Beethoven's "Orpheus" concerto : Op. 58

[Quijote]

By way of preamble, I have always felt this to be a most "odd" concerto in Beethoven's oeuvre, but have always found it hard to pin down exactly what intrigued me apart from the solo opening (though yes I know, Mozart did so once, too), the somewhat strange harmonies (e.g. 1st movement piano exposition in G, followed by strings answering in B major), the reduced scoring in the slow movement (strings and piano only), the unexpected subdominant opening of the Rondo, with solo 'cello (i.e. third relationships galore) and other details besides.

Well, having read Owen Jander's Beethoven's "Orpheus" Concerto : The Fourth Piano Concerto in its Cultural Context, North American Beethoven Studies N° 5, Pendragon Press, New York 2009, I feel I may have come some way to a better "understanding" of this work.

To put Jander's thesis into a nutshell (excuse the horrible cliché), Beethoven has deployed the Orpheus legend as the "narrative" structure in this concerto, and that this is possibly the most "programmatic" of all of Beethoven's works. A most grandiose claim, to be sure, but well worth examining, which I hope to do with you over the coming postings.

Before I begin in earnest, would anyone like to make their own comments about this concerto? I know, for example, that Roehre (via another forum) finds that the 2nd movement "gives him the creeps". It is indeed a very curious movement, I would agree.

[Bonn1827]

I recently heard a radio program made in 2008 by CBC called "The Concerto According to Manny (Ax)" and he discusses this particular concerto at length. Though a somewhat scholarly pianist, Emmanuel Ax never made the slightest references to the "Orpheus" idea, and I haven't read the book in question either. He did discuss the structural aspects of the concerto and its unfolding drama as a musical experience, starting as it does with those quiet piano chords, which are then followed by a comparatively long tutti. So, whatever extra-musical ideas which were behind Beethoven's thinking, Ax seemed to suggest that the first sections of the first movement could be considered a kind of extended cadenza and, in this sense, a departure for Beethoven in terms of structure.

[Quijote]

I recently heard a radio program made in 2008 by CBC called "The Concerto According to Manny (Ax)" and he discusses this particular concerto at length. Though a somewhat scholarly pianist, Emmanuel Ax never made the slightest references to the "Orpheus" idea, and I haven't read the book in question either. He did discuss the structural aspects of the concerto and its unfolding drama as a musical experience, starting as it does with those quiet piano chords, which are then followed by a comparatively long tutti. So, whatever extra-musical ideas which were behind Beethoven's thinking, Ax seemed to suggest that the first sections of the first movement could be considered a kind of extended cadenza and, in this sense, a departure for Beethoven in terms of structure.

Interesting post Orwell1984 (joke, in case Peter is policing me again). I am surprised that Ax never referred to the Orpheus idea, as it was first made by AB Marx (1859), and later it seems, by Liszt. This is Jander's starting point for his thesis. Really, how else could the structural aspects of any piece of music and its unfolding drama be described other than as a musical experience, or have I missed something all these years?

Ax's idea that the opening piano solo and long tutti (not as long as the 3rd Concerto, unless I am mistaken) could be considered as an extended cadenza is an interesting angle, for sure, and I would agree that this concerto (4th) is most odd in formal classical concerto terms.

[stude_ham]

Piano Concerto 4

This is the first I've ever heard of the work being in any way connected to the Orpheus myth. For some strange reason this is one idea that makes me cringe.

From its very outset the first movement is one of those immensely sublime musical experiences initiated by the piano chords evoking the orchestral response. The orchestral response soars to a celestial level that is eventually repeated in such passages as the Dona Nobis of the Missa and the 4th movement of the 9th symphony.

The second movement is very brief and enormusly introspective...

And the third movement appears to me as a very joyful dance.

It is not clear under these impressions to see how Orpheus can in any way be conceived as a programmatic element of this work. Orpheus, according to the myth, suffered the loss of his bride Eurydice on his wedding day and then lost her forever in his quest to have her returned from the underworld.

This piano concerto has remained my most favourite of the 5 and I have also heard similar opinion from a number of very famous beethoven pianists.

[Quijote]

This is the first I've ever heard of the work being in any way connected to the Orpheus myth. For some strange reason this is one idea that makes me cringe.

From its very outset the first movement is one of those immensely sublime musical experiences initiated by the piano chords evoking the orchestral response. The orchestral response soars to a celestial level that is eventually repeated in such passages as the Dona Nobis of the Missa and the 4th movement of the 9th symphony.

The second movement is very brief and enormusly introspective...

And the third movement appears to me as a very joyful dance.

It is not clear under these impressions to see how Orpheus can in any way be conceived as a programmatic element of this work. Orpheus, according to the myth, suffered the loss of his bride Eurydice on his wedding day and then lost her forever in his quest to have her returned from the underworld.

This piano concerto has remained my most favourite of the 5 and I have also heard similar opinion from a number of very famous beethoven pianists.

And thank you too, Stude Ham for your posting. If this is the first time you have ever heard of such a reference to the Orpheus legend, then this forum well deserves its title as the "Beethoven Reference Site". You read it here first, n'est pas? The idea makes you cringe : Why, may I ask?

Please stay with us, as I attempt to outline Owen Jander's thesis, which while questionable, well merits our collective examination.

[Bonn1827]

You misunderstood me, Philip. Ax suggests the entire 1st movement is like a kind of cadenza, not the opening chords (how could they be?) That wonderful second movement, with solo piano pitted against the mighty forces of the orchestra - finally bringing the orchestra to "piano" - is a dramatic "musical experience" of the kind that I was referring to in my first blog. There is loads of drama in this piece whatever its extra-musical inspiration, or not.

I cite Ax because I consider him a gifted musician deeply committed to musical education on top of his all performing commitments. He is insightful about Beethoven without being obsequious or overly reverential.

[Quijote]

[...] That wonderful second movement, with solo piano pitted against the mighty forces of the orchestra [...]

The mighty forces of the orchestra? Bonnie, you really disappoint me. Your ears should tell you what a quick glance at the score reveals : in the second movement the "mighty orchestra" is reduced to the strings only, no woodwind, no brass, no timpani. Rather, the movement is an exercise in restraint, like a harp (Orpheus played the harp) against a trio of harridans. Do you have harridans in Australia, Bonnie?

[Quijote]

You misunderstood me, Philip. Ax suggests the entire 1st movement is like a kind of cadenza, not the opening chords (how could they be?) That wonderful second movement, with solo piano pitted against the mighty forces of the orchestra - finally bringing the orchestra to "piano" - is a dramatic "musical experience" of the kind that I was referring to in my first blog. There is loads of drama in this piece whatever its extra-musical inspiration, or not.

I cite Ax because I consider him a gifted musician deeply committed to musical education on top of his all performing commitments. He is insightful about Beethoven without being obsequious or overly reverential.

Did you just say I misunderstood you, Bonn1827?? You wrote : "[S]tarting as it does with those quiet piano chords, which are then followed by a comparatively long tutti. So, whatever extra-musical ideas which were behind Beethoven's thinking, Ax seemed to suggest that the first sections of the first movement could be considered a kind of extended cadenza [...].

Nope, didn't see the words "entire 1st movement" there. Still, reading is a skill I have yet to master.

[Bonn1827]

The orchestral forces are "mighty" compared to the lone piano - and this is comparatively speaking, of course. I do have the score here and can check it when my migraine abates.

Beethoven's point is to show, I think, that a comparative "beast" like an orchestra can be tamed by a single instrument which isn't showy, but strong and insistent. I take your point about the metaphorical aspects, though, and this may well have been in LvB's head - but we can never know. The music will stand on its own and we will subjectively respond accordingly. I always feel that movement is about power, if you will. But power overcome by gentle persuasion and sheer seductive beauty.

[Michael]

The mighty forces of the orchestra? Bonnie, you really disappoint me. Your ears should tell you what a quick glance at the score reveals : in the second movement the "mighty orchestra" is reduced to the strings only, no woodwind, no brass, no timpani. Rather, the movement is an exercise in restraint, like a harp (Orpheus played the harp) against a trio of harridans. Do you have harridans in Australia, Bonnie?

The orchestra still comes across as a mighty force in spite (or maybe because) of the restrained scoring. Remember, the opening of the Fifth Symphony has no brass or timpani, only strings and clarinets, and it's mighty mighty.

[Quijote]

The orchestral forces are "mighty" compared to the lone piano - and this is comparatively speaking, of course. I do have the score here and can check it when my migraine abates.

Beethoven's point is to show, I think, that a comparative "beast" like an orchestra can be tamed by a single instrument which isn't showy, but strong and insistent. I take your point about the metaphorical aspects, though, and this may well have been in LvB's head - but we can never know. The music will stand on its own and we will subjectively respond accordingly. I always feel that movement is about power, if you will. But power overcome by gentle persuasion and sheer seductive beauty.

OK Bonnie, I take your point. I do apologize for coming over as some sort of bully boy, but really I have little time for received opinion, and all too often on this forum comments are made that strike me as having been "lifted" from CD liner notes which irritates me no end. Honest, original (as far as possible) and subjective opinions are what make me tick, plus a healthy dose of scepticism. (Have I just eliminated myself, here?)

I agree then that there is an almost "ripieno" effect between the strings and solo piano in the second movement, but I still take issue with you over your choice of the adjective "mighty" : given the fortepiano in B's day (in this case, a brand new Erhard piano) and probable orchestral forces I doubt very much this applies. Intelligent HIP recordings point up the veracity of my comment.

According to Jander, your idea of "a beast being tamed by a single instrument" maps neatly onto his thesis of Orpheus using his harp to tame "The Furies" prior to entering Hades to seek out his missus (wife). I will have much more to say about this later as the thread develops.

You say this may well have been in Beethoven's head but that we can never know. This is - in part - exactly Jander's thesis : that the Orpheus myth provides the "narrative backdrop" to the entire concerto, and especially in the second movement. We will talk more about this later.

[Quijote]

The orchestra still comes across as a mighty force in spite (or maybe because) of the restrained scoring. Remember, the opening of the Fifth Symphony has no brass or timpani, only strings and clarinets, and it's mighty mighty.

OK Michael, I also take the point. The "contrast" is emphatic, shall we say?
As to the Fifth, yes, heavy duty stuff, agreed. But the orchestral forces required for an early 19th-century concerto (given the relatively weak power of the fortepiano) would, I suggest, have been "upgraded" for a symphony. A question of balance.
Talking specifically of the 5th, one commentator has pointed out that the opening bars deploy the clarinets in a very "reedy" register which adds somewhat to the textural density, or weight, if you will.

[Bonn1827]

The discussion enters an "authentic performance" or "period instrument" phase when you start talking about the orchestra of LvB's day. Yes, they were decidedly "reedier" or "thinner" than today - which would have provided that "balance" you talk about. But don't forget, technology advanced the fortepiano into a pianoforte and orchestral forces were somewhat augmented to meet the demands of larger performing venues. Not to mention the somewhat lush, romantic readings of works post-Romantic period.

But it was incorrect to use the adjectival "mighty" - I was too Romantic in sentiment, but most people knew what I meant.

[Quijote]

The discussion enters an "authentic performance" or "period instrument" phase when you start talking about the orchestra of LvB's day. Yes, they were decidedly "reedier" or "thinner" than today - which would have provided that "balance" you talk about. But don't forget, technology advanced the fortepiano into a pianoforte and orchestral forces were somewhat augmented to meet the demands of larger performing venues. Not to mention the somewhat lush, romantic readings of works post-Romantic period.

But it was incorrect to use the adjectival "mighty" - I was too Romantic in sentiment, but most people knew what I meant.

I think you're right, we are just too used to hearing full modern orchestra performances of these concertos, so I suppose "mighty" wasn't so wrong a word given mainstream listening habits. Which is why I am so in favour of HIP practice.

[Quijote]

The discussion enters an "authentic performance" or "period instrument" phase when you start talking about the orchestra of LvB's day. Yes, they were decidedly "reedier" or "thinner" than today - which would have provided that "balance" you talk about [...]

Good point, Bonn, but not exactly what I meant. The register that Beethoven deploys for his clarinets (modern or period instruments) at the opening of the 5th Symphony is a timbre particular to that register, coming just under the instrument's "break". This is a point made in Scott Burnham's book "Beethoven, Hero". I'm afraid I don't have the exact bibliographical reference to hand as I type this.