Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Very well, I shall give you best dates for Hess 19, since you bring it up. It was composed in the period between 1793 and 96, but only fragments remained (or perhaps were ever composed) and it was reconstructed/completed by Zellner in 1862. One of the problems we shall run into with this topic is that certainties are not there for some things (like this one
) so there is only a range available. Also, there are sevral pieces that B composed in a certain year, however he didn't publish it, then 15 years later he totally revised it and published it then. Which date do you give? I am intrigued with this topic, it is one of the things that I do, but I have not a lot of evidence to research with, only the Biamonti listings. Well, we shall keep after it and see what gives, then, eh?
Very well, I shall give you best dates for Hess 19, since you bring it up. It was composed in the period between 1793 and 96, but only fragments remained (or perhaps were ever composed) and it was reconstructed/completed by Zellner in 1862. One of the problems we shall run into with this topic is that certainties are not there for some things (like this one
) so there is only a range available. Also, there are sevral pieces that B composed in a certain year, however he didn't publish it, then 15 years later he totally revised it and published it then. Which date do you give? I am intrigued with this topic, it is one of the things that I do, but I have not a lot of evidence to research with, only the Biamonti listings. Well, we shall keep after it and see what gives, then, eh? Gurn, my dear Friend, I thank you for sharing this information with us. But I have stumbled on divergent data. So let me present them for you, briefly, yet detailed and nuanced as good as I possibly can:
Firstly, it’s my firm understanding (may be wrong) that the surviving fragments are our only ortodox reference of the work. I take it they are in Beethoven’s own hand (not a copy thus!) and interpretetable as being the remnants of a definitive score. And since the slow 2nd movement is assertained to be intact and the fragment of the 1st, starting at bar 158, towards the end of central development section, we might assume that the work (and surely these mvts.) was once complete. When would this have been? To give a fair answer do so I have come across data within CD booklets, biographies and dictionaries available (to a mere citizen, that is). An exact date has shown to be undeterminable, allright, so we can’t KNOW anyhow. However, there are hints and circumstances available to us which allow us to a give feasible scenario. The following is not my simple opinion, but the source to a‘theory’ generally accepted by the investigating researchers. My notes in brackets: >In November 1793 LvB [living in Wien] assembled some recently completed works to send to Maximilian Franz [the elector of Bonn] as evidence of his progress. [So] Haydn wrote at the same time ”I am taking the liberty of sending to your Reverence ... a few pieces of music - a quintet [=?Hess19], an eight voice Parthie [=op.103], an oboe concerto [=Hess12], a set of variations for the piano [=?op.40] and a fugue, composed by my dear pupil Beethoven”. [-]The quintet is almost certainly Hess.19.<* Aha! 1793 is the year! But there’s more: >The elector’s reply, dated 23 december [reads]: ”The music of young Beethoven which you sent me I received with your letter. Since, however, this music, with exception of the fugue , was
composed and performed [Really!?] here in Bonn before LvB departed [-], I can not regard it as progress made in Vienna.”>* You should know that B. had left Bonn for Vienna in Nov.1792 and took much of his music with him. Notebooks, sketches, started and already
completed works as well. And this seem a most probable scenario, since other B. quintets clearly date from later time (NB. there could have been a lost ‘quintet’ now unrecorded - there’s one cat. as Hess.316. After what I understand possibly referring to the Haydn letter? I don’t know.)For now I preliminary agree to this general theory that our qnt. (Hess19) were the one
composed/recomposed in 1793, and thus undoubtly in response to Wien’s seemingly
insatiable demand for Harmoniemusik. I simply don’t know wherefrom the dates claimed above by you, Gurn derive but the year 1793 must surely(?) derive from the letter by Haydn. It has been surmised that
Hess19 may have been finally revised ‘about 1796’ or ‘1796/7’, which too correspond with
with the date presented by you Gurn.
Secondly, I give the dates of this composition as stated in general indexes:
11793*taken from Dr.Cooper’s ‘Beethoven’, biography(2000) /2)?1793=probably before 1793,then rev.1793’taken from New Grove Dictionary, second edition(2001) /3)apparently completed in 1796,thought to be started before 1793’taken from Sohlmans musiklexikon(1975).
Thirdly and lastly (puh...) I shall try to make my views clear concerning the question above for dating works in multiple versions. Well, this is tricky, but I would begin with the idea that everything B. wrote/improvised are in fact all his works, albeit some extremely uncomprehensible sketches or mere jotted would-be ideas are hopeless to assert as being works. From here I would approve those drafts/sketches seemingly intended for a specific work ambitioned by the master (the unfinished canon, so to say) and even all sketchbook scraps which seem to have reached enough a performable state with ‘own identity’ ie. clear indepence as to constitute a conventional ‘piece’. In the case of revisions and reworkings of certain works I say that they shouldn't be counted as independent works, since the it's character stem from an original version with the thumbprint of creation. Hypotheticly B.could revise any work over and over, or even done so without us knowing, and so we get mor sustain from this view. Nevertheless, every revision is a ‘work’ in itself and ought to be taken into account and be credited, but then only as an appendix. The same must be applied to arrangements and transcriptions (so op61 is one WORK worked into 2 versions, obviously different in output but not in philosophy!). As for developed reworkings forming whole new structures and (such as op103>op4)there would be reasons to emphasize the change of originality and character caused by additional material, and might therefore be considered as independent works. The B-flat concerto are appliable. One special case are the set(s) of
bagatelles B. put together from partly juvenile pieces/sketches to publish in the 1820’s. In my opinion (not sur, though) we should somewhat consider them as the definitive choice by the master and conceive the earlier works as assimilated to only one WORK. This surely is the case with B.’s sets of dances WoO.13 and 14. / AND THERE! I’M FINISHED...
/ Geratlas sending ::: over to you
s o m e t i m e s i’m j u s t t o o m u c h ! Sorry...
about that[This message has been edited by Geratlas (edited January 14, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Geratlas (edited January 15, 2004).]
Comment