Beethoven - And Then ?

[gprengel]

Hi Robert,

you speak of Mendelssohn's music as "polite entertainment". I think this is one of these misunderstandings regarding his music. I can't aggree to this at all. Listen to these passionate 2 stringquartetts in a- and f-minor which I mentioned, and listen to his huge heritage of spritual music (not just Eliah oratorium), his 5th symphony, Hebriden overture, ... this is deep moving and uplifting music with an emotional power which to me neither Schumann, nor Berlioz, nor Wagner could reach.

Gerd

[HaydnFan]

I disagree gprengel, I would classify Mendelssohn as polite entertainment as well. As you say, there may be a few exceptions but generally, Mendelssohn was seemingly unable to tap into emotion or feeling. Had he lived earlier, this may not have been such a problem.

[robert newman]

Hi Gprengel,

Yes, I really appreciate what you say about Mendelssohn's best music. When I was younger 'Fingal's Cave' was so evocative to me and I still love it. Like you, I can think of many great works (including some of his relatively neglected piano concertos). I can't entirely agree with you on his choral/vocal music. But in general terms (and I was really speaking only in general terms) his music rarely gets beyond the parameters of classical romanticism. He is always in such control that one can hardly lose sight of his marriage of form and substance. This is fine of course - but it (to me at least) has been applauded at the time and no longer has such a lasting effect on me. I admire it greatly (as I greatly admire others such as Dvorak - a man I place slightly ahead of him as a great composer). I read somewhere (I think it was in a biography of Berlioz) that Mendelssohn wrote quite disparagingly of Berlioz to others - saying that his music was of really not much value, etc. So, I hope it's not too offensive if I stay with my general description of his music as being bourgeoise, though in the best sense of the word. He is polite, friendly, competent, even emotional, but has never been for me the composer he so clearly is for you.

Frankly, with such a galaxy of great composers it is not easy to find words that do justice in describing their output. But I entirely respect you view and hold him in true regard.

I cannot agree with what you have said of Berlioz. To me, Berlioz is quite simply the greatest musician since Beethoven, the least applauded, the most profound, passionate, original, enthused, driven, and devoted I have come across since Ludwig van....

Berlioz provided ugly, clumsy grains of sand around which his natural talent made pearls. His instinct was so acute that he never dared to become polite. I will listen closer to Mendelssohn as you suggest in the hope that you will listen closer to the astonishing works of Hector Berlioz.

Regards

Robert

[Droell]

Originally posted by robert newman:


Just how many works he actually wrote I still do not know. But I'm told by several friends that he wrote ecstatically about Beethoven in prose and I will try to find some examples of this for future posts.

Hello Robert,

You may be thinking of his memoirs. Back in 1970, David Cairns (presumably the same one) did a fine translation. Did you not know of it? You will find a fine story about the 5th in chapter 20. If you ever have the chance to hear the finale played as one gigantic acclerando, ending in a tempo so fast the notes cannot be played, you may experience "putting on your hat but not knowing where your head is."

[Droell]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
If we are not counting Schubert, then I think the greatest of the 19th Century was either Wagner or Schumann.

Anton Bruckner, hands down. He is difficult to play, he is difficult to listen to, in pretty much the same way that late Beethoven is difficult. But richly rewarding.

In the second movement of Schumann's 2nd or 3rd symphony is a wonderful passage built around a minor second (if my ears are any good) which dissolves into a shimmering trill, a delicious passage, but one which leaves Schumann in a corner he cannot get out of. So he bungles it, quite obviously. There is a passage in the slow movement of Bruckner's eighth where he makes everything STOP. Then, while fully stopped, he brings up the lights to full glare. And then he slides serenely out of it, an astonishing sequence, one of dozens he wrote. Every time I hear the Schumann, I think of Bruckner. Every time I hear Tchaikovsky, I think of Bruckner. In my opinion, Bruckner was where Beethoven - and most everyone else - was heading.

Mahler wanted to do pretty much the same, but for whatever reason, didn't. Then the style shifted, to Debussy & Stravinsky & the world went on.

(There are too many n's in Schummannnnnn.)

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 02-04-2006).]

[robert newman]

I posted earlier in reply to gprengel but it somehow did not appear.

Anyway, in describing Mendelssohn as a writer of polite music (this only in general terms) I suppose I'm saying his chief characteristic was his musical conservatism. Not for him the jazz-like eruptions of late Beethoven sonatas. Or the 7th Symphony of Ludwig. Nor can we imagine Mendelssohn storming out of a concert if people spoke while he was playing saying to his audiences, 'you were born as members of the aristocracy and I am Beethoven'. The man was a truly gifted and very competent musician. I love some of his works.They are rightly seen as being masterpieces. But, just as the history of mankind is not revealed in the stories of kings and queens, so too the history of music is hardly revealed by emphasising convention or privilege. Mendelssohn truly was a conservative (in the sense that this feature of his music seems uppermost).

There are of course certain things in music which must be conserved (without music is not music at all), but I feel that with the truly great composers form and new substance are combined, so that neither are dominant. I cannot (personally) say this is heard by me in Mendelssohn. But I will make a point of listening (again if necessary) to the works you rightly refer to.

I certainly do not agree with what you say of Berlioz. His 'ugliness' is a device. One can almost compare it to a grain or grit or sand - around which pearls of great beauty are formed. This is why (I honestly believe) we owe it to him to listen and really know what he has done. In many ways (though not all) he seems to have taken music far beyond Debussy and I truly believe he is as great a composer as the 19th century produced.

Best regards

Robert

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Droell:

Anton Bruckner, hands down. He is difficult to play, he is difficult to listen to, in pretty much the same way that late Beethoven is difficult. But richly rewarding.

In the second movement of Schumann's 2nd or 3rd symphony is a wonderful passage built around a minor second (if my ears are any good) which dissolves into a shimmering trill, a delicious passage, but one which leaves Schumann in a corner he cannot get out of. So he bungles it, quite obviously. There is a passage in the slow movement of Bruckner's eighth where he makes everything STOP. Then, while fully stopped, he brings up the lights to full glare. And then he slides serenely out of it, an astonishing sequence, one of dozens he wrote. Every time I hear the Schumann, I think of Bruckner. Every time I hear Tchaikovsky, I think of Bruckner. In my opinion, Bruckner was where Beethoven - and most everyone else - was heading.

Mahler wanted to do pretty much the same, but for whatever reason, didn't. Then the style shifted, to Debussy & Stravinsky & the world went on.

(There are too many n's in Schummannnnnn.)

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 02-04-2006).]

You speak of Bruckner's symphonies, which indeed are great and mighty works. But listen to his choral pieces, especially the smaller ones. I don't know that there was a greater choral composer....too bad there isn't more of it.

[robert newman]

For me, the centre of the musical firmament is Bach. plain and simple.

And if, decades later, the much maligned Berlioz creates ideas that are ugly, not immediately accessible, etc, so be it.

I still believe passion and the human heart is the best response to academic dogmatism and learned textooks. In this sense Berlioz is the natural successor to Beethoven.

Regards


Robert



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-05-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


For me, the centre of the musical firmament is Bach. plain and simple.

And if, decades later, the much maligned Berlioz creates ideas that are ugly, not immediately accessible, etc, so be it.

I still believe passion and the human heart is the best response to academic dogmatism and learned textooks. In this sense Berlioz is the natural successor to Beethoven.

Regards


Robert

Nice to find myself in agreement with you Robert, though I don't find Berlioz's music 'ugly'. There is much by Beethoven that is not immediately accessible, and it is this music that generally turns out to have the most to offer, if only society wasn't hooked on instant gratification - "What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare."

By the way I'm reading an interesting biography on Bach (which sheds a new light on him) by Klaus Eidam.


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

[robert newman]

New information on Bach would be very interesting. I've recently finished a very nicely written book 'Evening in the Palace of Reason' (James Gaines) on the subject of Bach's visit late in life to the court of Frederick the Great.

I personally believe Bach was much interested in so-called 'gematria' (association between words and numbers) and that there may well be some real discoveries to come in this area. You know of course that his heavily underlined bible turned up in the USA some decades ago.

Imagine discovery of all the lost cantatas !

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Nice to find myself in agreement with you Robert, though I don't find Berlioz's music 'ugly'. There is much by Beethoven that is not immediately accessible, and it is this music that generally turns out to have the most to offer, if only society wasn't hooked on instant gratification - "What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare."

By the way I'm reading an interesting biography on Bach (which sheds a new light on him) by Klaus Eidam.

Ugliness and accessability are not necessarily the issue with Berlioz. I think the manner of execution of the material is the issue. Having good ideas is one thing, converting them into their perfect musical realisation is another.

What was the new light you discovered about Bach?

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

[Ateach Asc]

The discussion so far appears to indicate that no one ever really followed Beethoven's lead, trying instead to carve out some new territory for themselves.

The results have been interesting, and as mentioned by quite a few, have led to some favorite lollipops.

Unfortunately, Schubert died prematurely, leaving behind phenomenal hints and suggestions of an evolution potentially rivalling and possibly surpassing that which was started by Beethoven.

Sadly, history is littered with giant leaders who left very little else in their shadows.



------------------
Must it be? It must be!

[Peter]

Originally posted by Ateach Asc:
The discussion so far appears to indicate that no one ever really followed Beethoven's lead, trying instead to carve out some new territory for themselves.

The results have been interesting, and as mentioned by quite a few, have led to some favorite lollipops.

Unfortunately, Schubert died prematurely, leaving behind phenomenal hints and suggestions of an evolution potentially rivalling and possibly surpassing that which was started by Beethoven.

Sadly, history is littered with giant leaders who left very little else in their shadows.

Quite the contrary the discussion indicates that Berlioz was one of the most original minds to come out of the first half of the 19th century. If you don't think he carved out new territory, name a work that is anything like the Fantastique Symphonie!

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
.

What was the new light you discovered about Bach?

I am only a little way through this fascinating book, but so far the relationship Bach had with his early employers particularly at Weimar is shown to be quite different than that stated - Duke Wilhelm Ernst is revealed as being far from the enlightened character history portrays him.

From the musical point of view, the knowledge Bach had regarding harpsichords and organs is remarkable - he was regarded as an expert in building and tuning them at 18. Then there is his tremendous work on equal tempered tuning which bore fruit with the chromatic fantasy and fugue employing undreamt of modulations simply because before Bach they were not possible.

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Ateach Asc:
The discussion so far appears to indicate that no one ever really followed Beethoven's lead, trying instead to carve out some new territory for themselves.

The results have been interesting, and as mentioned by quite a few, have led to some favorite lollipops.

Unfortunately, Schubert died prematurely, leaving behind phenomenal hints and suggestions of an evolution potentially rivalling and possibly surpassing that which was started by Beethoven.

Sadly, history is littered with giant leaders who left very little else in their shadows.

Personally I would contest this notion - certainly with his instrumental music I find consistantly underwhealming compared even to Beethoven's earlier music. In comparison S's music lacks focus, stylistically confused. I suggest some discipline would have had to be gained had he lived longer for him to be in Beethoven's league even when B was of the same (relatively early) age.



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