Beethoven's Golden Years

[Amalie]

In a career as dazzling as Beethoven's, there were of course high's and low's.
I am interested to know which years are considered to be the 'high noon' of Beethoven's creative maturity.


[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 05-29-2004).]

[AndrewMyers]

Interesting quiestion this, especially if one tries to narrow it down to as short a period of time as possible! In terms of being prolific and being appreciated by the public, I would guess the five years from 1803 - 1808 must count as his 'golden years.' You've got the symphonies 3 - 6, violin concerto, piano concerto no 4, Appasionata and Waldstein sonatas, Kreutzer sonata, cello sonata op 69, the Ghost trio, Razumovsky quartets,plus the first attempt at Fidelio.
While artisitically Beethoven obviously continued to progress throughout his life, I don't know if he produced as many masterpieces (in as many genres) with such momentum as in these 5 years. For example, from 1809 - 1824, only 2 symphonies compared to 4 between 1803 - 8.

(OOPS - of course 1803 - 8 is a period of SIX years - still, extraordinary nevertheless)

What about his 'best' single year?

[This message has been edited by AndrewMyers (edited 05-30-2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by AndrewMyers:
What about his 'best' single year?

I'd say 1814.

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

[AndrewMyers]

Because of Fidelio?

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Peter:
I'd say 1814.

Would this account for the changing situation in Europe
with the ending of the Napoleonic wars and Beethoven's politcally inspired works?



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited 05-30-2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by AndrewMyers:
Because of Fidelio?

Not just the triumphs of Fidelio, 7th symphony and Battle symphony which enabled the purchase of 8 bank shares, but the year seems to represent the end of the heroic age when Beethoven was at the height of his fame and popularity.

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

[v russo]

Originally posted by Peter:
Not just the triumphs of Fidelio, 7th symphony and Battle symphony which enabled the purchase of 8 bank shares, but the year seems to represent the end of the heroic age when Beethoven was at the height of his fame and popularity.

...but what about the 'late period'? That has been called his greatest period on many levels. The quartets, piano sonatas..etc. His musical thinking seems to have been on a higher plain, both conceptually and spiritually.



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

[Peter]

Originally posted by v russo:
...but what about the 'late period'? That has been called his greatest period on many levels. The quartets, piano sonatas..etc. His musical thinking seems to have been on a higher plain, both conceptually and spiritually.

Yes Beethoven went on to achieve greater things, but 1814 was the year of his greatest triumphs - never again would he enjoy such popularity in his lifetime. Though he was admired and recognised, the frivolous taste of the Viennese turned towards Italian opera.
1814 also brought the greatest financial rewards of his career and was the last year of his life that would not be marred by the problems of his nephew.


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

[v russo]

Originally posted by Peter:

Yes Beethoven went on to achieve greater things, but 1814 was the year of his greatest triumphs - never again would he enjoy such popularity in his lifetime. Though he was admired and recognised, the frivolous taste of the Viennese turned towards Italian opera.
1814 also brought the greatest financial
rewards of his career and was the last year of his life that would not be marred by the problems of his nephew.

but the question was about "Beethovens high noon of creativity"... (not popularity.. etc)

I would say the "Late Period" sums that question up the best.



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

[AndrewMyers]

Nah, I will stick to my original stab at 1803 - 8. The phrase 'golden years' implies all sorts of things in addition to quality of work produced. His late works are undoubtedly a high point of western music and the result of a lifetime's composing - BUT there is a sense of struggle about those works, perhaps illustrated by the fact that B definitely 'slowed down' his rate of production towards the end of his life, whereas in his 'early middle' period you get the feeling that masterpieces were just pouring out of him, so I suppose in that sense it was his 'high noon of creativity.' You could also argue that without middle period Beethoven there would be no late period Beethoven.

I think one does have to consider his reception with the public too, however wrong this judgement might be - by his later years he was regarded as a genius in decline, revered as a grand old master for his past accomplishments, but also humoured for his tragic deafness and eccentric conduct. His music strikes one as withdrawing from the world - piano sonatas and string quartets were unlikely to attract the level of attention of a symphony. It took decades for his late work to be fully appreciated. Consider as well his terrible ill health, total deafness and consequent isolation from society, not to mention all the problems with Karl his nephew.

By contrast from 1803 - 8, you get the feeling that he was a much more relevant and public figure - even if nobody understood his innovations at least they talked about them!

[v russo]

Originally posted by AndrewMyers:
Nah, I will stick to my original stab at 1803 - 8. The phrase 'golden years' implies all sorts of things in addition to quality of work produced. His late works are undoubtedly a high point of western music and the result of a lifetime's composing - BUT there is a sense of struggle about those works, perhaps illustrated by the fact that B definitely 'slowed down' his rate of production towards the end of his life, whereas in his 'early middle' period you get the feeling that masterpieces were just pouring out of him, so I suppose in that sense it was his 'high noon of creativity.' You could also argue that without middle period Beethoven there would be no late period Beethoven.

I think one does have to consider his reception with the public too, however wrong this judgement might be - by his later years he was regarded as a genius in decline, revered as a grand old master for his past accomplishments, but also humoured for his tragic deafness and eccentric conduct. His music strikes one as withdrawing from the world - piano sonatas and string quartets were unlikely to attract the level of attention of a symphony. It took decades for his late work to be fully appreciated. Consider as well his terrible ill health, total deafness and consequent isolation from society, not to mention all the problems with Karl his nephew.

By contrast from 1803 - 8, you get the feeling that he was a much more relevant and public figure - even if nobody understood his innovations at least they talked about them!

I must have misunderstood the term "high noon of creativity". I thought that meant: outstanding artistic achievements- which the late period works are, not: successfull period- which in the early 1800's certainly was for B.

maybe you should have said, "Beethovens Golden "$$$" years"




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

[melvyn]

Originally posted by AndrewMyers:
Nah, I will stick to my original stab at 1803 - 8. The phrase 'golden years' implies all sorts of things in addition to quality of work produced. His late works are undoubtedly a high point of western music and the result of a lifetime's composing - BUT there is a sense of struggle about those works, perhaps illustrated by the fact that B definitely 'slowed down' his rate of production towards the end of his life, whereas in his 'early middle' period you get the feeling that masterpieces were just pouring out of him, so I suppose in that sense it was his 'high noon of creativity.'

I agree with your reasoning, but to have any meaning I think you have to narrow it down to a period of less than 6 years, otherwise you might as well say that his golden period was from 1800 to 1820.

Personally, I would say 1806 to 1807. In these two years he composed (or finished composing):

Symphony No.4
Symphony No.5
The Violin Concerto
Piano Concerto No.4
Appassionata Sonata
The 3 Razumovsky Quartets
The Mass in C
Overtures Leonore No.1 and 3
The 32 Piano Variations
Corialanus Overture
Plus other less famous works.

I think this creative achievement in the space of 2 years would be hard to beat. There is a theory that this surge of creativity was brought about by the failure of Leonore.

Melvyn.

[AndrewMyers]

Yes, well done Melvyn, you've managed to narrow it down even more than I did. What an incredibly fertile 2 years - I wonder if even Mozart produced as many first rate masterpieces in such a short time? I always thought the 5th was finished in 1808 though; maybe that's just the date of publication.

v russo, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Beethoven's finest years were those where he made the most money! I was merely thinking in terms of his being a relevant public figure who was in dialogue with his times. I too believe his latest works are his 'best,' with the qualification that they are also on a different plane entirely - is it fair to say that the late quartets are 'better' than the Razumovskys?

[ruudp]

Originally posted by melvyn:
I agree with your reasoning, but to have any meaning I think you have to narrow it down to a period of less than 6 years, otherwise you might as well say that his golden period was from 1800 to 1820.

Personally, I would say 1806 to 1807. In these two years he composed (or finished composing):

Symphony No.4
Symphony No.5
The Violin Concerto
Piano Concerto No.4
Appassionata Sonata
The 3 Razumovsky Quartets
The Mass in C
Overtures Leonore No.1 and 3
The 32 Piano Variations
Corialanus Overture
Plus other less famous works.

I think this creative achievement in the space of 2 years would be hard to beat. There is a theory that this surge of creativity was brought about by the failure of Leonore.

Melvyn.

I thought Beethoven completed the appasionata sonate in 1805??atleast that's what my info tells me..

Regards,
Ruud

[v russo]

v russo, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Beethoven's finest years were those where he made the most money! I was merely thinking in terms of his being a relevant public figure who was in dialogue with his times. I too believe his latest works are his 'best,' with the qualification that they are also on a different plane entirely - is it fair to say that the late quartets are 'better' than the Razumovskys?

[/B][/QUOTE]

yes, it is fair to say that.



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