Beethoven . . . "pre Missa Solemnis"

Hi Luca!

I fear that your curiosity will remain just that, at least as far as my information goes.

As always for the period in question, the sources of information are conversation notebooks and letters. From the former we learn that in the summer of 1818 Beethoven often locked himself in the library of Archduke Rudolph's summer residence - to whom the Mass was dedicated - to be able to examine the works of the ancients and, among these, the greatest importance was given to the works of Palestrina, Zarlino, Handel, and Bach. However, we do not know which specific works Beethoven was able to view. We do know, however, that in a letter - I don't have the number or the recipient at hand right now while at work - the composer wrote that he had reviewed Handel's oratorios and Sebastian Bach's sacred works and found that only these two composers were truly and absolutely geniuses.

And also because let's face it, either there is a direct source (a letter from Beethoven?) or, even in Beethoven's time, it was almost impossible not to cite scale passages or thematic material in general that was not contained in some mass by Palestrina

I don't have this info, but if I were to search ...exactly, how would one do it?

And besides, how liturgical is the great mass? And what about Palestrina's masses?

As always... thanks Daniele.

So, should I keep this curiosity?... I think I'll survive

Tiger... "how liturgical it is"... in the sense of: how much can it actually be used in a liturgy?

danielescarpetti wrote:

Hi Luca!

I fear that your curiosity will remain just that, at least based on the information I have.

As always for the period in question, the sources of information are the conversation notebooks and letters. From the former, we learn that in the summer of 1818 Beethoven often sequestered himself in the library of Archduke Rudolph's summer residence—to whom the Mass was dedicated—to view the works of the ancients and, among these, the greatest importance was given to the works of Palestrina, Zarlino, Handel, and Bach. However, we do not know which specific works Beethoven was able to examine. We do know, however, that in a letter—I don't have the number or the recipient at hand right now as I am working—the composer wrote that he had viewed Handel's oratorios and Sebastian Bach's sacred works and found that only these two composers were truly and absolutely geniuses.

Now that I am at my desk with Beethoven before me in the Luigi Magnani conversation notebooks, I would like to clarify that the letter in question was written to the same Archduke Rudolph and that Beethoven's statement regarding the genius of Handel and Bach was certainly tainted by his desire to assert German genius above any other culture.

This does not change the fact that, on Beethoven's part, in his most intimate conviction and as can be seen from the conversations in the notebooks, there was no recognition of greatness and, above all, of the beauty inspired by other traditions, cultures, or ideals. Thus, in the Beethovenian musical Parnassus, Palestrina nonetheless held full status alongside Bach. But for Beethoven: Palestrina is inimitable to anyone who does not possess his spirit. This is because the art of those ancients appears to the eyes of the composer from Bonn as a luminous reflection of their lives forming, as soul and body, an inseparable unity.

Musically speaking, Beethoven recognized the classical purity of Palestrina which, as such, he deemed inimitable because he aimed at composing music completely full of unresolved dissonances, moving with tenacity and courage from the pure to the impure.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

 

Tiger... "how liturgical it is"... in the sense of: how much can it actually be used in a liturgy?

Yes, I don't think it's just a matter of instrumentation. Anyway, Daniele has argued the issue well

Tiger wrote:

Yes, I don't think it's just a problem of personnel

well.. the personnel isn't even that big of a problem, seeing as nowadays there are small orchestras that perform it quite strictly.

The days of Richter are long gone

LucaCavaliere wrote:

well.. the organ isn't even that big a problem, seeing as nowadays there are little orchestras that perform it quite strictly.

The days of Richter are long gone

Well - I know I'm reopening old wounds - but if by 'little orchestra' one means in a philological manner - as Beethoven wrote it, basically - it is not negative at all. Richter, Karajan ... everything is fine, let that be clear. But philological is better ... at least from my point of view, naturally.

Dear Daniele

you say "as Beethoven wrote it" (The Missa Solemnis, right?) . . . But that doesn't seem to be the issue.

Tiger had written "And then how liturgical is the great mass?"

By Great Mass, one usually means the one in B minor (by Bach, obviously). And that is what I meant.

It isn't quite as liturgically unusable as the Missa Solemnis... Or is it?

Ah yes?

I apologize.

The Missa solemnis in D major, op. 123 was written but not performed, in March 1823 to celebrate the installation of his pupil Archduke Rudolph as Archbishop of Olomouc. The first concert performance took place in St. Petersburg on April 6, 1824.

The mass is not liturgical as it does not faithfully follow the Roman Missal and therefore cannot be performed during Catholic Church liturgies. It is a free interpretation of a secular spirit, even if influenced by living in a strongly Catholic country like Austria.

Interesting what Massimo Mila writes:

"Recognizing that it does not adhere to liturgical norms, much has since been discussed regarding its religious meaning; some, such as D'Indy, wanting it to precisely interpret the sentiments of the strictest Catholic orthodoxy; others, that it is instead an expression of a secular faith immanent in humanity. Both opinions are extreme and unsustainable, because while the Mass is the voice of a pure heart truly believing in the power and goodness of a divine being superior to man, it does not then confine itself within the bounds of any established confession. If the man Beethoven, raised in the Catholic faith, was then restricted, as Chantavoine writes, to 'that kind of humanitarian and providential deism, familiar to the Age of Enlightenment, and inclined toward that aesthetic pantheism of which Goethe had indirectly found the source in Spinoza,' there is no doubt that the artist, in measuring himself for the second time against the sacred text of the Mass, carefully evaluated its meaning and subjected it to a most diligent musical reading, adopting solutions sometimes analogous, sometimes different, sometimes opposite to those of the Mass in C major of 1807"

I add:

Palestrina's Masses were liturgical in that they were conceived and written to be performed during Catholic Church celebrations (the so-called Sung Masses), just as Bach's were for Protestant Church celebrations (St. Thomas Church in Leipzig). In short, they were written to be performed in church.

Beethoven's Masses were conceived and written for concert halls.

In reality, if we think about it carefully, the length of Bach's Mass in B minor and Beethoven's Missa Solemnis are both unsuitable for religious service. Mozart's masses, linked to Bishop Coloredo, and those of Haydn do not exceed 45 minutes and, as such, are suitable for sacred celebrations.

But both Bach and Beethoven compose their masses by giving vent to their fantasy instead of certainly to perform a religious service. But if the common thread of Bach's masterpiece is certainly that of paying homage to the Lord, the same is not as clear for Beethoven's, to such an extent that even today there is no unanimous reading of what the meaning linking the Beethovenian mass is.

Personally, I think the common thread is humanity and its desperate need to seek, above itself, a Creator who knows how to fill that profound need, that profound thirst for justice and peace which humans, in their being, cannot fulfill or answer.

Humanity emerges from the very first bars of the mass, when the music seems to come right from the earth and, from it, pushes all the way up to the highest peaks of heaven. As in the contemporary Ninth [Symphony], Beethoven isolates, pauses, repeats, and exalts the words that humanity, with extreme supplication and hope, directs to the Creator: Pater Omnipotens, Tu solus altissimus, Deo vero. ... But above all, that Credo, repeated many times.

And if one of the most sublime and magical moments of the Missa is the appearance of the solo violin at the moment of the Elevation in the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, humanity emerges even more in the finale with the intense supplication of the Agnus, when it seeks remission of sins and, above all, Peace. Inner peace certainly, but even more Peace among peoples. Shortly before we heard the sounds of war, and the ultimate Beethovenian message is that of asking: Pacem Pacem Pacem. On the original manuscript, Beethoven noted: "prayer for inner and outer peace"."

dear Daniele

this reading of yours regarding the Missa Solemnis, in addition to being concise and pregnant with meaning, is something I fully share. I had never thought about this common thread of Humanity in such a clear way. Thank you!

Happy Sunday to everyone

I fully subscribe and applaud what Daniele wrote about Beethoven; I disagree more on the 45-minute distinction to make a Mass performable in an ecclesiastical setting.

My memory went back to the fifties when, during solemnities, the sung Mass was celebrated strictly in Latin and with a minimum duration of about 90 minutes.

For us little altar boys, it was a fascinating spectacle: the church decorated for the feast, the lights, the myriad of candles, the vapors of incense emanating from the thuribles, the bishop with the mitre and the pastoral staff, the organ and the choir filling the air.

But then it would become very long, and halfway through we would start to get tired of the choir bouncing phrases between one voice and another without ever finishing. We would start thinking about the courtyard waiting for us with its ball in the center.

This small memory is to emphasize that the distinguishing factor between liturgical and non-liturgical is the adherence of the texts to the ecclesiastical canon, and not the duration.

Bach's Mass in B minor is liturgical for the Protestant Church and was written (and performed) for the Thomaskirche, but it is not performable in the Catholic one. For example, the text of the Creed is slightly different in the two Churches.

Dear Terenzio, - this is how one speaks naturally, also because we are abundantly off-topic from what Luca proposed but, as they say, discussions are like cherries, one leads to another - you yourself, albeit indirectly, admit that a Mass that exceeds the canonical 45 minutes becomes a bit excessive for those following it.

And this was also true in our Bach's time.

As you well know, the Mass in B minor was begun in 1733, when the composer wrote the Kyrie and the Gloria, dedicating them to the rites for the election of the Elector of Saxony, Frederick Augustus II, to the throne of Poland under the name Augustus III. On that occasion, and in that reduced form, it was performed in Dresden on April 21, 1733.

Only later did Bach compose the other parts: Credo, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei, finishing it in 1740.

In reality, there is no news at all of its performance in its entirety during Bach's time, and this, probably precisely because of its vast dimensions.

As for the Protestantism and Catholicism of this Mass, allow me to remind you that in composing it, Bach had well in mind, on one hand, the Flemish masses and, on the other, those of Palestrina which he had partially copied, and finally, Gregorian themes.

The composer's intention was to compose a mass that was both Protestant and Catholic at the same time. That it would have the objective grandeur of the Roman school and the subjective Protestant mysticism.

The specialists say that from this point of view, it is not quite successful... but, to me (us?) it doesn't matter at all: what counts is the general result after all. No?

But let us return to Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. What makes this Mass more suitable for concert halls is not only, from my point of view naturally, the fact that it is not liturgical since it does not faithfully follow the Roman Missal and therefore cannot be performed during the liturgies of the Catholic Church - as you rightly state - but its symphonic character.

And in this, Beethoven had a predecessor in his teacher Haydn. In the final years of Haydn's compositions, being free from church patrons but referring exclusively to Prince Nikolaus Esterházy, he produced six masses that have all remained in the repertoire but which, although strictly respectful of the liturgical service, are not at all suitable for performance during it due to their symphonic content.

The influence that the Missa solemnis had on all "sacred" music posthumously was immediate. Schubert, in his Mass in B-flat major D 950, composed in mid-1828, adapted the text to the music - and not vice versa as was done before Beethoven - favoring the composer's emotional and spiritual values and absolutely neglecting the practical necessities of the sacred ceremony.

And then... one arrives at Schumann, Brahms...! But those are all different stories that would not even be imaginable if Beethoven's Missa Solemnis had not existed first.

Daniele we are in full agreement on everything.

What I wrote was done keeping Luca's question in mind.

These masses are not liturgical, but when we listen to them in concert, the emotion is great.

I only hope that Luca has well understood the reasons why they are not liturgical.

. . . well, these reasons were quite clear to me even before

I would say two things: the first (general) is that regarding "liturgical endurance," everyone has their own limit of endurance. Regardless of faith.

The second thing (my personal one) is that in certain liturgies, it certainly wouldn't be the sung parts of the Mass in B minor that would exhaust me.

On the contrary: they would lift me up from the rest of the mass

Anyway, even if I will remain with my initial curiosity, it was extremely interesting to read your considerations on both masses that were discussed.