Why the classical style?

[al1432]

It's widely accepted that Beethoven developed the classical sonata form beyond Mozart and Haydn to where the idiom was essentially exhausted of the possibility of further development. Charles Rosen (The Classical Style) has made the point that Beethoven's earlier pieces were often in a less classical form (regarding tonic/dominant relationships) and often closer to the emerging "Romantic" style, but that, perhaps around the time of the Appassionata, he made a definite shift BACK to classical form. My question is, why did LvB pursue what could be seen as a reactionary or backward movement to classical sonata form instead of continuing his development of the new Romantic style? What does this say about Beethoven the composer, and also about the classical style itself, that he chose to exploit IT rather than to develop along different lines.

Al

[Peter]

Interesting point. I think because Beethoven was essentially an 18th century man and composer - he revered the great masters of the past and in the late music looked back even to the Baroque. I think those who see Beethoven as a Romantic composer miss this point entirely - he was actually very much out of sympathy with the emerging Romantic composers.

As regards the Classical style obviously it took a genius of Beethoven's stature to realise the possibilities it still presented - the challenge was simply how to respect and preserve the past, yet say something entirely new. Schubert in his own way faced the same problem, although perhaps more daunting living in Beethoven's shadow.

[Sorrano]

Be mindful, too, that Beethoven could not hear the music of his contemporaries later in life. While he could study the scores, etc., he could not receive the full benefit of the music itself and it's impact through listening.

[Preston]

I have never read Rosen's books, but there are people who disagree with his theory's. I am not saying that I am one of them, seeing as I have not read his books and do not have as deep as understanding of music as him.

[al1432]

I have never read Rosen's books, but there are people who disagree with his theory's.

I would love to know who some of them are, too, so I can get a balanced picture. If you can think of any, please let me know. Rosen could be "all wet", for all I know...or at least, damp

[Preston]

I would love to know who some of them are, too, so I can get a balanced picture. If you can think of any, please let me know. Rosen could be "all wet", for all I know...or at least, damp

I do not know if any scholars disagree, but I am sure there are. I know that some of the information from people on the internet disagree.

[Peter]

I do not know if any scholars disagree, but I am sure there are. I know that some of the information from people on the internet disagree.

Well look at the facts. Beethoven considered himself outdated and unfashionable - why? Because Rossini and the Romantics were the up and coming movement of which he rightly felt he didn't belong. When asked to name a living composer he admired, he could only come up with Cherubini - today considered a conservative and old fashioned figure. Of Hummel, Field, Sphor and Weber (the first Romantic generation) he had only criticism and no sympathy. Then look at the music itself as Rosen has done - the evidence is there in Beethoven's use of tonality and harmony.

[Preston]

I am not disagreeing. I don't know enough about harmony, counterpoint, etc., to understand his book.

[Peter]

I am not disagreeing. I don't know enough about harmony, counterpoint, etc., to understand his book.

Well admittedly his book isn't easy reading and a knowledge of harmony is essential - the point is Preston that it is in terms of harmony, tonality, form etc that a musical style is defined. In reality the terms Classical and Romantic are only labels and generalisations as Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart are in themselves all different from each other.

[al1432]

Well look at the facts. Beethoven considered himself outdated and unfashionable - why? Because Rossini and the Romantics were the up and coming movement of which he rightly felt he didn't belong.

And yet consider the irony that an even later generation of composers...Brahms and Wagner, among others...would embrace Beethoven mightily, and that Spohr, who you mentioned earlier as among "the first romantic generation", referred to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue as "indecipherable, uncorrected horror", while one as modern as Stravinsky would refer to it as "an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever". Interesting, if Beethoven considered himself outdated and unfashionable, that later composers would so strongly disagree with that assessment. Also interesting that Beethoven had a pretty good sense that his music would be around for a long, long time. Could he really have seen himself as THAT outdated?

[Peter]

And yet consider the irony that an even later generation of composers...Brahms and Wagner, among others...would embrace Beethoven mightily, and that Spohr, who you mentioned earlier as among "the first romantic generation", referred to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue as "indecipherable, uncorrected horror", while one as modern as Stravinsky would refer to it as "an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever". Interesting, if Beethoven considered himself outdated and unfashionable, that later composers would so strongly disagree with that assessment. Also interesting that Beethoven had a pretty good sense that his music would be around for a long, long time. Could he really have seen himself as THAT outdated?

Yes it is the later generation you mention that were most positively influenced. Rochlitz (editor ot the Leipzig journal) recalled this conversation with Beethoven in 1822 "You will hear nothing of me here. What should you hear? Fidelio? They cannot give it, nor do they want to listen to it. The symphonies? They have no time for them. My concertos? Everyone grinds out only the stuff he himself has made. The solo pieces? They went out of fashion long ago, and here fashion is everything."

Rosen says this about the first Romantics - 'All that is most interesting in the next generation is a reaction against Beethoven, or an attempt to ignore him, a turning away into new directions: all that is weakest submits to his power and pays him the emptiest and most sincere of homages."

[al1432]

Yes it is the later generation you mention that were most positively influenced. Rochlitz (editor ot the Leipzig journal) recalled this conversation with Beethoven in 1822 "You will hear nothing of me here. What should you hear? Fidelio? They cannot give it, nor do they want to listen to it. The symphonies? They have no time for them. My concertos? Everyone grinds out only the stuff he himself has made. The solo pieces? They went out of fashion long ago, and here fashion is everything."

Yes, Peter, I quite agree that in this instance FASHION was all the rage. This went out of style, and that went out of style. Immortality does not rely on style. Homer is also "out of style". So what? The question to me is not "what is topical" or "what is in style" as much as what endures. That Beethoven was "out of style" in 1822 is a given, but what does that say about him or his music? Not a whole lot, really, especially when successive generations repeatedly rediscovered him.

[DavidO]

Yes it is the later generation you mention that were most positively influenced. Rochlitz (editor ot the Leipzig journal) recalled this conversation with Beethoven in 1822 "You will hear nothing of me here. What should you hear? Fidelio? They cannot give it, nor do they want to listen to it. The symphonies? They have no time for them. My concertos? Everyone grinds out only the stuff he himself has made. The solo pieces? They went out of fashion long ago, and here fashion is everything."

I can't help wondering whether Beethoven's estimation at this point (early 1820s) of his own popularity in Austria (most specifically Vienna) was hyperbole -- a grain of truth stretched in Beethoven's inimitable way. Also, if Beethoven's popularity fell off -- presumably for reasons of changing musical tastes -- what happened to Mozart's or Haydn's popularity in those years? And if Beethoven was out of fashion in the 1820s, the ovations &c. for the Ninth at the 1824 concert must have been akin to the applause with which we flood the footlights for old-timers (hardy perennials, I call them) at a Kennedy Center tribute or a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars: sort of a public self-congratulation for recognizing good work ... years after that good work has fallen out of fashion.

Going back to the early 1800s, the E-flat major Septet was hugely popular, & I've always considered that good, solid Beethovenian classicism: In Walt Whitman's words: "Dainty abandon, sometimes as if Nature laughing on a hillside in the sunshine; serious & firm monotonies, as of winds; a horn sounding through the tangle of the forest, & the dying echoes; soothing floating of waves, but presently rising in surges ... but mainly spontaneous, easy, careless." Did the popularity of the Septet increase the popularity of the Op. 49, No. 2 piano sonata, given that the two share that major theme? (You can just imagine thousands of Viennese doing their household chores, humming that theme.)

[Gurn Blanston]

DavidO,
Well, specifically your questions on Mozart and Haydn.

Haydn was considered hopelessly out of fashion by the time of his death. He was revered for his past accomplishments, but he no longer had currency. And the "Papa Haydn" myth had already begun to erode his status as a composer to be reckoned with.

Mozart was simply declared to be a Proto-Romantic and taken posthumously into the fold of Romanticism, albeit on the limited basis of his late works only.

Back on the Beethoven as Classicist topic, I would like to simply point out that all cultural/artistic "ages" have 3 periods, the first being an organizational one (in this case "High Classicism" arising out of galanterie), a highly organized (actually called "classical" or "golden" even though not always musical) one which epitomizes the style, and then one of fracturing of the style where it breaks down into new style(s). Beethoven came into maturity in the waning days of the classical portion of this cycle. Even though he toyed a bit with some of the splinter groups, he was intent on perfecting what had gone before, and trying to consolidate even earlier styles into a mold that would be useful for the future. I don't see him as trying to perpetuate the past, but rather in trying to make from it something that would add quality to what he saw as the future.




----------------
Now playing:
February 27, 1814 - Hanover Band / Roy Goodman - Bia 659 Op 93 Symphony #8 in F 4th mvmt - Allegro vivace

[Peter]

DavidO,
I don't see him as trying to perpetuate the past, but rather in trying to make from it something that would add quality to what he saw as the future.

And in so doing produced music that is timeless! I think in the end it comes down to Peter Warlock's quote on the homepage of this site
". . . Music is neither old nor modern: it is either good or bad music, and the date at which it was written has no significance whatever. Dates and periods are of interest only to the student of musical history. . . . All old music was modern once, and much more of the music of yesterday already sounds more old-fashioned than works which were written three centuries ago. All good music, whatever its date, is ageless - as alive and significant today as it was when it was written . ."