Beethoven & Handel
"Hier ist die Wahrheit"(Here is the Truth); this tribute was famously made by Beethoven to the greatness of Händel, in reference to a forty-volume edition of his major works which Beethoven had received as a gift. It is well known that Beethoven ranked Händel as the greatest composer, confiding to his English friend Cipriani Potter that he rated him higher even than Mozart.
Most modern critics and musicians (myself included) would rank Bach and Mozart higher than Händel. To such people Beethoven's opinion is problematic. Does Beethoven's indisputable talent make him more qualified to judge the merit of others? Does such an opinion expressed by such a towering genius indicate some sort of objective truth, that Händel's music is objectively better than Bach's and Mozart's? In my opinion, the answer is no.
Two points must be considered. Firstly, during Beethoven's lifetime Bach was neglected. Although he was remembered as a talented organist, nevertheless his orchestral compositions were forgotten. It was not until the late 1820s when a performance of St Matthew Passion, conducted by the young Felix Mendelsonn, prompted a Bach rennaisance. Therefore it is quite likely that Beethoven never had an opportunity to study the orchestral music of Bach in sufficient detail to give an informed opinion on his merit.
Secondly, throughout his life Beethoven lived under the shadow of Mozart, and was consequently at pains to distance himself from his predecessor. As a child, his father had tried to make the young Beethoven into another Mozart-style child prodigy, and when his efforts failed the young boy was beaten savagely. This would be enough to turn someone against Mozart for life! In his adulthood there is evidence that Beethoven strongly resented comparisons to his musical predecessor, and petty, trivial criticisms (such as the accusation that Cosi fan Tutti was "immoral") are further evidence of this. So my suggestion is that Beethoven, in a competitive spirit, was reluctant to give Mozart full credit. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Beethoven owed far more to the achievements of Mozart in the development of his own style than to Händel. For instance, Mozart had perfected the classical symphonic form and extended it to its furthest limits, and it was on this firm foundation that Beethoven's mamouth symphonic developments were constructed. Without Mozart, and equally without Haydn, there would have been no Eroica. By contrast the influence of Händel on Beethoven's work was far more abstract, at best, and often non-existent. His admiration for Händel was expressed late in life, when he appeared to have 'discovered' him. But long before he discovered the baroque composer he was using and extending the musical forms developed by Haydn and Mozart, to which Händel contributed nothing more than a very indirect influence, if any.
If, then, we take away Bach and Mozart, then out of those remaining Händel is certainly the best. Of course, this assessment also excludes all the great composers who came later - we will never know what Beethoven would have thought of them.
[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited December 17, 2003).]
Most modern critics and musicians (myself included) would rank Bach and Mozart higher than Händel. To such people Beethoven's opinion is problematic. Does Beethoven's indisputable talent make him more qualified to judge the merit of others? Does such an opinion expressed by such a towering genius indicate some sort of objective truth, that Händel's music is objectively better than Bach's and Mozart's? In my opinion, the answer is no.
Two points must be considered. Firstly, during Beethoven's lifetime Bach was neglected. Although he was remembered as a talented organist, nevertheless his orchestral compositions were forgotten. It was not until the late 1820s when a performance of St Matthew Passion, conducted by the young Felix Mendelsonn, prompted a Bach rennaisance. Therefore it is quite likely that Beethoven never had an opportunity to study the orchestral music of Bach in sufficient detail to give an informed opinion on his merit.
Secondly, throughout his life Beethoven lived under the shadow of Mozart, and was consequently at pains to distance himself from his predecessor. As a child, his father had tried to make the young Beethoven into another Mozart-style child prodigy, and when his efforts failed the young boy was beaten savagely. This would be enough to turn someone against Mozart for life! In his adulthood there is evidence that Beethoven strongly resented comparisons to his musical predecessor, and petty, trivial criticisms (such as the accusation that Cosi fan Tutti was "immoral") are further evidence of this. So my suggestion is that Beethoven, in a competitive spirit, was reluctant to give Mozart full credit. Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Beethoven owed far more to the achievements of Mozart in the development of his own style than to Händel. For instance, Mozart had perfected the classical symphonic form and extended it to its furthest limits, and it was on this firm foundation that Beethoven's mamouth symphonic developments were constructed. Without Mozart, and equally without Haydn, there would have been no Eroica. By contrast the influence of Händel on Beethoven's work was far more abstract, at best, and often non-existent. His admiration for Händel was expressed late in life, when he appeared to have 'discovered' him. But long before he discovered the baroque composer he was using and extending the musical forms developed by Haydn and Mozart, to which Händel contributed nothing more than a very indirect influence, if any.
If, then, we take away Bach and Mozart, then out of those remaining Händel is certainly the best. Of course, this assessment also excludes all the great composers who came later - we will never know what Beethoven would have thought of them.
[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited December 17, 2003).]
Comment