Stravinski thoughts about Beethoven

[atserriotserri]

I'm reading the book "Chronicles of my life" by Igor Stravinski, and in the chapter "postwar years" makes some remarks that I expect you may find not just interesting but also may bring up some debate.

First, the context: 1923, Biarritz, and Stravinski devoted to the composition of his piano sonata (there is a previous piano sonata dated 1905). He explains that, despite the fact that he wanted to compose with the maximum freedom, in the process of composing felt the desire to analyse the sonatas from the classic master to follow their directions and development of ideas as to solve the problems of the sonata form.

He explains that to that purpose played again a large number of Beethoven sonatas. The he says:

"During our youth we were saturated with his works and were imposed at the same time his famous 'weltschmerz', his 'tragedy' and all the cliches that arose a century ago around this composer undoubtly recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the universe. Like other young musicians, I was disgusted with this cerebral and sentimental attitude distant from a rigurous musical opinion. This regrettable pedagogy drifted me away form Beethoven for many years"

The Stravinski explains how he progressively approached in a more objective way Beethoven and overcame that teaching.

Then he explains his views: "First of all I recognized in him a master of the instrument. The instrument inspired his musical mind and determined the substance"... He says that Beethoven composed piano music, and not music for piano, for instance.

He says that "It is time that Beethoven is rescued from the monopoly that has unfairly appropiated of him, formed by 'intellectuals' and leave it to those who do not seek in music anything but music, and it is also time to protect him against the nonsense and rude comments of the idiots who have fun denigrating him".

Then he underlines that in his symphonies, chamber works and overtures Beethoven dirtributes with great wisdom the papers to each instrument and groups, and that his careful writing and the precision with which he exposes his wishes evidence that we are before a force of constructive order, and that is how he moulds the sonic matter is what allowed him to build the instrumental forms that made him so glorious.

Afterwards Stravinski mentions that the music of Beethoven, tightly linked to his instrumental lenguage, has found in moderation his more concrete and perfect expression, saying that "We have enough shoddy orchestrations and 'thick' sonorities, we are fed up of the timbre, we can't stand the overfeeding of the instrumental element, inflating it exaggeratedly adn thansforming it in something 'by itself'!".

I found very interesting his tone, because this passage of the book sounded to me as a real defense of the figure of Beethoven, which means to me that he found it necessary, perhaps due to the avant-garde circle in which he moved... so I think it's curious how even one of the least disputed geniuses in some circles, depending on the 'trends' may be thrashed out.

[Peter]

Yes very interesting and it is true that some composers reacted against Beethoven at that time. Benjamin Britten is another example of one brought up in that tradition (himself a superb pianist) who turned against Beethoven.

The comment about Beethoven writing piano music and not music for the piano is interesting - the Hammerklavier sonata comes to mind as it is a most unpianistic work, almost orchestrally conceived though it 'sounds' best in its intended medium rather than the orchestrated version by Weingartner.

It seems that Stravinsky understood Beethoven well and summed up a work such as the Grosse Fugue as forever modern.

[DavidO]

Afterwards Stravinski mentions that the music of Beethoven, tightly linked to his instrumental lenguage, has found in moderation his more concrete and perfect expression, saying that "We have enough shoddy orchestrations and 'thick' sonorities, we are fed up of the timbre, we can't stand the overfeeding of the instrumental element, inflating it exaggeratedly adn thansforming it in something 'by itself'!".

If I understand Stravinsky correctly here, he's praising Beethoven as an orchestrator. For many years, I have felt that Beethoven was the greatest orchestrator of all time -- Bach or Mozart or Haydn or perhaps some others may have equalled him in this area, but I don't think anyone surpasses him. Again, I'm referring to orchestration -- not to composition per se but to the divvying up of elements to parts of the orchestra & the related arrangement & management of disparate parts, including dynamics, register, color, even the wise use of space (when not to fill being equally important with when to fill).

When Bernstein talks of Beethoven seeming so "right" -- i.e., that each successive chord or other series of notes seems inevitable, as if no alternative would "fit" -- I think he's getting at something in Beethoven that has perhaps more to do with orchestration than with composition as such.

I should really read some of the great orchestration tracts (like the one by Berlioz) to try to get a better handle on what I sense. In Beethoven's case, because of the intensity of the expression, I sometimes can't -- or don't -- pay attention to the orchestrative aspects of B's art. But they're always there, in the "Coriolan" Overture, in the Symphonies 4 & 8, in the Missa -- apart from everything else they are, they're demonstrations of orchestrative knowledge & power. And when I listen to many other composers, even the renowned orchestrators like Ravel & Rimsky-Korsakov, I hear clutter or poor judgment (maybe what Stravinsky means by "the overfeeding of the instrumental element") & I think to myself on occasion, "Beethoven would have handled those measures differently & would have improved them."

Just as a side note: I remember hearing that Vaughan Williams was quoted as once having said that the "Beethoven idiom" repelled him. I don't think he meant Beethoven per se (although he may have) but the classicism idiom in general: the formal presentation of themes, their development, their recapitulation, &c. I think Vaughan Williams shied away from, or had no personal empathy for, the measured development of motive in the Viennese sense -- at least as far as his composing goes.

But then I would imagine neither did Debussy.

[PDG]

Very interesting post, David. Beethoven was the supreme orchestral economist. Even in the sometimes rubbished Triple Concerto (op.56), he makes sure that all three soloists have plenty to do, are not overpowered by the orchestra, and that when the orchestra is in full flow, it does not have to strain to sound either interesting or "busy". All is perfectly proportioned.

In the string quartets, each string is used to its maximum emphasis without sounding stressed above the other strings; and when all the strings interact, all is beauty; magic occurs. To say nothing of the compositional building blocks at work!

Listen again to the Storm in the Pastoral (op.68). It is an aural, powerful, swirling scene, yet look at the size of the orchestra playing it! And yes, the balance of those instruments (left & right strings balance, economical bass, suppressed menace in the lower register). Berlioz couldn't achieve such a musical miracle; neither could Wagner; neither could Liszt, Dvorak, Brahms, etc.

The attitudes of Britten (mentioned by Peter) and the other lesser-talented Romantics show, in my view, a certain jealousy and posturing, and a great deal of trying to grab at something they think they can emulate but instead are left floundering in subconscious awe.

[Sorrano]

For Berlioz to equal the type of sonorities that Beethoven achieved as in the Pastoral and 7th Symphonies he had to employ the usage of extras while Beethoven did it with the standard orchestral forces of the time. I've never really thought of Beethoven as an expert orchestrator, but given the limitations of his time and encroaching deafness he is certainly underrated in that field.

[Peter]

For Berlioz to equal the type of sonorities that Beethoven achieved as in the Pastoral and 7th Symphonies he had to employ the usage of extras while Beethoven did it with the standard orchestral forces of the time. I've never really thought of Beethoven as an expert orchestrator, but given the limitations of his time and encroaching deafness he is certainly underrated in that field.

I'm not saying Beethoven wasn't a fine orchestrator and the works you quote are good examples (though Mahler obviously thought otherwise), but it doesn't follow that composers such as Berlioz and Wagner in particular were not. Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique was written just a few years after Beethoven's death and his use of the orchestra is outstandingly original, but I think nothing demonstrates his mastery of the orchestra better than the Queen Mab Scherzo from Romeo and Juliet - it is stunning, and why should a composer not make use of the forces available to him?

[Sorrano]

I'm not saying Beethoven wasn't a fine orchestrator and the works you quote are good examples (though Mahler obviously thought otherwise), but it doesn't follow that composers such as Berlioz and Wagner in particular were not. Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique was written just a few years after Beethoven's death and his use of the orchestra is outstandingly original, but I think nothing demonstrates his mastery of the orchestra better than the Queen Mab Scherzo from Romeo and Juliet - it is stunning, and why should a composer not make use of the forces available to him?

I agree very much with you in regards to Berlioz and Mahler. Mahler, of course, had many more options with the more modern orchestra than did either Berlioz or Beethoven. Beethoven relied on standard instruments except in those cases where there were added instruments (5th and 9th symphonies). The economization was a Beethoven trademark, anyway, not only with his compositional technique, but also orchestrally. Perhaps he is overlooked because he was conservative in terms of using new instruments.

[Peter]

Perhaps he is overlooked because he was conservative in terms of using new instruments.

This is also true of Haydn, particularly in his symphonic minuets - he really was extremely innovative. Also in his symphony no.67 is the first attempt I know of strings playing with the wood of the bow (Col Legno) not used again until Berlioz in the Symphonie Fantastique.

I think practicality had a lot to do with the choice of instrumentation - Beethoven was restricted to a large extent by availabilty and playability! Yet within these means he and the classical masters achieved miracles. Several factors such as the establishment of the conservatoires, the social acceptance of a music career, the sheer creative imagination and design that was unleashed by the industrial revolution in the early 19th century stimulated the development of musical instruments and composers were naturally keen to exploit this. The great 19th/20th century orchestrators such as Berlioz, Mahler, Strauss, Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Respighi all used large forces, but often in small combinations.

[Chris]

I think a lot of the best art is created when the artist has less tools and has to be creative to find ways to get what he wants while working only with what he has. Look at George Lucas. He was under tremendous pressure while making Star Wars. He didn't have enough time, money, or technology to do what he wanted. But he did his best to make the most out of what he had and he made a pretty great film. Then look at what happened when he went back to make the prequel films. He had pratically unlimited time, money, and technology, and none of those movies came anywhere close to being as good as the original film.

I think sometimes having more resources available can destract an artist more than help him. Or worse, he may feel pressured to use them to keep up with the times. Personally, I don't find much to like in the orchestral works that came after Beethoven, and I think this larger sonic canvas may be part of the reason.

[Sorrano]

Perhaps, too, familiarity with the organ as a youth gave him some good ideas about acoustics and sonority that enabled him to come up with big sounds with small forces as well as helping him to understand how to utilize individual instruments in combinations with other sounds. I am thinking of the 5th piano concerto with respect to this.

[Preston]

Look at George Lucas. He was under tremendous pressure while making Star Wars. He didn't have enough time, money, or technology to do what he wanted. But he did his best to make the most out of what he had and he made a pretty great film. Then look at what happened when he went back to make the prequel films. He had pratically unlimited time, money, and technology, and none of those movies came anywhere close to being as good as the original film.

Chris, keep in mind that that is your opinion. If you wish to discuss this further please send me a pm, I would love to hear your view.

Anyway, back to the thread.