder what the cause may have been, it doesn't seem to be something that we know about, unless I have just missed it somewhere.

I agree that these factors certainly could have contributed to his being 'afraid' to travel but Beethoven didn't do alot of things he said he 'really wanted to', getting married, having a family, visiting England, some of these things he regretted even on his deathbed. Who knows exactly why he couldn't accomplish these things. Probably are a lot of different reasons, fear being one of them possibly.

[Joy]

Originally posted by Peter:
Haydn didn't invent the classical forms but along with Mozart he was one of the greatest exponents - Beethoven of course built on their achievements. The language used by Haydn and Beethoven was based on Bach's revolutionary 'well temperament' leading eventually to 'equal temperament'. It is to this single factor that subsequent western music owes most.

I think it's pretty safe to say that music had to evolve from the past, each composer learning from the previous ones evolving ever more, throwing in some 'stand out' composers original ideas every now and then to make it more unique.



------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
...The language used by Haydn and Beethoven was based on Bach's revolutionary 'well temperament' leading eventually to 'equal temperament'. It is to this single factor that subsequent western music owes most.

Strange then it is, or perhaps not so strange for me, that the development of equal temperament coincided with the beginning of the end of classical music!



------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[Grillparzer]

Originally posted by Peter:
Haydn didn't invent the classical forms but along with Mozart he was one of the greatest exponents - Beethoven of course built on their achievements. The language used by Haydn and Beethoven was based on Bach's revolutionary 'well temperament' leading eventually to 'equal temperament'. It is to this single factor that subsequent western music owes most.

Mr. Peter,
Well, of course Bach's contribution was of importance. But like a language, musical expression is composed of a vocabulary and a grammar. "Temperament" is part of the grammar of the classical style, so is uneven phrase length and the concepts and practice of modulation. Fragmented melodic bits, ascending triads and the like are words. All of these things were attempted by composers of the pre-classical era, with varying degrees of success. My point is that Haydn was the one to bring them together and make them into a coherent language which could be used by others (of great talent) to speak to us in music. I know that you do not mean to say then that Bach was the originator of the classical style, but his contribution to its eventual development is not to be ignored. Perhaps my heavy-handed use of our own language has distracted us from the point that I made originally, which is simply that Haydn deserves far better than to be called incomparably lesser than Beethoven. It simply is not so. The musical facts speak for themselves.


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

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

[Grillparzer]

Originally posted by Rod:
Strange then it is, or perhaps not so strange for me, that the development of equal temperament coincided with the beginning of the end of classical music!

Mr. Rod,
Yes, strange indeed. Bach truly started us down that road, but of course it was not until after Beethoven's demise that true "even-temperedness" became more than a theory. A mixed blessing, I fear, as you so aptly put it.


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

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
Strange then it is, or perhaps not so strange for me, that the development of equal temperament coincided with the beginning of the end of classical music!

Yes but Equal temperament was really only a standardisation of well temperament, the logical next step.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Grillparzer:
Mr. Peter,
Well, of course Bach's contribution was of importance. But like a language, musical expression is composed of a vocabulary and a grammar. "Temperament" is part of the grammar of the classical style, so is uneven phrase length and the concepts and practice of modulation. Fragmented melodic bits, ascending triads and the like are words. All of these things were attempted by composers of the pre-classical era, with varying degrees of success. My point is that Haydn was the one to bring them together and make them into a coherent language which could be used by others (of great talent) to speak to us in music. I know that you do not mean to say then that Bach was the originator of the classical style, but his contribution to its eventual development is not to be ignored. Perhaps my heavy-handed use of our own language has distracted us from the point that I made originally, which is simply that Haydn deserves far better than to be called incomparably lesser than Beethoven. It simply is not so. The musical facts speak for themselves.

I've always held Haydn in high regard and there can be no doubt that Beethoven learnt a lot more from Haydn's music than he did his lessons!

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

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Joy:
I agree that these factors certainly could have contributed to his being 'afraid' to travel but Beethoven didn't do alot of things he said he 'really wanted to', getting married, having a family, visiting England, some of these things he regretted even on his deathbed. Who knows exactly why he couldn't accomplish these things. Probably are a lot of different reasons, fear being one of them possibly.

Joy,
Yes, it is true that B "underachieved" in some of his ambitions. But I think you could categorize those things into 2 groups, one of which he could control, and one of which he couldn't. Truly, none of us can make someone marry us if they are not so inclined, and your example of marriage and children falls into that category quite neatly. But B was in full control, at least on the surface, of whether he went to England or Bonn. So, I think that the surmise that he had some deep seated fear of foreign places can at least be postulated here. It is surely not that unusual, I even share it myself!! I would be interested in learning of other examples that would support or refute this idea. Thanks for your comments, perceptive as always.




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

[spaceray]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
So, I think that the surmise that he had some deep seated fear of foreign places ....

Perhaps it was more a deep seated fear of travelling on hard seats on bumpy roads in bad weather and on bad seas.Travel wasn't very comfortable at the time.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes but Equal temperament was really only a standardisation of well temperament, the logical next step.

True Peter, but the result to me sounds like a rather bland compromise.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin