modernist

[beccer]

How can Beethoven be described as the first modernist composer?

[Peter]

Well perhaps only in the sense that he was one of the first to actually consider that he was writing for posterity and not merely for the moment. From a purely musical point of view I think you could make more of a case for Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt or Mahler - take your pick!!!



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by beccer:
How can Beethoven be described as the first modernist composer?

I think of the philosophical approach he takes to music as the first of its kind. The conscious intent of the Eroica as an obvious illustration of the individual's struggle with and triumph over fate is new in orchestral music. The first part of the final movement of the Ninth Symphony where the orchestra tries out the themes of the preceding three movements and the basses react, emphatically complaining and rejecting the themes, asking for something better. Who ever did anything like this, music commenting directly and specifically on themes representing states of life, outside opera before Beethoven?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
The first part of the final movement of the Ninth Symphony where the orchestra tries out the themes of the preceding three movements and the basses react, emphatically complaining and rejecting the themes, asking for something better. Who ever did anything like this, music commenting directly and specifically on themes representing states of life, outside opera before Beethoven?

Well you could add the inclusion of voices in a symphony as well, but there again you could say who was the first to use the effect col legno (playing with the wood of the bow) in an orchestral work? - Haydn (symphony no.67) (and not used again until Berlioz and Bartok)! Haydn was extremely experimental not only with orchestral effects, but also with form and harmony. Then you could mention Mozart and the opening of the development in the finale of the 40th symphony where there is a passage of such harmonic ambiguity that it is virtually a Schoenberg tone row! I think it is a mistake engineered by the 19th century to imply that modern music begins with Beethoven - in fact there is a continual unbroken line of development in western music back to the Greeks. I'm not implying that Beethoven didn't do anything new, but he wasn't the first!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well you could add the inclusion of voices in a symphony as well, but there again you could say who was the first to use the effect col legno (playing with the wood of the bow) in an orchestral work? - Haydn (symphony no.67) (and not used again until Berlioz and Bartok)! Haydn was extremely experimental not only with orchestral effects, but also with form and harmony. Then you could mention Mozart and the opening of the development in the finale of the 40th symphony where there is a passage of such harmonic ambiguity that it is virtually a Schoenberg tone row! I think it is a mistake engineered by the 19th century to imply that modern music begins with Beethoven - in fact there is a continual unbroken line of development in western music back to the Greeks. I'm not implying that Beethoven didn't do anything new, but he wasn't the first!

Yes, everything you say is true, but it's always interesting to ask who was the first modern? because we have such a precoccupation with the modern movements in the arts and there definitely was a big break there somewhere, between the 18th C. and the 20th. So it's interesting to try to pin down what the pivotal points were. I think you are using examples of musical technique, whereas I was saying that Beethoven's approach was a sea change in thinking about what music is: from here on a vehicle for deep moral and philosophic concepts, struggles and resolutions, rather than primarily an art form for aristocratic diversion. This latter term may be an oversimplification of what music was in the 18th c. but I think you know what I mean.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited January 09, 2003).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
I think you are using examples of musical technique, whereas I was saying that Beethoven's approach was a sea change in thinking about what music is: from here on a vehicle for deep moral and philosophic concepts, struggles and resolutions, rather than primarily an art form for aristocratic diversion. This latter term may be an oversimplification of what music was in the 18th c. but I think you know what I mean.

Yes I agree - this is what I was trying to say in my first response in this thread - However he was forshadowed by Mozart if you take the example of the Marriage of Figaro and the Magic Flute - both works making political, moral and philosophic statements.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes I agree - this is what I was trying to say in my first response in this thread - However he was forshadowed by Mozart if you take the example of the Marriage of Figaro and the Magic Flute - both works making political, moral and philosophic statements.

Not to overwring this topic - but I was talking about non-operatic music. That is what I meant about Beethoven - he moved these concerns outside of opera and oratorio into purely instrumental music for the first time (I think). While Mozart's 40th symphony may be tragic and the 41st ("Jupiter") triumphant, the music does not assume a philosophic/programmatic stance per se the way Beethoven's works do. With Haydn I am nowhere near as familiar as you.