A question about Beethoven and Napoleon

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Hofrat:

Again, that brings up my pet question: Just how much of Beethoven's music was heard outside of Vienna in his life time? In another thread, I wrote that Rossini heard very little of Beethoven's music in Italy and only heard "Eroica" when he visited Vienna in 1822. In yet another thread, I wrote that "Eroica" premiered in Sweden in 1817, and the 9th premiered in Norway only in 1871! On this thread I can add the fact that only one work from Schubert's massive ouvre was published outside of Austria during Schubert's tragically short life (I leave it to the members of the forum to determine which).

So, with Napoleon busy conquering Europe, I doubt if he had much time for concerts. And with Beethoven's music being heard primarily in Austr1a, I seriously doubt that he heard much of it even if he found the time.

BTW, Franz Ignaz Beck (1733-1809) dedicated his Stabat Mater to Napoleon and Napoleon admired this work, but Beck was living and working in France.


Hofrat

I believe I read that a symphony was commissioned of Beethoven by the London
Philharmonic Society in about 1818, when he was working on the Ninth. The Ninth was played in London in 1825. Beethoven received money for the symphony from the society, even though it was not premeiered in London as they had wanted. Surely he must have had a fine reputation in London, based on at least some performances of his works, for such a commission to be given.

I think we, with our instantaneous world wide communication, tend to think people in the 18th and early 19th centuries were provincial and somewhat unaware of arts and events in other countries. But newspapers were many, more numerous than today, and mail went everywhere, and both were devoured with great interest. I could be wrong, but I would assume that chamber music, at least, would have circulated pretty freely throughout Europe and even in America, and reputations would have followed, and perhaps even larger orchestral scores. The British, speaking a language that was decended from German, were always interested in German culture, and they imported both Handel and Haydn in person. I would be surprised if they were not fairly familiar with Beethoven during his lifetime.



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 09-28-2005).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:



The British, speaking a language that was decended from German, were always interested in German culture, and they imported both Handel and Haydn in person. I would be surprised if they were not fairly familiar with Beethoven during his lifetime.

Beethoven was of course familiar to most of Europe during his lifetime although performances of major orchestral works were not numerous. Even in Vienna the violin concerto received only one or two performances in Beethoven's lifetime. In France few of the symphonies were performed prior to the 1830s. Regarding Britain, Beethoven's music found early acceptance but Beethoven himself was particularly vexed by the lack of acknowledgement from the Prince Regent of the dedication of Op.91.

I wouldn't say that English was descended from German, rather that both languages have some common roots. The connection with Germany was more down to the importation of a Hanovarian Royal family in 1714.


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

[Geratlas]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Hi Geratlas; Yes, Professor Newbould wrote an extensive article about a fake Schubert symphony (E major from 1825). It was recorded before Newbould's article. It is laughable how the recording orchestra bragged that their recording is the premiere recording of it. Little did they know that they were duped.

Really, so what was to it; I mean, in what way were they duped? And how was it set in connection to Schubert and his symphonic strivings in 1825 (likely the forerunner to the Great in C as we know it today)? And how was Prof. Newbould able to assess it to fake? I'm Very curious, and I urge you to please let me know. / Gearlsat sending ... :::

[Droell]

Originally posted by Chaszz:

I believe I read that a symphony was commissioned of Beethoven by the London
Philharmonic Society in about 1818, when he was working on the Ninth. The Ninth was played in London in 1825. Beethoven received money for the symphony from the society, even though it was not premeiered in London as they had wanted.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 09-28-2005).]

If I am not mistaken, it was Beethoven's friend Ries who got the Philharmonic to commission what turned out to be the 9th. Ries left London in 1824, so the first London performance was under his successor, Sir George Smart, 21 March 1825.

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 09-28-2005).]

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Geratlas:

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Hi Geratlas; Yes, Professor Newbould wrote an extensive article about a fake Schubert symphony (E major from 1825). It was recorded before Newbould's article. It is laughable how the recording orchestra bragged that their recording is the premiere recording of it. Little did they know that they were duped.

Really, so what was to it; I mean, in what way were they duped? And how was it set in connection to Schubert and his symphonic strivings in 1825 (likely the forerunner to the Great in C as we know it today)? And how was Prof. Newbould able to assess it to fake? I'm Very curious, and I urge you to please let me know. / Gearlsat sending ... :::

Hi Geratlas;

The Newbould article appears in the May 1993 issue of "The Musical Times." The dubious work borrows material from at least 10 Schubert works. Schubert would often retool old ideas into new pieces, but this work is an "autobiographical medley" on a grand scale (2400 bars of music). The key to the issue of the forgery seems to be that the trumpets were playing notes that were not available to the musicians of the time.


Hofrat

[Geratlas]

OK, thanks again, Hofrat. - Are you up to take dialog on Schubert topics? I believe we could develop our understanding of both the man and his music from it. / G.

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Geratlas:
OK, thanks again, Hofrat. - Are you up to take dialog on Schubert topics? I believe we could develop our understanding of both the man and his music from it. / G.

Hi Geratlas;

Is the Beethoven Reference site really the place to conduct a Schubert dialog? Schubert "snuck" into this thread when I asked the question how much of Beethoven's music was heard outside of Austria during his life time. If the membership of this forum does not mind, we could have a Schubert dialog.


Hofrat

[Peter]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Hi Geratlas;

Is the Beethoven Reference site really the place to conduct a Schubert dialog? Schubert "snuck" into this thread when I asked the question how much of Beethoven's music was heard outside of Austria during his life time. If the membership of this forum does not mind, we could have a Schubert dialog.


Hofrat

Obviously Beethoven related issues are most relevant, however anything concerning classical music is fine but I should open a new thread 'Schubert'!

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

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:

Beethoven was of course familiar to most of Europe during his lifetime although performances of major orchestral works were not numerous. Even in Vienna the violin concerto received only one or two performances in Beethoven's lifetime. In France few of the symphonies were performed prior to the 1830s. Regarding Britain, Beethoven's music found early acceptance but Beethoven himself was particularly vexed by the lack of acknowledgement from the Prince Regent of the dedication of Op.91.

I wouldn't say that English was descended from German, rather that both languages have some common roots. The connection with Germany was more down to the importation of a Hanovarian Royal family in 1714.

The language of the Germanic tribes, Angles and Saxons, who invaded and controlled England from about the sixth century thru the Norman conquest formed the basis of English, although of course there are other ingredients from the Celts, the post-conquest Norman French and other sources.

"English Language - Language belonging to the Germanic languages branch of the Indo-European language family, widely spoken on six continents."

- (Encyclopedia) Britannica.com

"English - The West Germanic language of England, the United States, and other countries that are or have been under English influence or control."

- Dictionary.com


As to the Hanover import, why import a Germanic family unless there was a cultural affinity? Likewise the import of the Dutch family in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, since Dutch is also a Germanic language ('Dutch' means 'German' in archaic English). Also, Germany, being on the other side of France, was a natural ally for England ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), just as France was for Scotland and Ireland in their struggles with England.

All these special connections were of course ruptured when Germany finally was united and became Britain's bitter enemy in the two World Wars.


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 09-29-2005).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:

The language of the Germanic tribes, Angles and Saxons, who invaded and controlled England from about the sixth century thru the Norman conquest formed the basis of English, although of course there are other ingredients from the Celts, the post-conquest Norman French and other sources.

"English Language - Language belonging to the Germanic languages branch of the Indo-European language family, widely spoken on six continents."

- (Encyclopedia) Britannica.com

"English - The West Germanic language of England, the United States, and other countries that are or have been under English influence or control."

- Dictionary.com


As to the Hanover import, why import a Germanic family unless there was a cultural affinity? Likewise the import of the Dutch family in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, since Dutch is also a Germanic language ('Dutch' means 'German' in archaic English). Also, Germany, being on the other side of France, was a natural ally for England ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), just as France was for Scotland and Ireland in their struggles with England.

All these special connections were of course ruptured when Germany finally was united and became Britain's bitter enemy in the two World Wars.


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 09-29-2005).]

Yes I'm not denying the common root of the Angles and Saxons (who actually did not come from modern Saxony, but further North including Holland and Denmark). If we go back further the Celts are also a common ancestor with many of the same myths and legends such as Tristan and Isolde which is of course set in Cornwall. I'm fortunate to live near a Saxon church which has the only Rhenish tower in England, though they are common in Germany. The Modern English language though of the 18th century was barely recognisable from that of the 6th century.

The importation of a German royal family (which had a very tenuous claim being around 50th in line to the throne) was for religious and political reasons rather than cultural.

George III had been a passionate admirer of Handel, but of course by the time Beethoven was on the scene he was mentally unstable. Beethoven was fortunate in having such promoters in London as Clementi, Charles Neate (founder of the Philharmonic society), Ferdinand Ries and Johann Stumpff. Unfortunately George IV and all subsequent British monarchs have had little interest in Beethoven, Mendelssohn being the darling of Queen Victoria's court and horses and corgis of the present incumbent.

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

[~Immortal Beloved~]

Originally posted by Peter:
he still regarded him as a great man. As late as 1810 he contemplated dedicating his C major Mass to Napoleon.

I didn't know that he dedicated the Mass to Napoleon! I need to look it up sometime when I'm not busy.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes I'm not denying the common root of the Angles and Saxons (who actually did not come from modern Saxony, but further North including Holland and Denmark). If we go back further the Celts are also a common ancestor with many of the same myths and legends such as Tristan and Isolde which is of course set in Cornwall. I'm fortunate to live near a Saxon church which has the only Rhenish tower in England, though they are common in Germany. The Modern English language though of the 18th century was barely recognisable from that of the 6th century.

At the risk of quibbling too much on this, you ARE denying that English is a Germanic language. That is not my definition, but the linguists', as reported in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Dutch are all defined the same way; look them up. All of them plus English are descended directly from the Western or Northern branches of the ancient Germanic language and are defined as Germanic languages. This is because the German peoples were migrating, invading and conquering north and west during the millenium before Christ and for half a millenium afterward. Modern English bears a much closer relation to ancient German than to ancient Celtish. That there are many Celtic words in English does not change this fact. That sixth century AD English would be unintelligible to an 18th C. Briton, or to us, is of no more significance than that a speaker of modern Greek could not understand ancient Greek either. He would not therefore claim there wasn't a fairly direct line of descent from ancient Greek to modern Greek; nor would he claim that modern Greek could be labelled a Mycenean language, indebted as much to the Mycenean language of Agammemnon which preceded it as to ancient Greek, which began in the series of Doric invasions that destroyed most of what was left of the earlier Mycenean civilization. And notwithstanding that the legends and myths around which the ancient Greeks bulit their culture, like the Homeric tales, deal with events that purportedly took place in the age of Mycenae.

The closeness the British felt for the Germans was amplified by the common enemy, France, as I mentioned above, and also by the shared Protestantism of both peoples as against the Catholicism of Spain, France, the Italian states and much of the Netherlands.
This whole argument is more than an academic quibble here, because I think the view the English had of themselves as Germanic influenced and fostered their love for Handel, for Haydn, and for Beethoven. After Purcell the English had a damned hard time producing worthy composers of their own (until the 20th C.) so they consistently looked to their 'fatherland' for help. (Likewise when the great German artist Hans Holbein the Younger looked for a place to make a better living he found the idea of emigrating to England very congenial, partly because of language, was welcomed warmly and became the favorite portrait painter of Henry VIII and his court, who all quickly saw that he was much better than any home-grown English painter.)


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 09-30-2005).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:

The closeness the British felt for the Germans was amplified by the common enemy, France, as I mentioned above, and also by the shared Protestantism of both peoples as against the Catholicism of Spain, France, the Italian states and much of the Netherlands.
This whole argument is more than an academic quibble here, because I think the view the English had of themselves as Germanic influenced and fostered their love for Handel, for Haydn, and for Beethoven. After Purcell the English had a damned hard time producing worthy composers of their own (until the 20th C.) so they consistently looked to their 'fatherland' for help. (Likewise when the great German artist Hans Holbein the Younger looked for a place to make a better living he found the idea of emigrating to England very congenial, partly because of language, was welcomed warmly and became the favorite portrait painter of Henry VIII and his court, who all quickly saw that he was much better than any home-grown English painter.)

I'm not denying it Chaszz! Of course there is a common Anglo-Saxon heritage (which actually came from the area covering North Germany, Holland and Denmark), however I think you would have been hard pushed in the 19th century to find an Englishman who regarded Germany as the fatherland (aside from Prince Albert)! I simply meant that the modern languages are so different from each other that it is hard to imagine this being a reason for a love of all things German - for the first few decades of 18th century London, Italian opera was all the rage and the composer Bononcini was just as popular as the 'Italian opera' composer Handel. Up until the 18th century the Germanic bond was more political and religious rather than historical and cultural - had Mary Tudor produced an heir, we along with the US would in all probability be speaking Spanish!

As for Henry VIII he wasn't quite so impressed by the reality of his 4th (Germanic) bride (who barely spoke a word of English), having been deceived by Holbein's makeover!

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-30-2005).]