Beethoven's uniqueness

[Sorrano]

In speaking of fingerprints, my thoughts went to Mendelssohn and how (to my ears) his orchestral works sound so distinct. The orchestral instruments are basically the same as, for example, a Schumann symphony, but the sound, regardless of which orchestra is playing the music, is distinct from all his fellow Romantics. Not having studied the scores, I wonder if his fingerprints have something to do with the instrumental textures.

[Roehre]

In speaking of fingerprints, my thoughts went to Mendelssohn and how (to my ears) his orchestral works sound so distinct. The orchestral instruments are basically the same as, for example, a Schumann symphony, but the sound, regardless of which orchestra is playing the music, is distinct from all his fellow Romantics. Not having studied the scores, I wonder if his fingerprints have something to do with the instrumental textures.

Music of many composers has immediately recognizable fingerprints a.o.:
Beethoven - Schubert - Mendelssohn - Schumann - Chopin - Liszt - Wagner -Verdi - Franck - Bruckner - Brahms - Dvorak - Grieg - Tchaikovsky - Janacek - Elgar - Puccini - Mahler - Debussy - Strauss - Sibelius - Nielsen - Vaughan williams - Schönberg - Ravel - Bartok - Stravinsky - Webern - Berg - Martinu - Pijper - Hindemith - Prokofiev - Korngold - Gershwin - copland - Shostakovich - Barber - Harris - Britten - Lutoslawski - Stockhausen - Schnittke - Mathias - Louis Andriessen - Keuris - Adams - Rihm - Adès, just to mention a couple (more or less in order of their year of birth)



For Beethoven it is quite often the shape of the melody:
E.g. compare (and not only listen, but SING them):
string quartet opus 18/1 (opening)
Spring sonata (opening)
opening string quintet opus 29 (opening)
triple concerto (opening)
Rasumovsky 1 op.59/1 (opening)
violin concerto (opening: theme immediately following the drum beats)
symphony 5 (1st mvt 2nd theme)
cellosonata opus 69 (opening)
string quartet opus 95 (opening)

[Peter]

In speaking of fingerprints, my thoughts went to Mendelssohn and how (to my ears) his orchestral works sound so distinct. The orchestral instruments are basically the same as, for example, a Schumann symphony, but the sound, regardless of which orchestra is playing the music, is distinct from all his fellow Romantics. Not having studied the scores, I wonder if his fingerprints have something to do with the instrumental textures.

Yes I wondered why you singled out Mendelssohn - you could have said the same about your example - Schumann whose orchestral sound is instantly recognisable. All great composers have a unique fingerprint or else they are mere imitators. My initial point about Beethoven was that he manages to sound like Beethoven yet with each work sounding completely different and original.

[Bonn1827]

Years ago I remember going to a Victor Borga (spelling?) concert and hearing him play a piece in the style of Beethoven. He used chords principally to make the effect and these were instantly recogniseable. He, of course, was a very good pianist but a comedian first and foremost. However, he had a thorough understanding of the concept of musical fingerprints, it seems to me.

Roehre, those composers you mention do prove the point about musical uniqueness, but I wonder if one could make recognition of each by using chords alone, as is the case with Beethoven. Gershwin's "blue notes" would be obvious, but I'm not so sure about Mendelssohn and Schumann, where actual orchestration and melodic line seem to be the keys (sorry!) to recognition.

Schumann's orchestration is generally more leaden and dense than than of Mendelssohn or Schubert: the latter's repetitions make him obvious!!! Also, it very much depends on the particular piece by a composer - as the younger versions of their work can often be confused with the work of another composer. It's all food for thought and a good talking point.

[Roehre]

....but I'm not so sure about Mendelssohn and Schumann, where actual orchestration and melodic line seem to be the keys (sorry!) to recognition.

Mendelssohn's and Schumann's piano and chamber music are immediately recognizable as such as well. It's not (only) the instrumentation and orchestration which makes their works unig=que, and the same applies mutatis mutandis for the other composers I mentioned as well.

As with the beethovenian melodic structure it is that in combination with a certain idiosyncratic harmonic thinking which defines "Beethoven".
But exactly these elements (with or without instrumental colouring of the work) define the fingerprints of other composers as well.
Many a beethovenian melody is fourth/fifth oriented, a brahmsian third/sixth, one by Grieg by using fifths and sevenths, etc.

[Bonn1827]

Roehre, thoughtful response as usual. I've always found Schumann's piano works instantly identifiable, but have often confused Mendelssohn with Chopin. Schumann's music is infused with beautiful rhythms which are distinctly his own. After being an attentive listener for more than 40 years I've come to this conclusion. It's all subjective, after all.

[Roehre]

Roehre, thoughtful response as usual. I've always found Schumann's piano works instantly identifiable, but have often confused Mendelssohn with Chopin. Schumann's music is infused with beautiful rhythms which are distinctly his own. After being an attentive listener for more than 40 years I've come to this conclusion. It's all subjective, after all.

Sometimes Mendelssohn sounds (superficially) like Chopin indeed, and for me the best example of such a place is the slow movement of the Piano trio no.1 in d-minor opus 49. I recall having that melody as an earwurm and it took me quite a while before I realized it was M, not C (as it is the piano part especially which went around in my head).

[Peter]

Years ago I remember going to a Victor Borga (spelling?) concert and hearing him play a piece in the style of Beethoven. He used chords principally to make the effect and these were instantly recogniseable. He, of course, was a very good pianist but a comedian first and foremost. However, he had a thorough understanding of the concept of musical fingerprints, it seems to me.

Roehre, those composers you mention do prove the point about musical uniqueness, but I wonder if one could make recognition of each by using chords alone, as is the case with Beethoven. Gershwin's "blue notes" would be obvious, but I'm not so sure about Mendelssohn and Schumann, where actual orchestration and melodic line seem to be the keys (sorry!) to recognition.

Schumann's orchestration is generally more leaden and dense than than of Mendelssohn or Schubert: the latter's repetitions make him obvious!!! Also, it very much depends on the particular piece by a composer - as the younger versions of their work can often be confused with the work of another composer. It's all food for thought and a good talking point.

Schumann's heavy reliance on the dotted rhythm can itself be extremely repetitive! Schubert was a young composer don't forget and I don't think you can say repetitiveness is his fingerprint - yes in the symphonies and chamber music he can be sometimes be accused of this simply because he is really an emerging Romantic composer struggling to master the classical forms - but in his most representative works, the lieder for example this is far from the case. For me his main characterisitics are lyricism and use of harmony, major/minor juxtapositions in tonality and subtle enharmonic modulations.

I think Mendelssohn is quite distinct from Chopin - you never find the bold chromatic harmonic shifts in the conservative Mendelssohn and his repetitive feminine endings! There is also far more pathos in the music of Chopin - Mendelssohn is a more optimistic composer and you never feel the despondency and despair that underpins much in Chopin.

[Bonn1827]

Yes, I was referring to Schubert's larger scale symphonic works - and the much overplayed "Trout" quintet - as being repetitive. The lieder are simply magnificent - every one a classic and gem. I stand by what I said about Mendelssohn sounding like Chopin at times - I've often confused the two listening to them on the radio. But, at the end of the day, Chopin is the preferred composer as he was endlessly inventive. Mendelssohn, of course, was a wonderful orchestrator where Chopin was not. His "Elijah" is very special as well. I have Chopin's piano concertos and I would say they don't do justice to their composer, except for some of the piano sections - of course. The melody is often sunk in the tutti by less than inspiring orchestration. Again, my subjective response.

[Sorrano]

Yes I wondered why you singled out Mendelssohn - you could have said the same about your example - Schumann whose orchestral sound is instantly recognisable. All great composers have a unique fingerprint or else they are mere imitators. My initial point about Beethoven was that he manages to sound like Beethoven yet with each work sounding completely different and original.

I imagine that I singled Mendelssohn out because I had recently heard some of his music from Elijah. He's been on my mind for some time with this topic on mind.

[Quijote]

Music of many composers has immediately recognizable fingerprints [...] For Beethoven it is quite often the shape of the melody [...]

I think it is a little bit simplistic to reduce B's "fingerprints" to intervallic quanta; after all, there isn't a lot of choice. Beethoven, taking his lead from Haydn perhaps, favours the monothematic approach, where the motivic "germ" functions as both "melody" (if one can call such fragments 'melody') and "accompaniment". I would rather agree that his personal "stamp" resides in his idiosyncratic harmony, instrumental idiom and orchestration/instrumentation. To reduce Beethoven's melodic fingerprint to being pre-eminently focused on the interval of the 4th or 5th is, I feel, erroneous. It is, at its most basic level, simply a reflection of a harmonic (and classical) cliché : IV - V - I (or subdominant - dominant - tonic).

[Quijote]

That said, it is certainly true that Beethoven's Diabelli Variations highlight the interval of the fourth. Which need not surprise us, as it is a key feature of the infamous "cobbler's patch".

[Quijote]

And above and beyond the intervallic / harmonic, we must not forget B's rhythmic "punning", which is also a key fingerprint.

[Quijote]

And of course, flicking through my copy of B's complete string quartets (Dover edition), some of the melodies are, as Roehre suggests, quite singable, whereas others are much less so (for example Op. 18, No. 2, No. 5, No. 6; Op. 59, No. 2, No. 3 [allegro vivace] etc...).

[Bonn1827]

I have to agree with much of this Phillip. But I still think there are recogniseable "Beethoven chords". Oh, look it's all just so wonderful really. How lucky we are!