Beethovens 5th Piano Concerto

[v russo]

What is it that bugs me about this piece? I'm not taking anything away from its monumental construction, orchestration, melodic ideas or grand gestures, but, It seems a bit 2 contrived if you ask me. Beethoven dedicated this piece to Archduke Rudolph and I wonder how much of this was written with the Archduke in mind. Its neo-classical/ courtly approach has me wondering. The final movement sounds more like Mozart or Haydn than our beloved Beethoven, and the first movement sounds as if B is playing for a conservative courtly audience in a sense. Oddly enough, B also dedicated his 2 most important works to the Archduke in later years; the 'Missa Solemnis' and the 'Hammerklavier' sonata. I wonder how much pressure financially and socially B was under when composing this work. The Concerto clearly is NOT in line with his artistic development, in fact is a regression from the 4th piano concerto and other pieces from this period. Beethoven was an artist of the outmost integrity, so you can see why I am so puzzled. The only other time I can think of when B compromised his art was his removal of the 'Grosse Fuge' for that alternate ending to his string quartet when under similar pressures.

...Say it isn't so B!!



------------------
v russo

[Chaszz]

I have to disagree. I think this is one of Beethoven's greatest works, in each movement bringing the piano concerto to a new plateau of expansiveness. It has some of what you might call neo-classical elements, but if Beethoven was a classical composer as many people here keep saying, then how can he be neo-classical at the same time? As in his even-numbered symphonies, it was in his nature to consolidate his forces consrvatively even in the midst of radical advances. I see nothing wrong with the rondo; the thematic material is so beautiful and full of energy. And the other two movements are equally great.

Perhaps you just plain don't like it, for whatever reason.

[Sorrano]

When I first picked up a recording of this piece and listened I came away disillusioned. But after many more hearings this has become among my very favorite works of any composer. My problem was that I had some preconceived expectations with a title like "Emperor". Once I got down to the music itself (and I've gone through the piano score, as well) I consider it among the finest works of art from the mighty Beethoven.

[Amalie]

v.russo, please say that it isn't so, that you don't like B's 'Emperor' of concertos'?

Most commentator's on hearing Beethoven's 5th piano concerto would probably agree that it is the greatest and most majestic concerto ever written. On my first hearing I was overwhelmed by it's power and beauty. And the adagio in fact was a very affecting and emotional experience for me.
In the first and last movements its bearing is truly herioc. The whole work is a magnificent demonstration of the splendour of which tonality is capable. The rushing mighty apreggio chords with which it opens seem like the entrance to the magic edifice of tonal harmony.
The finale achieves a rare ecstatic Dionysian jubilation!.>



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 17, 2004).]

[v russo]

Originally posted by Amalie:
v.russo, please say that it isn't so, that you don't like B's 'Emperor' of concertos'?

Most commentator's on hearing Beethoven's 5th piano concert would probably agree that it is the greatest and most majestic concerto ever written. On my first hearing I was overwhelmed by it's power and beauty. And the adagio in fact was a very affecting and emotional experience for me.
In the first and last movements its bearing is truly herioc. The whole work is a magnificent demonstration of the splendour of which tonality is capable. The rushing mighty apreggio chords with which it opens seem like the entrance to the magic edifice of tonal harmony.
The finale achieves a rare ecstatic Dionysian jubilation!.>


[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 17, 2004).]

"Dionysian jubilation"? More like courtly jubilation. Skrabin was more Dionysian. I agree that the middle movement is heartfelt and gorgeous, but the outer movements sound like a different composer (..almost) to me.

------------------
v russo

[This message has been edited by v russo (edited March 17, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Amalie:
v.russo, please say that it isn't so, that you don't like B's 'Emperor' of concertos'?

Most commentator's on hearing Beethoven's 5th piano concert would probably agree that it is the greatest and most majestic concerto ever written. On my first hearing I was overwhelmed by it's power and beauty. And the adagio in fact was a very affecting and emotional experience for me.
In the first and last movements its bearing is truly herioc. The whole work is a magnificent demonstration of the splendour of which tonality is capable. The rushing mighty apreggio chords with which it opens seem like the entrance to the magic edifice of tonal harmony.
The finale achieves a rare ecstatic Dionysian jubilation!.>


[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 17, 2004).]

Totally agree Amalie, I'm quite astonished that a member of our forum doesn't like the Emperor concerto! I bet if we had a vote he'd be the only one, so everyone who doesn't like this work let's here from you (including any lurkers - a chance to reveal your identity!).

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by v russo:
What is it that bugs me about this piece? I'm not taking anything away from its monumental construction, orchestration, melodic ideas or grand gestures, but, It seems a bit 2 contrived if you ask me. Beethoven dedicated this piece to Archduke Rudolph and I wonder how much of this was written with the Archduke in mind. Its neo-classical/ courtly approach has me wondering. The final movement sounds more like Mozart or Haydn than our beloved Beethoven, and the first movement sounds as if B is playing for a conservative courtly audience in a sense. Oddly enough, B also dedicated his 2 most important works to the Archduke in later years; the 'Missa Solemnis' and the 'Hammerklavier' sonata. I wonder how much pressure financially and socially B was under when composing this work. The Concerto clearly is NOT in line with his artistic development, in fact is a regression from the 4th piano concerto and other pieces from this period. Beethoven was an artist of the outmost integrity, so you can see why I am so puzzled. The only other time I can think of when B compromised his art was his removal of the 'Grosse Fuge' for that alternate ending to his string quartet when under similar pressures.

...Say it isn't so B!!

The concerto is no throw back, indeed it is revolutionary in design from its pianistic flourish at the opening to the inclusion of the cadenzas written into the score - the first time in history to my knowledge.
The orchestral exposition is unusually rich (and long) in thematic material and though in sonata form , it is of unusual complexity. The development section shows the piano really competing with the orchestra to assert its dominance for the first time in history with those thundering violent chords and powerful octaves.

The sublime 2nd movement needs no words except to comment on it s key - B major in an Ebconcerto, actually a masterstroke as the 3rd D# is enharmonically Eb, as Beethoven masterfully links the last movement using this trick, A# becomes Bb. What a breath taking original stroke of genius that link between the two last movements is!

The exhuberant finale is again full of wonderful touches - a most unusual rhythm for the theme, great variety of mood and amazing harmonic progessions, the theme appears in keys as diverse as C, Ab and E. What about the wonderful conclusion with the piano chords descending over a softly reiterated drum beat before the final explosion?

It has no equal in its virtuoso demands amongst Beethoven's other concertos (or Mozart's). In its grandeur of design, rhythmic vitality and thematic richness this concerto is certainly an Emperor.


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

[Chris]

Upon first hearing this concerto I became obsessed with it. I checked the score out of the library and learned parts of it - a great deal of it, actually, though I am sorry to say that most of it has left me now. I listened to it over and over. I still remember listening to it while laying on the beach in Barbados. To this day, I listen to it frequently.

[v russo]

Originally posted by Peter:
The concerto is no throw back, indeed it is revolutionary in design from its pianistic flourish at the opening to the inclusion of the cadenzas written into the score - the first time in history to my knowledge.
The orchestral exposition is unusually rich (and long) in thematic material and though in sonata form , it is of unusual complexity. The development section shows the piano really competing with the orchestra to assert its dominance for the first time in history with those thundering violent chords and powerful octaves.

The sublime 2nd movement needs no words except to comment on it s key - B major in an Ebconcerto, actually a masterstroke as the 3rd D# is enharmonically Eb, as Beethoven masterfully links the last movement using this trick, A# becomes Bb. What a breath taking original stroke of genius that link between the two last movements is!

The exhuberant finale is again full of wonderful touches - a most unusual rhythm for the theme, great variety of mood and amazing harmonic progessions, the theme appears in keys as diverse as C, Ab and E. What about the wonderful conclusion with the piano chords descending over a softly reiterated drum beat before the final explosion?

It has no equal in its virtuoso demands amongst Beethoven's other concertos (or Mozart's). In its grandeur of design, rhythmic vitality and thematic richness this concerto is certainly an Emperor.

This piece was technically composed in the transition period between B's 'middle' and 'late' periods. The Op.78-90 sonatas clearly show the direction Beethoven was heading in....

This concerto is an embellishment of the 'Heroic' style that was already leaving Beethoven as he was in transition towards his later stylistic period. I find more hard core asthetic accomplisments in his 3rd -a true middle period work- and the 4th -his greatest concerto-with a complex and phenominal development section, a second movement from the abyss (nothing else has come close to it before or since) and a truly great (and honest) triumphant finale.

This concerto does not fit in to Beethovens compositional direction, if you will. Anyone who has studied the great mans musical development must agree with me in this sense.

I do not "dislike" the piece Peter, I just simply said that something "bothers" me about it and I was curious about Beethovens financial and social situation during the time of its composition.

This piece has inspired many other works by famous composers. The Brahms violin concerto (that opening theme)and in the second movement one can almost hear Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninov in one of thier adagios from thier own piano concerti. My point is, these works I just mentioned are Romantic works; middle of the road Romantic pieces (though lovely). Now, why would a composer in his 'transitional' phase compose a piece of music that so many Romantics have raped and pillaged over the years?

..this is my point and question.

------------------
v russo

[This message has been edited by v russo (edited March 17, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by v russo (edited March 17, 2004).]

[Musique]

Originally posted by Peter:
Totally agree Amalie, I'm quite astonished that a member of our forum doesn't like the Emperor concerto! I bet if we had a vote he'd be the only one, so everyone who doesn't like this work let's here from you (including any lurkers - a chance to reveal your identity!).

Does anyone remember the movie with Richard Dreyfus(?) and Amy Irving called, "The Competition". In the finals of the piano competition, Richard's character played B's fifth piano concerto and Amy Irving's character played Prokofiev (coached by Lee Remick). Anyone who know's this film knows that Beethoven lost out to Prokofiev.


What the hell does Hollywood know about music.....

[Peter]

Originally posted by v russo:
This piece was technically composed in the transition period between B's 'middle' and 'late' periods. The Op.78-90 sonatas clearly show the direction Beethoven was heading in....

This concerto is an embellishment of the 'Heroic' style that was already leaving Beethoven as he was in transition towards his later stylistic period. I find more hard core asthetic accomplisments in his 3rd -a true middle period work- and the 4th -his greatest concerto-with a complex and phenominal development section, a second movement from the abyss (nothing else has come close to it before or since) and a truly great (and honest) triumphant finale.

This concerto does not fit in to Beethovens compositional direction, if you will. Anyone who has studied the great mans musical development must agree with me in this sense.

I do not "dislike" the piece Peter, I just simply said that something "bothers" me about it and I was curious about Beethovens financial and social situation during the time of its composition.

This piece has inspired many other works by famous composers. The Brahms violin concerto (that opening theme)and in the second movement one can almost hear Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninov in one of thier adagios from thier own piano concerti. My point is, these works I just mentioned are Romantic works; middle of the road Romantic pieces (though lovely). Now, why would a composer in his 'transitional' phase compose a piece of music that so many Romantics have raped and pillaged over the years?

..this is my point and question.

Well I don't think the transition to the late style began as early as 1809, though I agree with you about Op.90 but that dates from 1814. I also think the real turning point is the Op.102 'cello sonatas of 1815.

I don't see why you imply Beethoven was writing a sub-standard work due to financial or other pressures when it is his crowning achievement in the classical piano concerto form, the many glories of which I pointed out in the previous thread - I'm certainly not troubled by this magnificent music!

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well I don't think the transition to the late style began as early as 1809, though I agree with you about Op.90 but that dates from 1814. I also think the real turning point is the Op.102 'cello sonatas of 1815.

However, I think the 'Elegaic Song' op118 and the Canatata 'The Glorious Moment' from 1814 certainly look toward the late period manner, much more so than op90.


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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
However, I think the 'Elegaic Song' op118 and the Canatata 'The Glorious Moment' from 1814 certainly look toward the late period manner, much more so than op90.

I think we can agree that 1814/15 represents the transition to the late works. Elements can be found in earlier works, I think the finale of the 8th symphony is an example which I know you also disagree with!

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Musique:
Does anyone remember the movie with Richard Dreyfus(?) and Amy Irving called, "The Competition". In the finals of the piano competition, Richard's character played B's fifth piano concerto and Amy Irving's character played Prokofiev (coached by Lee Remick). Anyone who know's this film knows that Beethoven lost out to Prokofiev.


What the hell does Hollywood know about music.....

Well I don't know the film but I assume the Prokofiev was his 3rd concerto - in competitions such as this, dazzling virtuosity as displayed in this work usually wins the day.

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

[urtextmeister]

Here is a quote that might be pertinent:

"...the monumental figures like Beethoven and Brahms almost always come off second best as concerto writers, perhaps because their native sensibilities balk at pampering the absurd conventions of the concerto structure: the orchestral pre-exposition setup, to titllate the listener's expectation of a grand dramatic entrance for the soloist; the tiresomely repetitive thematic structure, arranged to let the soloist prove that he really can turn that phrase to a more rakish tilt than the fellow on first clarinet who just announced it, and above all the outdated aristocracy of cadenza writing--the posturing trills and arpeggios, all twitteringly superfluous to the fundamental thematic propostion. All these have helped to build a concerto tradition which has provided some of the most embarrassing examples of the primeval human need for showing off."

Many will not agree with this quote by one of the great pianists of the twentieth century, but maybe we should acknowledge the difference between the very "public" concerto and the more intimate solo piano sonata and string quartet. Perhaps Beethoven felt more comfortable making the transition to his late period with sonatas then he did with the concerto.