Beethoven's single greatest accomplishment

[djmomo17]

IMHO (as a complete newbie and all that), Beethoven's single greatest accomplishment was freeing Western music from classical form and allowing Romantic..err indulgence to flourish, which takes us right up to modern music. Most of his work is admittedly based on 'classical period' ideas, but he ignored/broke so many rules that by the time he was done the rulebook was in tatters and it was like the Wild West of harmony and form.

But overcoming deafness to create something like the 9th Symphony - whew...

[Bonn1827]

An interesting topic to discuss!! Yay...!!

Take care with the "rulebook" thingy. Generally theory follows practice and not vice versa. I believe LvB found his own "voice" within the "limits" (for him, if you will) of inherently classical models. Read Rosen's "The Classical Style" for an explication of this, though I warn you it is a difficult read. Beethoven was pushing the boundaries (think of the 9th symphony) but scholars argue that he wasn't responsible for Romanticism per se. Musical, artistic and literary movements often work in tandem too - or, at least, relatively so - and there were extra-musical influences at work (post the Enlightenment) which shifted composers towards Romanticism. In short, they would have "gone there" anyway. (I'm going to duck for cover with this argument!)

[Peter]

IMHO (as a complete newbie and all that), Beethoven's single greatest accomplishment was freeing Western music from classical form and allowing Romantic..err indulgence to flourish, which takes us right up to modern music. Most of his work is admittedly based on 'classical period' ideas, but he ignored/broke so many rules that by the time he was done the rulebook was in tatters and it was like the Wild West of harmony and form.

But overcoming deafness to create something like the 9th Symphony - whew...

Can't agree here - we've had this discussion several times before, but feel free to start a new thread on the topic if you wish! If you want an earlier example of someone who broke the rules, look at the classical Haydn!

[Preston]

IMHO (as a complete newbie and all that), Beethoven's single greatest accomplishment was freeing Western music from classical form and allowing Romantic..err indulgence to flourish, which takes us right up to modern music. Most of his work is admittedly based on 'classical period' ideas, but he ignored/broke so many rules that by the time he was done the rulebook was in tatters and it was like the Wild West of harmony and form.

But overcoming deafness to create something like the 9th Symphony - whew...

I can't agree either. While, I am not a musicologist, by any means- imo- I believe Beethoven was a true classicist and was the greatest composer of the classical style.

What bothers me, is how everyone refers to Beethoven as "breaking" the classical rules. I would imagine, that instead of breaking the rules of the classical style- he- expanded them, took them to new heights, made new rules, etc. etc. etc.

[Preston]

The pieces of Beethoven's music that have a romantic theme to my mind are: the Pastoral symphony, Moonlight Sonata, and even Fidelio and the 9th.

Just because they could be similar to themes (not musical themes) that the Romantics focused on, does not mean that they are written in the styles the Romantics wrote in.

To my understanding, it has to do with the writing style. For instance, you have the Classical musicality, Baroque musicality, Renaissance musicality, Romantic musicality, etc. Each era of music is different styles and ways of writing music. Though, there are all kinds of experimentation in each era and many different styles and ways of writing the music in each era.


I wonder if the early and late Romantics understood Beethoven's style or not? If not, could this be a reason they started creating a new style- because, the Classical style somewhat alluded them?

[Megan]

Just because they could be similar to themes (not musical themes) that the Romantics focused on, does not mean that they are written in the styles the Romantics wrote in.

To my understanding, it has to do with the writing style. For instance, you have the Classical musicality, Baroque musicality, Renaissance musicality, Romantic musicality, etc. Each era of music is different styles and ways of writing music. Though, there are all kinds of experimentation in each era and many different styles and ways of writing the music in each era.


I wonder if the early and late Romantics understood Beethoven's style or not? If not, could this be a reason they started creating a new style- because, the Classical style somewhat alluded them?

Oops Preston, you caught me here just as I decided to start a new thread on Romanticism v. Classical.

[Preston]

I know! Please see your new thread, lol!

[Zevy]

I think you hit the nail on the head with your post.

OUCH!!!

[Preston]

OUCH!!!

Fortunately, it was just a nail, .

[djmomo17]

An interesting topic to discuss!! Yay...!!

Take care with the "rulebook" thingy. Generally theory follows practice and not vice versa. I believe LvB found his own "voice" within the "limits" (for him, if you will) of inherently classical models. Read Rosen's "The Classical Style" for an explication of this, though I warn you it is a difficult read. Beethoven was pushing the boundaries (think of the 9th symphony) but scholars argue that he wasn't responsible for Romanticism per se. Musical, artistic and literary movements often work in tandem too - or, at least, relatively so - and there were extra-musical influences at work (post the Enlightenment) which shifted composers towards Romanticism. In short, they would have "gone there" anyway. (I'm going to duck for cover with this argument!)

I guess the throwing around terms like 'rulebook' comes from recently reading some of the writings of B's contemporaries. I can't remember if it was Ries or Czerny, but if I recall correctly they were walking together and Ries asked B why he had a melodic line going in a certain way in a recent composition since it defied the rules of harmony (or voice-leading). At first B denied this was in his score but after Ries sang the melody he admitted it was so and said "So what? Who are these people who wrote these rules?" Ries says "You know, them". B says "Who!?". Ries replies "Fux, etc...." Them B replies "Well I say it is OK."

That's paraphrased from memory but basically it's what was reported, apocryphal or not.

I have the Rosen book. I read the 1st chapter. That was about 6 months ago. I really should try to finish it before making more musicological pronouncements shouldn't I? . Putting it on top of the pile now.

Nonetheless I will plunge on in stubbornness: Surely the Beethoven who wrote the Grosse Fugue and the Diabelli Variations was no longer a true 'classicist'? I would say those almost skip Romantic and goes straight into Neo-classical . I agree Beethoven began as a classicist, but his greatest contribution (for me) was taking those elements and then using them to cast a very long shadow stretching into the future, thereby making him into a proto-Romantic...

Wow come to think of it, this IS a very familiar argument. So how about them metronome marks?

[Roehre]

I guess the throwing around terms like 'rulebook' comes from recently reading some of the writings of B's contemporaries. I can't remember if it was Ries or Czerny, but if I recall correctly they were walking together and Ries asked B why he had a melodic line going in a certain way in a recent composition since it defied the rules of harmony (or voice-leading). At first B denied this was in his score but after Ries sang the melody he admitted it was so and said "So what? Who are these people who wrote these rules?" Ries says "You know, them". B says "Who!?". Ries replies "Fux, etc...." Them B replies "Well I say it is OK."

That's paraphrased from memory but basically it's what was reported, apocryphal or not.

(...)

Nonetheless I will plunge on in stubbornness: Surely the Beethoven who wrote the Grosse Fugue and the Diabelli Variations was no longer a true 'classicist'? I would say those almost skip Romantic and goes straight into Neo-classical . I agree Beethoven began as a classicist, but his greatest contribution (for me) was taking those elements and then using them to cast a very long shadow stretching into the future, thereby making him into a proto-Romantic...

May I point to the fact that Beethoven, nor any of his contemporaries or his immediate predecessors thought of themselves as "classicists", and that the only "rule books" merely were restricted to harmony and counterpoint, and didn't contain rules regarding (what we now have defined as) sonata form, "lied"form, rondo etcetera?

As a consequence the diaposition of several keys and different characters of melodies was something which was done as seemed right.
Hence monothematic works like some of the Haydn symphonies' 1st mvts, but e.g. Beethoven's opus 127 1st mvt as well, development-sections in Mozart and Schubert sonata form which hardly deserve that name(any of their symphonies' 1st mvts e.g.), extensive development sections following the re-capitulation/re-exposition in Beethoven sonata forms (e.g. Symphony 5 and 9 1st mvts) re-defining what is in Schubert's or Mozart's symphonies just a coda of a couple of bars' length.

It was the expanding of the forms (or should we say: formulae?) together with a more personal approach of music which aurally and technically started with "romanticism". It is very difficult listening to Mozart and Haydn to say who is who if you don't know the piece, but Mendelssohn and Schumann, let alone Weber and Beethoven [just to mention only some German-speaking composers] are generally speaking immediately recognizable.

And let's face that it were the musicologists, who emerged from the 1840s-1850s onwards, who defined the forms which I mentioned earlier, and defined them academically, made them to some kind of "mathematical" or "natural" law to which composers were supposed to "obey". Those who did, e.g. Raff, Gernsheim, Jenner, to mention just 3 contemporaries of Brahms', are now considered to be academic composers, with theoretically brilliantly composed works, but without much interest otherwise compared to those who broke those "rules" like Brahms or Liszt. The world's first music-historical society dates from 1869.

Beethoven shaped his music in ways which were inconceivable before he did so: expanding structures, new melodic shaping (rhythmical cells rather than a "proper melody" in the 5th e.g.), new instrumental combinations and colours(piano and timpani in the cadenza for opus 61a), rhytmical developments like the scherzo in the 9th (ritmo di tre battutte, ritmo di quattro battute e.g.) or the cross rhythms in opus 133, and harmonically, e.g. opus 95 or again op.133, looking forward to Bartok and Schönberg.

[trih3dral]

Beethoven's single greatest accomplishment was challenging, extending, and virtually reinventing the people's definition of music. His "heroic" period begins this transformation process, when he rebels against the viennese high classical tradition he inherited from Mozart and Hadyn and courageously instills in his work the fiery passion and murderous frustration of his temperament. Works become longer. Modulations, unconventional. Dynamics change as suddenly as lightning paints the clouds. The traditions which comforted listeners with familiarity and predictability would be stripped away one at a time, not pulling but literally tearing open the door to the future of sonic interpretation.

[Chaszz]

Interesting debate on the perennial topic of Beethoven as a classicist or romantic. Ot proto-romantic. But getting back to the first topic, I agree that overcoming his personal problems to triumph as he did was his greatest achievement. But it's specifically his deafness. Everyone has personal problems, but his deafness was the supreme ironic joke of fate on one of the greatest musicians who ever lived.