Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beethoven 'Pastoral' Symphony - Berlioz Comments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Beethoven 'Pastoral' Symphony - Berlioz Comments



    'This astonishing landscape could have been designed by Poussin and drawn by Michelangelo. The author of 'Fidelio' and of the 'Eroica' symphony sets out to depict the tranquillity of the countryside and the shepherds’ gentle way of life. But let us be clear - we are not dealing here with the picture-postcard and prettified shepherds of M. de Florian, still less those of M. Lebrun, who wrote the Rossignol [The Nightingale], or those of J.-J. Rousseau, the composer of the 'Devin du Village' [The Village Soothsayer]. We are dealing here with REAL nature. The title given by the composer to his first movement is 'Gentle feelings stirred by the sight of a beautiful landscape'. The shepherds begin to move about nonchalantly in the fields; their pipes can be heard from a distance and close-by. Exquisite sounds caress you like the scented morning breeze. A flight or rather swarms of twittering birds pass overhead, and the atmosphere occasionally feels laden with mists. Heavy clouds come to hide the sun, then suddenly they scatter and let floods of dazzling light fall straight down on the fields and the woods. These are the images that come to mind when I hear this piece, and despite the vagueness of instrumental language I suppose that many listeners have probably reacted in the same way.

    Further on there is a 'Scene by the Brook'. Contemplation… The composer probably created this wonderful Adagio lying on his back in the grass, his eyes turned to heaven, his ear listening to the wind, fascinated by countless reflections of sound and light, observing and listening at once to the white ripples of the river as they break gently on the stones of the bank. This is delightful. There are some who vehemently criticise Beethoven for wanting to reproduce at the end of it the song of three birds, at first in succession and then together. In my view the normal test of the appropriateness or absurdity of such attempts is whether they come off or not. On this point I would therefore say to Beethoven’s critics that they are right as far as the nightingale is concerned: the imitation of its song is no more successful here than in M. Lebrun’s well-known flute solo, for the very simple reason that since the nightingale only emits indistinct sounds of indeterminate pitch it cannot be imitated by instruments with a fixed and precise pitch. But it seems to me that the case is different with the quail and the cuckoo, whose cry involves either one or two real notes of fixed pitch, and can therefore be fully imitated in a realistic way.

    Now if the composer is criticised for introducing a childishly literal imitation of bird-song in a scene where all the quiet voices of heaven, earth and water must naturally find their place, I would say in reply that the same objection could be made when in the storm he also imitates faithfully the gusts of wind, the flashes of lightning and the bellowing of animals. And heaven knows that no one has ever dreamed of criticising the Storm of this Pastoral symphony! But let us proceed. The poet now brings us in the midst of a Joyful gathering of peasants. The dancing and laughter are restrained at first; the oboe plays a cheerful refrain accompanied by a bassoon that can only manage to produce two notes. Beethoven’s intention was probably to suggest in this way an old German peasant, sitting on a cask with a decrepit old instrument, from which all he can draw are the two principal notes of the key of F, the dominant and the tonic. Every time the oboe plays its naïve and jolly tune like a girl in her Sunday clothes, the old bassoon blows his two notes. When the melody modulates to a different key the bassoon falls silent and quietly counts his rests, until the original key returns and he is able to interject again unruffled his F, C and F. This burlesque effect is wonderfully apt but the public seems to miss it almost completely. The dance gets more animated and becomes wild and noisy. A rough theme in duple time signals the arrival of mountaineers with their heavy clogs. The first section in triple time is repeated, but even more animated. The dancers mingle excitedly, the women’s hair flies loose over their shoulders, the mountaineers add their noise and intoxication, there is clapping, shouting and running, and the scene goes wild and furious… Then suddenly a distant clap of thunder strikes terror in the midst of this rustic ball and scatters the dancers.

    Storm, lightning. I despair of being able to convey an idea of this prodigious piece. It has to be heard to understand how realistic and sublime imitative music can become in the hands of someone like Beethoven. Listen to the gusts of wind gorged with rain, the dull growl of the basses, the shrill hissing of piccolos announcing the fearful storm that is about the break out. The hurricane approaches and increases in intensity. A huge chromatic scale, starting in the upper instruments, plunges to the depths of the orchestra, picks up the basses on the way, drags them upwards, like a surging whirlwind that sweeps everything in its way. The trombones then burst out, the thunder of the timpani intensifies in violence; this is no longer rain and wind but a terrifying cataclysm, a universal deluge and the end of the world. In truth the piece induces dizziness, and there are many who on hearing this storm are not sure whether the emotion they experience is one of pleasure or of pain. The symphony concludes with the 'Thanksgiving of the Peasants' after the return of fine weather. Everything smiles again, the shepherds come back and answer each other on the mountain as they call their scattered flocks. The sky is clear, the torrents gradually dry out, calm returns and with it the rustic songs with their gentle tones. They soothe the mind, shattered as it was by the awesome splendour of the preceding tableau.

    Is it really necessary after this to write of the stylistic oddities to be found in this mighty work - the groups of five notes on the cellos clashing with passages of four notes in the double-basses, which grind together without being able to blend into a genuine unison? Must one mention the horn call which plays an arpeggio on the chord of C while the strings hold that of F?… In truth I cannot. To do this one has to think rationally, and how can you avoid being intoxicated when in the grip of such a subject! Far from it - if only one could sleep and go on sleeping for months on end, and inhabit in one’s dreams the unknown sphere which for a moment genius has allowed us to glimpse. After such a concert should one have the misfortune to have to see some comic opera, attend a soirée of fashionable songs and a flute concerto, one would have a look of stupefaction. Should someone ask you:

    - How do you find this Italian duet?
    You would reply in all seriousness
    - Quite beautiful.
    - And these variations for clarinet?
    - Superb.
    - And the finale of the new opera?
    - Admirable.

    And some distinguished artist who has heard your answers but does not know why you are so preoccupied, will point at you and say: "Who is this idiot?"

    …………………………………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦

    How the ancient poems, for all their beauty and the admiration they evoke, pale before this marvel of modern music! Theocritus and Virgil were great landscape artists; lines like the following are music to the ears:

    «Te quoque, magna Pales, et te, memorande, canemus
    Pastor ab Amphryso; vos Sylvae amnesque Lycaei.»

    especially when they are not recited by barbarians like us French, who pronounce Latin in such a way that it could be mistaken for a peasant dialect…

    But Beethoven’s poem!… these long periods so full of colour!… these speaking images!… these scents!… this light!… this eloquent silence!… these vast horizons!… these magic hideouts in the woods!… these golden harvests!… these pink clouds like wandering specks in the sky!… this vast plain dozing under the midday sun!… Man is absent!… nature alone reveals herself glorying in her splendour… And the deep rest of everything that lives! And the wonderful life of everything that rests!… The little stream that pursues its murmuring course towards the river!… the river, the source of all water, which descends towards the ocean in majestic silence!… Then man appears, the man from the countryside, robust and full of religious feeling… his joyful play interrupted by the storm… his fears… his hymn of thanksgiving…

    Hide your faces, poor great poets of antiquity, poor immortals. Your conventional language, so pure and harmonious, cannot compete with the art of sound. You are vanquished, no doubt with glory, but vanquished all the same! You have not experienced what nowadays we call melody, harmony, the combination of different timbres, instrumental colour, modulations, the skilful clashes of conflicting sounds which fight and then embrace, the sounds that surprise the ear, the strange tones which stir the innermost recesses of the soul. The stammering of the childish art which you referred to as music could not give you any idea of this. For cultured minds you alone were the great melodists, the masters of harmony, rhythm, and expression. But these words had a very different meaning in your vocabulary from what we give them now. The art of sound in its true meaning, independent of anything else, was only born yesterday. It has scarcely reached manhood, and is barely twenty years old. It is beautiful and all-powerful: it is the Pythian Apollo of modern times. We owe to it a world of emotion and feeling which was closed to you. Yes, great venerated poets, you are vanquished - Inclyti sed victi. ''

    Hector Berlioz

    #2
    I'm surprised you haven't jumped on Beethoven and said how unoriginal the whole thing was as Beethoven stole the whole idea anyway from Justin Knecht (1752-1817) who had written a symphony titled 'The musical portrait of nature' which has a five movement plan with a first movement describing a beautiful sunlit countryside, a storm in the 3rd movement and the finale titled 'Nature raises her voice towards heaven offering to the creator sweet and agreable songs.' Now it is certain that Beethoven knew of this work, even if he never heard it performed - Sir George Grove discovered that this symphony by Knecht was actually advertised on the cover of Beethoven's early 'Electoral' sonatas WoO47.

    I tried finding this symphony on Amazon but due to an amazing cover up and conspiracy to preserve the sacred name of Beethoven, no joy! How unjust we've been to Knecht, he certainly needs to be rehabilated and granted his rightful place in history.

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

    Comment


      #3
      Beethoven may have 'stolen' the idea from Knecht but he composed the 6th only in Beethoven's magnificent style! I still think he creates a 'storm' better than anyone else.

      ------------------
      'Truth and beauty joined'
      'Truth and beauty joined'

      Comment


        #4

        Beethoven came at the end of an era. There is nothing surprising in that. The fact that he uses a scheme already put forward by others is surely not the issue. (How many artists have painted a Madonna and Child, for example ?)

        Joy is right - nobody before or since has used these ideas to such tremendous effect in music. That was Beethoven. So said Berlioz and so say us too.

        As for conspiracies, their absence here is no great surprise to those who have read my earlier posts. But I take your sarcasm with good humour (as no doubt it was intended). Yours is the exception to the rule that sacrasm is the lowest form of wit.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by robert newman:

          Beethoven came at the end of an era. There is nothing surprising in that. The fact that he uses a scheme already put forward by others is surely not the issue. (How many artists have painted a Madonna and Child, for example ?)

          Joy is right - nobody before or since has used these ideas to such tremendous effect in music. That was Beethoven. So said Berlioz and so say us too.

          As for conspiracies, their absence here is no great surprise to those who have read my earlier posts. But I take your sarcasm with good humour (as no doubt it was intended). Yours is the exception to the rule that sacrasm is the lowest form of wit.

          I'm pleased you took it in good humour as was intended - communicating this way does leave the door wide open for misinterpretation! There was a serious point though and that is that Luchesi is not the only composer to have faded from history. The following list of (mainly German) composers invited to compose variations for Diabelli alone shows this (of course there are numerous other examples of fine composers such as Hasse now forgotten)

          Ignaz Abmayer
          Carl Maria Von Bocklet
          Leopold Czapek
          Joseph Drechsler
          Emanuel Aloys Forster
          Franz Jakob Freystadtler
          Johann Baptist Gansbacher
          Josef Gelinek
          Anton Halm
          Joachim Hoffman
          Johann Horzalka
          Joseph Huglmann
          Johann Nepomuk Hummel
          Anselm Huttenbrenner
          Frederic Kalkbrenner
          Frederich August Kanne
          Joseph Kerzkowsky
          Conradin Kreutzer
          Heinrich Eduard Josef Baron Von Lannoy
          Marcus Leidesdorf
          Franz Liszt
          Joseph Mayseder
          Ignaz Moscheles
          Ignaz Franz Baron Von Mosel
          Franz Xaver Wolfgang Mozart
          Joseph Panny
          Hieronymus Payer
          Johann Peter Pixis
          Vaclav Plachy
          Gottfried Reiger
          Phillipp Jakob Riotte
          Franz De Paula Roser
          Johann Baptist Schenck
          Franz Schoberlechner
          Franz Schubert
          Simon Sechter
          Archduke Rudolf Of Austria
          Abbe Maximillian Stadler
          Josephe De Szalay
          Vaclav Jan Krtitel Tomasek
          Michael Umlauf
          Friedrich Dionys Weber
          Franz Weber
          Charles Angelus De Winkhler
          Franz Weiss
          Jan August Vitasek
          Jan Vaclav Vorisek
          Carl Czerny



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

          Comment


            #6
            Regarding Berlioz's reaction to the Pastoral, I think you only have to listen to the 3rd movement of the symphony Fantastique to see what he learnt from it.

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

            Comment


              #7


              Absolutely !

              It's difficult to imagine anyone responding to the torrent of greatness that the Beethoven symphonies represent - especially within years of their birth. Schubert, but all too briefly. And then Berlioz with his large scale productions. Truly great men praise others of their kind. It seems to be a precondition to the living of their own lives.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by robert newman:


                Truly great men praise others of their kind. It seems to be a precondition to the living of their own lives.

                Indeed which is why Beethoven praised Haydn and Mozart, but somehow forgot to mention Luchesi! Berlioz was way ahead of his time in recognising the greatness of Beethoven in France, but even he who was taught by none other than Luchesi's pupil Anton Reicha at the conservatoire, seems oblivious to his illustrious connections with Luchesi.

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

                Comment


                  #9

                  Being oblivious gave them more than a good excuse, don't you think ?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by robert newman:

                    Being oblivious gave them more than a good excuse, don't you think ?
                    Which rather contradicts your remark "Truly great men praise others of their kind. It seems to be a precondition to the living of their own lives." Don't you think?

                    In any case I hardly think reading Berlioz's memoirs you could accuse him of being oblivious! As for Beethoven he was rather known for his plain speaking and musical judgement.

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

                    Comment


                      #11


                      You are right that the failure of Beethoven and Reicha to mention Kapellmeister Luchesi is a real problem. It sometimes seems to defy any logical explanation and (as it happens) this problem is attached to another one that I've been working on for more than 5 months. I'll mention this here because this is not the first time you've raised this issue. But I can't elaborate because I only have a few pieces of the solution and don't want to make a thread of something still unsolved.

                      There are two things -

                      1. Certain musicians at Bonn chapel during the time when Beethoven was there (and this included neither Reicha nor Beethoven) had an agenda. I cannot elaborate on it here but they had considerable influence. (I hope to post on this issue later this year). Whether this will explain Beethoven and Reicha not (apparently) speaking of Luchesi remains to be seen. But this information is reliable and I think it has an important bearing on the all important issue of the 1784 music Inventory - in which these particular (3) people were definitely involved.

                      2. One of these people is named in my sources as Ferdinand D'Anthoin (the pen name that was allegedly used by Kapellmeister Luchesi prior to 1784 for sale of manuscripts to others). D'Anthoin was actually the brother in law of Luchesi and (as has been shown on this site) he certainly studied music at the chapel, even as a 'dilettante'. (Whether this gave cover to Luchesi's activities remains to be seen).

                      3. I received a letter today from a librarian at Bonn University (whom I had asked if there are any references to Luchesi in Bonn after the closure of the Bonn chapel in 1794).

                      She wrote (this translated) that a census was taken in Bonn during 1798 by the French authorities and that -

                      'In the Alphabetical List of the Kurfurstlichen area (with the original document still held at Bonn Town Archive) under a reference '1e4' is reference to an address and name on Page 9 -

                      'Luchesi - ehem. Kurfurstlicher Kapellmeister No. 580'

                      I know that a Kurfurstlichen Academy seems to have been founded in Bonn in 1783 and also that a Kurfurstliche Chamber Theatre was built in Bonn between 1790 and 1830 (this now the site of a branch of the Bonn Art Museum and the Schumann building).

                      The reason I mention all this is because somewhere in Luchesi's career is surely the reason why he goes unmentioned by Beethoven and Reicha, despite being their Kapellmeister.

                      So it isn't that I'm trying to make cheap points - it's simply that these things are proving to be very tough nuts to crack. I'm sure the solution will be found though it is as you say a real puzzle.


                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by robert newman:


                        Absolutely !

                        It's difficult to imagine anyone responding to the torrent of greatness that the Beethoven symphonies represent - especially within years of their birth. Schubert, but all too briefly. And then Berlioz with his large scale productions. Truly great men praise others of their kind. It seems to be a precondition to the living of their own lives.

                        For reasons I gave in my post in the "Berlioz on Beethoven" thread, I cannot view Berlioz as a "truly great man". He was a rather silly, and very arrogant, man, who was nevertheless, in many people's estimation, a great composer.

                        On the other hand, Wagner, who also loved the music of Beethoven, was a very silly, and rather evil, man, who was certainly a very, very great composer (ranking only after the great trinity of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, in my opinion).

                        Let's stop the over-adulation and near-worship of artists, which is one of the excesses brought about by the Romantic revolution. Let's indeed honour them for their artistic achievements, but not imagine that this necessarily makes them "great men". I would reserve that title for those who reveal a greatness of soul and mind, and a generosity of spirit, which neither Berlioz nor Wagner came anywhere near.

                        Incidentally, although Berlioz and Wagner only had "qualified admiration" for each other's music, they apparently got on quite well when they spent some hours together in London. I'm not entirely sure whether that's a point in their favour or not!

                        Comment


                          #13

                          All great men are 'fools'. Beethoven was a 'fool'. So was Berlioz. In the case of Berlioz (unlike Wagner) very few cared what he did. I care. He mattered to me from the first time I decided to listen, really listen, to his music. He is (for me) a great man.

                          His music takes me beyond theoretical considerations. He simply had no time to worry about that. I think I understand him. He is (to me anyway) quite different from the Wagner idolised by many. He practiced what he believed. He tasted dry crusts and we know he broke his heart. But his music is sublime and if we are ever to reach it we must believe what he says. Not as some infallible truth but simply as the lesson that it is - always a lesson.

                          You suggest we should get rid of Romantic ideas. I say we should get rid of any label which is so inappropriate as that. In Berlioz he can throw a tree trunk in to the water as well as he can sing you a lullaby. He is no romanticist. Berlioz (to me) says 'here - this is ugly and I know it - but see how music transforms it - makes it something new and altogether lovely - THAT is the importance of what I am doing'. That is not Romanticism. It goes far, far beyond such a label.

                          He flies by intuition. A great man. For sure.


                          [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-17-2006).]

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by robert newman:

                            All great men are 'fools'. Beethoven was a 'fool'. So was Berlioz. In the case of Berlioz (unlike Wagner) very few cared what he did. I care. He mattered to me from the first time I decided to listen, really listen, to his music. He is (for me) a great man.

                            His music takes me beyond theoretical considerations. He simply had no time to worry about that. I think I understand him. He is (to me anyway) quite different from the Wagner idolised by many. He practiced what he believed. He tasted dry crusts and we know he broke his heart. But his music is sublime and if we are ever to reach it we must believe what he says. Not as some infallible truth but simply as the lesson that it is - always a lesson.

                            You suggest we should get rid of Romantic ideas. I say we should get rid of any label which is so inappropriate as that. In Berlioz he can throw a tree trunk in to the water as well as he can sing you a lullaby. He is no romanticist. Berlioz (to me) says 'here - this is ugly and I know it - but see how music transforms it - makes it something new and altogether lovely - THAT is the importance of what I am doing'. That is not Romanticism. It goes far, far beyond such a label.

                            He flies by intuition. A great man. For sure.


                            [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 02-17-2006).]
                            Robert,

                            I DON'T say we should get rid of Romantic ideas - please don't put words into my mouth.

                            I believe that Romanticism - and I'm not afraid to use it as a "label", because it does describe something which happened in society from the late 18th. cantury onwards, affecting the arts as well - is responsible both for much of what is good about society, and also for many of the evils of the modern age. And if you don't want to see Berlioz as a "Romantic", that's up to you. Most music writers, including most Berlioz lovers, will disagree with you.

                            You have every right to idolize Berlioz, as you clearly so, and I have every right to disagree with your assessment of him. You think him a "great man". I don't. We must beg to differ.

                            This is posted in a hurry, I have more to say on this - but I probably won't be able to reply before next Monday.

                            Regards,

                            Frank


                            Comment


                              #15

                              Frank - I don't idolise Berlioz. Please don't put words in to my mouth either.

                              I would really appreciate your views on 'romanticism' and also on the cult of personality. So if you get time that would be interesting to hear from you. At the moment I don't understand what you are saying.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X