Turkish March in 4th Mvmt of 9th Symphony - What was Beethoven Thinking?

[Johan]

This symphony's finale have always been problematic - like every great piece of music is. How represent the score?
The finale is very long. The joy-theme goes on and with t i m e becomes f o r c e d. Therefore march-music. But of course joy is also at the same t i m e spreading, conquering, coming out by the sheer f o r c e of itself.
This is my subjective view of the turkish march.

[Hofrat]

Let us look at the Choral Fantasy opus 80 which was a kind of testing ground for the choral movement of the 9th symphony. There is a section with a designation "Marcia, assai vivace." No one asked, "What was Beethoven thinking?" here!

[Johan]

Let us look at the Choral Fantasy opus 80 which was a kind of testing ground for the choral movement of the 9th symphony. There is a section with a designation "Marcia, assai vivace." No one asked, "What was Beethoven thinking?" here!

Yes! I was yesterday listening to this fantasia in c-minor. The words "Wenn sich Lieb(e) und Kraft vermählen, Lohnt dem Menschen Göttergunst" i.e. "When love and strength are united..." speak of strength. I don't know if Beethoven took this literally in his music - the finale is though very lovely and powerful. Here it seems to be rather joyous finale (my subjective view).

[Quijote]

I look forward to all your promised 'more of this laters' of which you are accumulating a great score!

So, let me finally try to address some of the issues raised in this very interesting thread (that started off with a question about the Turkish March in the finale of B’s Ninth symphony. How far we have travelled from that original posting!).

Firstly, the use of the mediant as a substitute dominant (Charles Rosen) and the use of ‘third-relationships’ (Sorrano) : Beethoven did on occasion use ‘third-relationships’ for the second thematic group in sonata-form movements (in the exposition), including other closely related (third related) keys such as the relative minor (e.g. op. 29), the mediant minor (op. 31 n° 1), mediant major (the ‘Waldstein’), and submediant major (the ‘Hammerklavier op. 106), and in certain passages (if my memory serves me correctly) in the 3rd piano concerto. Schiff also has pointed up this fact in his recital-lectures, whereby the subject and harmonic plan (in the Hammerklavier) are constructed by means of a chain of descending thirds.

As one commentator has pointed out, it is in the piano sonatas of the 1800-1802 period where the “novelty of concept” first became evident in the key plan, in particular the first movement of the G major sonata op. 31, n° 1, where the second group is not in the dominant (as normally expected) but the mediant. As a further point of interest, B’s pupil Czerny relates B’s statement as having found a “new path” to precisely the op. 31 sonatas.

In any case, to return the Ninth, it is clear that the third-relations picked up by Sorrano (see above) have clear precedents. The third-relations are quite clear in the Adagio movement (analysed as being in sonata-rondo form), i.e. B-flat – D – G // E-flat – C-flat // B-flat - E-flat // B-flat – D-flat – B-flat. Sorrano has also noted the third-relation in the overall key structure of the symphony as a whole : D minor (1st movement), F major ((2nd), B-flat major (3rd) and D minor – D major (4th). And what is significant in that, if anything? One commentator (D B Levy, in Beethoven : The Ninth Symphony, Schirmer Books, New York, 1995) considers that B’s choice of mediant substitution in the first movement works both locally and as a deliberate choice for the overall design of the entire symphony. What is important however, is that the listener feels more that the mood of the music has changed, and not that the tonality is “wrong”.

Leaving aside these dry academic considerations for the moment, what is more relevant (I feel) is what these harmonic innovations (in High Classical terms) signify. B’s symphonic, piano sonata and quartet developments are distinguished by their relation to the Classical style ‘personified’ by Mozart and Haydn in particular, especially the way that the so-called sonata style is extended to the whole work and not just the first movement. What makes these harmonic ‘deviations’ from the classical ‘norm’ so striking? It is that Beethoven had the insight (his genius) to get under the form down to what one commentator has termed the “gestural level” below. Beethoven had perfectly understood the “musical rhetoric” of his time, and his adventurous harmonic language makes his sonata forms seem so much less “formalistic”. Is it this too, as Tovey felt, that lends his music an “ethical aura”? I am reluctant to use such a term (apt as it seems; I also try to avoid words and phrases such as ‘transcendent, higher truths and so on...), but there is certainly something more ‘psychological’ at play in the music of Beethoven manifested in his manipulations of classical sonata form.

This for me, then, is what is important about mediants etc. I am perfectly happy to discuss these issues from a purely musical perspective, but these days I prefer a more semiotic approach.

[Quijote]

And as we are on the subject of B’s Ninth : I live in France and so I can’t find the BBC Classical Music magazine easily here. Anyway, a good friend of mine sent me a copy of a CD that they enclosed with a recent issue (November 2007 ?). It was a recording of the Ninth (2007 Swansea Festival) with the BBC National Orchestra and Chorus of Wales conducted by François-Xavier Roth.

I have only had time to listen to the first movement and my comments are as follows :

First off, I was reasonably happy with the performance overall, though I have a few reservations. It certainly is a brisk and ‘crisp’ interpretation, and therein resides the weakness perhaps. It strikes me sometimes as too literal a reading of the score, with slightly over-exaggerated dynamics with little nuancing. The tempo really ‘pushes’ and consequently the phrasing isn’t allowed to ‘breathe’. Some of the dramatic gestures are also ‘thrown away’ too quickly, and therefore not so convincing in their impact. I also have the feeling that the orchestra is hacking through the score, a little too much ‘chop – chop’. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that it gives the effect of being ‘rushed’, but perhaps that could be inevitable if one follows B’s metronome markings too literally, though this isn’t the impression I got with the Norrington version.

For me, there could be one particular HIP aspect on this CD : this is in the overall orchestral texture, where the brass section really seems to dominate. At first I thought this could be due to microphone placement, but I’m not sure on that point. I have no idea if the strings are at full mainstream compliment or using much reduced forces, which would account for the feeling of ‘over heavy’ brass. Other commentators have alluded to the fact that the brass and wind sections in Beethoven’s day would have had more ‘presence’ in the overall texture, so perhaps this is what the conductor is purposely aiming at. Personally, I would have preferred less of that, as it (the brass) sometimes seemed too aggressive.

As for the strings, I quite liked their articulation in general, though I felt that the bass parts were sometimes a little too muddy (unclear), though this could be due to my stereo system, my ears not being so young as they once were, or poor microphone placement.

Just one final point concerning this movement : is the orchestra not in fact using period (‘authentic’) instruments? This is not a problem per se, of course, as mainstream orchestras can play under HIP influences. It’s just that to my ears I cannot detect that typical ‘flavour’ of period instruments here on this CD.


Has anyone else on this forum had the opportunity to listen to this performance? And what would your comments be?

[Peter]

Firstly, the use of the mediant as a substitute dominant (Charles Rosen) and the use of ‘third-relationships’ (Sorrano) : Beethoven did on occasion use ‘third-relationships’ for the second thematic group in sonata-form movements (in the exposition), including other closely related (third related) keys such as the relative minor (e.g. op. 29), the mediant minor (op. 31 n° 1), mediant major (the ‘Waldstein’), and submediant major (the ‘Hammerklavier op. 106), and in certain passages (if my memory serves me correctly) in the 3rd piano concerto. Schiff also has pointed up this fact in his recital-lectures, whereby the subject and harmonic plan (in the Hammerklavier) are constructed by means of a chain of descending thirds.

As one commentator has pointed out, it is in the piano sonatas of the 1800-1802 period where the “novelty of concept” first became evident in the key plan, in particular the first movement of the G major sonata op. 31, n° 1, where the second group is not in the dominant (as normally expected) but the mediant. As a further point of interest, B’s pupil Czerny relates B’s statement as having found a “new path” to precisely the op. 31 sonatas.

Well Rosen points out those examples himself, but the point he makes is that in all major classical works there is an increase in tension with the secondary tonality and in this Beethoven does not break with classical tradition - with the Romantics there is a relaxation with the secondary tonality.

[Quijote]

Well Rosen points out those examples himself, but the point he makes is that in all major classical works there is an increase in tension with the secondary tonality and in this Beethoven does not break with classical tradition - with the Romantics there is a relaxation with the secondary tonality.

I am not sure if I should be flattered or annoyed that Rosen points out the same examples. That Beethoven does not break with classical tradition in his use of mediant substitutes for the 'usual' dominant tonality is of course one way LvB pushes against the prevailing practice (not that it would have been perceived as such), and a good example of how he subverted expectations. All fine and good. Sorrano however has raised a good question : do we hear it that way? How do these key centres strike us if we are not able to retain 'long term' recall? As a corollary : why have certain commentators pointed up the 'off-key' feeling in the recapitulation to the 4th piano concerto, or the sudden D major tonality in the Ninth symphony (1st movement, bar 300 onward)?

[Hofrat]

It is my understanding that while the rules for classical sonata form movements are rather strict and clear for the major key, they are not so strict and clear for the minor key. Beethoven's minor suit movements tended to drift to the major. Look at Beethoven's other minor suit symphony, the 5th. At the recapitulation of the 2nd theme (bar 306), Beethoven is in C-major, and in the coda he also slipped into the major. Since the 1st movement of the 9th symphony is a minor suit movement, it does not surprise me that we find Beethoven in the major key. It would surprise me if we did not!

[Peter]

It is my understanding that while the rules for classical sonata form movements are rather strict and clear for the major key, they are not so strict and clear for the minor key. Beethoven's minor suit movements tended to drift to the major. Look at Beethoven's other minor suit symphony, the 5th. At the recapitulation of the 2nd theme (bar 306), Beethoven is in C-major, and in the coda he also slipped into the major. Since the 1st movement of the 9th symphony is a minor suit movement, it does not surprise me that we find Beethoven in the major key. It would surprise me if we did not!

Beethoven does this much earlier in the C minor trio Op.1 ending in C major.
I'm not aware of any theoretical difference in minor key sonata form - however we have to realise that these rules were written down after the event and that Haydn and Mozart frequently disobey them!

[Peter]

I am not sure if I should be flattered or annoyed that Rosen points out the same examples. That Beethoven does not break with classical tradition in his use of mediant substitutes for the 'usual' dominant tonality is of course one way LvB pushes against the prevailing practice (not that it would have been perceived as such), and a good example of how he subverted expectations. All fine and good. Sorrano however has raised a good question : do we hear it that way? How do these key centres strike us if we are not able to retain 'long term' recall? As a corollary : why have certain commentators pointed up the 'off-key' feeling in the recapitulation to the 4th piano concerto, or the sudden D major tonality in the Ninth symphony (1st movement, bar 300 onward)?

It's very hard these days for us to hear it as intended for several reasons - the works are so familiar and we know the subsequent developments in music that have lessened the impact. How many people are aware that the finale of the 4th concerto for example starts in the wrong key - a trick Haydn was also fond of?

[Hofrat]

Our ears are not as developed as those of the music lovers of the 18th century. They could hear these tonalities. That is one of the reasons there are repeats in the exposition section of sonata form (and often a second repeat of the developement/recapitulation section). The repeat allowed the listener another chance to hear the tonalities and the modulations between them.

[Quijote]

It's very hard these days for us to hear it as intended for several reasons - the works are so familiar and we know the subsequent developments in music that have lessened the impact. How many people are aware that the finale of the 4th concerto for example starts in the wrong key - a trick Haydn was also fond of?

At last! A true 'HIP' question. How I would give my right arm to hear in the way Peter alludes to above. A case for 'HIL'? (HIL = historically informed listening).

[Quijote]

And what about Owen Jander's "Hades" thesis for B's 4th piano concerto, the second movement? I believe we touched on this question elsewhere on the forum, but I'll be damned if can find it!

Anyway, as Peter has so aptly mentioned, it is hard for us to reconstruct the "context" of listening prevalent in B's time. And as a corollary I wonder how many 'references' are missed because of the lapse of time between then and now. How 'shocking' or 'surprising' were these manipulations of tonality in the early 1800s? I would like to have your comments and thoughts as this is an area of research that particularly engages me.

[Sorrano]

Note that, in the 3rd movement, the principle key changes are also enhanced by a change of the meter. It is interesting to me that the meter changes from a duple to a triple meter (Sorry if I'm using the wrong nomenclature here, I'm a bit rushed for time). Again there is that "3" appearing. Now, whether all this is coincidental, I don't know, but I think not. An architect of Beethoven's stature is not going to put one note or nuance in a compositions without it having it's purpose. In looking at the symphony as a whole, I do not see a Classical symphony at all, nor do I see (hear?) a Romantic symphony, either. It is simply, A Beethoven Symphony. This transcends the time period.

[Peter]

Our ears are not as developed as those of the music lovers of the 18th century. They could hear these tonalities. That is one of the reasons there are repeats in the exposition section of sonata form (and often a second repeat of the developement/recapitulation section). The repeat allowed the listener another chance to hear the tonalities and the modulations between them.

I think so Hofrat - an earlier example of this was mentioned on the recent program on sacred music where it was pointed out that the chant melodies used by Perotin and Leonin in their works of the early 12th century would have been known to the public.

I think there are several reasons for this - firstly the importance ascribed to music since the ancient Greeks is no longer the case and secondly we suffer from over saturation of background music which encourages people simply not to listen!