Die Weihe des Hauses Opus 124

danielescarpetti wrote:

This is why I say that “Die Weihe des Hauses” is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece, because besides being wonderful, it is the only symphonic music that belongs to the third style.

The reasoning you have made (I mean the one concerning the quintessential Beethovenian "beginning"), in my opinion, should be revised, and significantly so (have we forgotten the beginning of the Fifth Symphony, perhaps?), but, aside from everything, how do you justify the equation third style=masterpiece? Is there something that supports this theory, apart from your personal opinion? Careful: I am not saying that The Consecration of the House is not a wonderful overture, but the fact of whether or not it is a masterpiece cannot depend on its belonging or not to the "third style", nor on the fact that it is the only symphonic work Beethoven wrote with that backward glance that you rightly remember. Furthermore, the Beethovenian third style is indeed characterized by a return to archaic forms (fugue, variation...), but one should definitely also remember the breaking down of formal proportions, because that is actually the most marked feature of the late Beethoven's style, and the fact that he chose quartets in particular as a testing ground must not, in my opinion, be misleading regarding the evaluation of this or that "masterpiece". The Eighth is not more belonging to the "third style" compared to Sonata op. 111, in the most absolute sense. And one should not consider the Ninth a "regression", as your reasoning would suggest: instead, the Ninth presents many characteristics of Beethoven's late style, for example in the wonderful Adagio, which uses variation and can be compared to some adagios of the late quartets (I am thinking of the Cavatina and the Canzona di ringraziamento), for example in the last movement which uses the cyclic reprise of motifs used in previous movements; not to mention the cyclopean proportions of the entire symphony, whose legacy will be first taken up by Mendelssohn in "Lobgesang", and then by Bruckner, Mahler etc. etc. Brahms inserts himself into a more "normal" vein and, even if naturally the very particular use of sonata form and the expansion of proportions are also hallmarks of the Brahmsian language, in reality, if there is a Romantic author who remained very tied to classicism, it is precisely Brahms; and even if his First Symphony is called by many "Beethoven's tenth" to emphasize that Brahms continued along that path, I am actually not convinced that the logical continuation after Beethoven's Ninth was Brahms's First, which remains more tied to the "second style" if we really want to baptize it using that classification. In essence, I find that between Beethoven's Seventh, which is decidedly placeable in the second period, not only chronologically, and the Ninth, there is a very significant stylistic gap, so I would absolutely not say that The Consecration is "the only symphonic work of Beethoven that belongs to the third style". Which, obviously, does not make the two pieces contenders in a contest, but since you are the one who launched the equivalence, perhaps this evaluation must be revised.

Dear Carlos,

It wouldn't be my place to make this clarification – I hope Daniele won't be angry – but with "true Beethovenian symphonic beginning" (referring to the Eroica), I think Daniele does not mean an incipit at a motivic or thematic level (the attack), but rather that the Eroica, in its entirety as a symphony, constitutes the first true 'principle', the source of his most characteristic inner world. (In the past, for this same discussion, Daniele actually used the term 'principle').

Dear Daniele,

The first two movements of the Ninth seem to me decidedly 'third style'. Perhaps the second movement not so much, but the first definitely yes. And, without ranking which piece is more beautiful, it is even more so than the Dedication of the House. In the first of the Ninth, there is no recovery of the past: neither Handel-esque, nor anything else, and not even Beethovenian! It is a music, a sonic universe, that seems to appear in Beethoven's poetics 'from nothing'. In which of his previous works can one foresee that one day the first movement of the Ninth would emerge?

A 'spatial' conception (made of sound planes) in which, almost always, rather than saying that the definition of 'accompaniment' is too narrow for every instrumental part, one could say it is generous to speak of a 'main line' for all of them.

A conception where we hear voices interacting, certainly, but they do not compose themselves in crystalline polyphony: rigorous, geometric, linear (as happens instead in the second movement, despite its fury).

A conception where the tension dualism of the two themes of sonata form is overcome (the thematic groups are at least three).

A conception where, yes: development exists: Beethoven does not fail in his way of working and reworking fragments, like in a chemical laboratory. But unlike almost all other first movements of symphonies, this development of the Ninth does not ferry events to new emotional areas: we are faced with a grandiose scene from beginning to end: in motion but without direction. Evident, yet indecipherable (a bit like the world, a bit like life: evident... but indecipherable).

If this isn't 'third style'!?...

In which of his previous works can one foresee the first movement of the Ninth? ... (one has come to mind...)

LucaCavaliere wrote:

Dear Carlos,

It wouldn't be my place to make this clarification – I hope Daniele isn't angry – but with "true Beethovenian symphonic beginning" (referring to the Eroica), I think Daniele does not mean an incipit at a motivic or thematic level (the attack), but rather that the Eroica, in its entirety as a symphony, constitutes the first true 'principle', the source of his most characteristic inner world. (in the past, for the same discussion, Daniele actually used the term 'principle').

And why should I be offended? Yes Luca, that is exactly what I meant to say.

As for the rest, my dear friends, I confess I must think about it and I will take a moment of time.

What you and Carlos are saying I can largely share, and yet...!

My statement regarding the greatest symphonic masterpiece is probably exaggerated, and yet...!

The only thing I want to clarify now is that I absolutely do not want to come across as a detractor of the Ninth - heaven forbid - we are talking about masterpieces and often absolute ones, and this is a fact.

In the meantime, if others wish to have their say on the matter, they will be welcome and it would be very nice.

See you soon!

Regarding the third period, I would also expand the circle to include the 33 Variations op. 120, the Great Fugue op. 133, and the Missa Solemnis.

Let's talk about the years of isolation caused by deafness; in the compositions of this period, the first signs of a new compositional technique appear, which will influence the subsequent era. Meanwhile, the compositional output from 1814 to 1824 is slower and more refined (see, for instance, the genesis of the Ninth Symphony). As Daniele says, the style of the late works features notable contrapuntal writing and the development of the variation process. As rightly stated, this is characterized by the interest Beethoven shows in the compositions of Bach and Handel and in polyphony. Thus, the final compositions contain fugues, canons, and contrapuntal devices. Perhaps it hasn't been said, but these forms provide Beethoven with the impetus to compose music with a more complex and abstract character.

Therefore, the fusion of fugue, sonata form, and variation form constitutes the characterizing element of the musical thought of the late Beethoven, and the process of variation appears in all compositions, both in the exposition and in the development.

I would summarize the salient stylistic characteristics of the third period as follows:

1. Lyrical emphasis in slow and fast tempos (what Wagner will call "infinite melody").

2. Shifting of dynamic/musical tension to the final movements. The concluding movements are considered the most important (see, for instance, the finale of the Ninth Symphony).

3. Systematic use of ornaments such as the trill, considered a rhythmic/dynamic element.

4. Use of syncopation with expressive intent.

5. Dramatic changes in mood within each movement.

6. In slow movements, expressive elements and ecstatic contemplation are widely presented.

7. Use of detailed indications (Adagio "con molta nostalgia").

8. Use of extreme piano registers, from the lowest to the highest.

9. Modulation to distant keys using chromatic progressions.

In this second [point], I think one should categorize the characteristics of the two masterpieces... regardless of their indisputable value, what would the Ninth be lacking?

While I wait to be able to write everything I would like, let's begin to meditate on what Maestro Noseda says about the 'Ottava':

Open content (youtube)

I have meditated on what you all have written and, my conclusion is that, of what I have written, I am 'only' changing the part where I assert that the Ouverture “Die Weihe des Hauses” is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece. In this assertion, I realize, there is an exaggerated emphasis on my part, speaking of a composer who, moreover, has composed – yes, this! - so many supreme symphonic masterpieces. That being said, I continue to think that this Ouverture is the only symphonic work that fully belongs to the third style.

I will try to explain myself better by providing even more motivation for my reflections and I will begin here:

The first two movements of the Ninth, to me, seem decidedly 'third style'. Perhaps the second movement not so much, but the first definitely yes. And, without making rankings of the most beautiful piece, it is even more so than The Consecration of the House. In the first of the Ninth, there is no recovery of the past: neither Handel-esque, nor anything else, and not even Beethoven-esque! It is a music, a sonic universe, that seems to appear in Beethoven's poetics 'from nothing'. In which of his previous works can one foresee that one day the first movement of the Ninth would emerge?

A 'spatial' conception (made of sound planes) in which, almost always, rather than saying that the definition of 'accompaniment' is too narrow for every instrumental part, one could say that it is generous to speak of a 'main line' for all of them. (Luca)

This discourse of yours, dear Luca, allows me to clarify something very important: I am not talking about musical aesthetics and much less about musical beauty; when speaking of third-style music, I am talking about complexity in musical construction and I think it is indubitable that if we analyze Opus 106 – to give an example of a piano Sonata – and Opus 131 – an example of a Quartet – the complexity reached by Beethoven is much higher than that reached in the Ninth.

It is certainly not I who can teach you how to analyze a musical work - if anything, it is absolutely the opposite - but I think you cannot help but agree with me on this.

In essence, I find that between Beethoven's Seventh, which is decidedly placeable in the second period, not only chronologically, and the Ninth, there is a very significant stylistic gap, so I would absolutely not say that The Consecration is "the only symphonic work of Beethoven that belongs to the third style". Which, obviously, does not make the two pieces contenders in a challenge, but since it was you who launched the equivalence, perhaps this evaluation must be revised. (Carlos)

Obviously, I can only agree with you that between the Seventh, which fully belongs to the second style, and the Ninth "there is a very significant stylistic gap", but I would like to remind both of you – you and Luca - that regarding Beethoven's last symphony, I expressed myself this way: "We define 'third style' music as all that he composed from 1815 onwards, but it is wrong.

In reality, this reasoning is valid for his Sonatas and his Quartets, but not equally fully for symphonic music: the Ninth still suffers from that heroic climate in certain parts." Therefore, I am not saying that the Ninth cannot be ascribed to the third style in an absolute sense; I am saying it is so only in part.

But all this allows me to clarify this argument which is very close to my heart:

how do you justify the equation third style = masterpiece? Is there something that supports this theory, apart from your personal opinion? Careful: I do not mean to say that The Consecration of the House is not a wonderful ouverture, but whether or not it is a masterpiece cannot depend on its belonging or not to the "third style" (Carlos)

My dear Maestro – allow me to call you so because it is right – the equation third style = masterpiece is correct if we mean, however, the same thing.

Let's go in order. The division into three styles of Beethoven's work is due to Lenz, who framed it essentially within fixed dates. Until 1802 they are works of the first style, until 1814 of the second and then until death the third. This division, for many, including our Armando, has created only problems and misunderstandings for the real understanding of Beethoven's compositional work.

Personally, I place myself in a middle position, if one can say so. I find Lenz's logic absolutely wrong, but it is indubitable that Beethoven – like other composers: Verdi and Stravinsky, to name two very significant ones – had a compositional life made of diversified styles, but it is absolutely erroneous to want to close them within very precise boundaries.

The styles of Beethoven are due, above all, to the evolution of a genius composer who arrives in his extreme season at maturing one that is absolutely visionary, which transcends his time by a century, and it is for this reason that works conceived in this manner are his Himalayan masterpieces.

If we

let's analyze Beethoven's music; we will discover that the first works of one of his "new styles" are piano sonatas or otherwise involving the piano. And this is no coincidence! Beethoven arrived in Vienna not so much as a composer – there are few significant works from Bonn and, those few, are not excessively so – but as an excellent – the most excellent of his time - piano virtuoso. The first masterpiece of the second style is the Pathétique, composed between 1797 and 1798, which is, well, 4 years before 1802. But not only that! It is undeniable that a Sonata like Opus 53 already announces in some way the third style as early as 1804; one only needs to analyze it and you will agree with me. Careful, though: I only said "announces."

The third style is entered through the last two sonatas for Cello and piano, Opus 102 – these too, dear Frank, are part of it - from 1815, and the Piano Sonata Opus 101 from 1816.

Certainly, Carlos, if we consider all the music written from 1815 until Beethoven's death as being of the third style, you are perfectly right, they are not all masterpieces; however, reminding you that a large part of the works – see Opus 103, or 129, or 138 and others – predate those years. But if for the third style - and in my opinion rightly so – we mean a method of composing that can be summarized in what Frank said, well, then we are talking only of supreme masterpieces, the greatest ever, coming from the head and pen of the genius from Bonn.

But here I want to absolutely clarify one thing because I find it extremely important and on which I do not intend to be misunderstood: this does not mean that there are no masterpieces in Beethoven's first two styles! There are, and there are plenty. The statement that there is only one Beethoven and he is the one of the third style is a very mistaken legacy of the Darmstadt avant-garde, which I have absolutely always opposed.

It is certainly true, however, that if Beethoven, to say something absurd, had composed his late Quartets first and then finally the Opus 59 ones, we would not see or understand these latter ones today in their immense greatness. Dear Luca, as you see, we are always in need of contextualizing things.

Therefore, to conclude this my umpteenth long-winded speech and to draw the lines of my reasoning, I think that the third Beethovenian style has exhausted and brought to full completion the discourse regarding Sonatas and Quartets, but not for Symphonies because, I repeat, the Ninth in its colossal greatness is not fully attributable to this style. The Overture "Die Weihe des Hauses" is even more so; it suffers because it is forced and suffocated between two giants such as the "Missa solemnis" - which is also not fully of the third style - and the Ninth, and the "Tenth" would certainly have been, if the gigantic genius had lived longer.

Non-provocative question, but Daniele, in your opinion, what is a style made of?

Write

Certainly, Carlos, if we consider all the music written from 1815 to the death of the third style by Beethoven, you are perfectly right, they are not all masterpieces; however, reminding you that a large part of the works – see Opus 103, or 129, or 138 and others – predate those years. But if for the third style, - and in my opinion rightly so - we mean a method of composing that can be summarized in what Frank said, well, we are talking only of supreme masterpieces, the greatest ever, coming from the head and pen of the genius from Bonn.

If you conclude otherwise, then what is style to you?

so as not to forget the cyclopean proportions of the entire symphony, whose legacy will be taken up first by the Mendelssohn of the "Lobgesang", and then by Bruckner, Mahler etc. etc. Brahms inserts himself into a more "normal" vein and, even if naturally the very particular use of sonata form and the expansion of proportions are also hallmarks of the Brahmsian language, in reality, if there is a Romantic author who has remained very tied to classicism, it is precisely Brahms; and even if his First Symphony is called by many "Beethoven's Tenth" to emphasize that Brahms continued along that path, I am actually not convinced that the logical continuation after Beethoven's Ninth was Brahms's First, which remains more tied to the "second style" if we really want to baptize it using that classification. (Carlos)

Last night I forgot, but there is another point of your discussion on which I wanted to have my say, and it is this.

In effect, until recently I would have essentially said what you assert here, but even on this subject, I have revised my opinion.

Brahms, as you well know, arrived very late to the composition of Symphonies, precisely because he feared the comparison, not so much with his Romantic predecessors: Schubert, Schumann, and Mendelssohn – and here I open a parenthesis: the "Lobgesang" was initially named by its composer "Symphonic Cantata" since it was composed of an introductory Symphony in three movements followed by 9 pieces in which the choir and the three soloists are placed side by side and alternate. Very little to do, therefore, with Beethoven's Ninth, which however gave Mendelssohn the legitimacy to define his "Cantata" then symphony – but rather with Beethoven's symphonic legacy. The first sketches of what became his "First Symphony Opus 68" date back to 1855 – I also remember that the "First Piano Concerto and Orchestra Opus 15" was born first as a Sonata for two pianos and then as a Symphony to finally become what it is – and that saw its birth only in 1876. In a letter to Max Bruch in 1870, one fully understands Brahms's psychological frustration in facing the issue: "One has no idea what it means to always hear the footsteps of a giant like Beethoven behind oneself."

It was from the pressing and fatal comparison with Beethoven that the genius from Hamburg sought to orient his Symphony toward the sense of pure music. From the confrontation with the ultimate Beethovenian model, many of Brahms's choices originated, such as the intensification of thematic work or the adoption of unprecedented techniques. Beyond the typically Beethovenian process of internal expansion, what appears intrinsically different is Brahms's language, rich in unprecedented modulations or cast into a new overall dimension, more lyrical than dramatic.

In short, dear Maestro, let's say it all as it should be said: Brahms's symphonic corpus is second only to Beethoven's, not only for a chronological reason but also for its importance, greatness, and beauty. No one between Beethoven and Brahms knew how to do better, but no one – including Bruckner and Mahler – knew how to do it after.

And in all this, I see Brahms, more than others, as the direct successor of Beethoven. And not because of Hans von Bülow's absurd and misleading phrase: "Beethoven's Tenth Symphony," but precisely because of that painful and obstinate search by Brahms to start from the Beethovenian model, confronting it only to then detach himself from it with completely different and unprecedented techniques and, nevertheless, making this symphonic production of his gigantic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab2gr6oAC5g

ps: Xenakis, certainly my fault, but I did not understand your question. Try again if you like!

Open content (youtube)

danielescarpetti wrote:

I have meditated on what you all have written and, my conclusion is that, of what I have written, I am "only" changing the part where I assert that the Overture "Die Weihe des Hauses" is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece. In this assertion, I realize, there is an exaggerated emphasis on my part, speaking of a composer who, moreover, has composed – this much, yes! - so many supreme symphonic masterpieces. That being said, I continue to think that this Overture is the only symphonic work that fully belongs to the third style.

And up to this point, I say, we can discuss it: I believe it is not true, but all in all I do not consider the clarification to be entirely important, all in all. The only rational objection I can make, as a nitpicker, as is my habit, is: if in op. 124 Beethoven arrived at writing in this so-called "third style", how is it that in op. 125 he abandoned it to go backwards? mah, mysteries of life... this probably could only convince us that the separation of the three periods, as you rightly say later, is fictitious and that one can only speak of progressive evolution, moreover regarding a composer who perhaps evolved the most in his compositional activity, along with one whose evolution is always spoken of too little (taking it for granted and, therefore, minimizing it), namely Giuseppe Verdi.

danielescarpetti wrote:

(...) how do you justify the equation third style=masterpiece? Is there something that validates this theory, apart from your personal opinion? Careful: I do not mean to say that The Consecration of the House is not a wonderful overture, but whether or not it is a masterpiece cannot depend on its belonging or not to the "third style" (Carlos)

My dear Maestro – allow me to call you so because it is right – the equation third style=masterpiece is correct if we mean, however, the same thing. Let's go in order. [omissis]

Therefore, to conclude this my umpteenth rambling and to tie up the threads of my reasoning, I think that the Beethovenian third style has exhausted and brought to full completion the discourse regarding the Sonatas and Quartets but not for the Symphonies because, I repeat, the Ninth in its colossal greatness is not fully attributable to this style. The Overture "Die Weihe des Hauses" is already more so, which suffers because it is forced and suffocated between two giants such as the "Missa solemnis" - this one too not fully of the third style - and the Ninth, and the "Tenth" would certainly have been so if the gigantic genius had lived longer.

First of all, leave the Maestro alone, who has stayed at home; afterwards, be careful saying "it would certainly have been the Tenth" because from the few remaining sketches it seems that instead with the Tenth Beethoven would have returned to a more "pure" classicism, the one he had resumed with the Eighth. In any case, I am fine with everything you say, but you continue not to answer, even if above in a certain sense you did, this assertion of yours:

danielescarpetti wrote:

(...) I say that "Die Weihe des Hauses" is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece, because besides being wonderful it is the only symphonic music that belongs to the third style.

This assertion continues to have no justification (and in fact even you cannot give it one). The fact that The Consecration of the House is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece is a questionable assertion, at least for me, logically. I prefer other works from the "middle period" (let us continue to use these divisions for convenience, despite everything) and I am not even a big fan of the Ninth, to tell the truth. But the fact that it is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece because it is the only music that belongs to the third style is not only questionable: it is wrong a priori, because it postulates a concept from which one must absolutely free oneself, namely that for a composer (or even just for Beethoven, if we want) the final works are by no means the best. It can be shocking to state it, but it is by no means certain! If that were the case, Sonata op. 111 would automatically be better than the "Waldstein", which would certainly be better than the "Tempest", which would decidedly be better than the Sonatas op. 2 and so on... The fact that a composer has, during his long compositional career, such an important evolution as to "force" someone to make a partition of his works to make this division scientific, cannot and must not automatically mean that evolution always and only brings with it improvement in every piece, and that, at that point, in symphonic music the "masterpiece" is not the last work, but the only one belonging to the late style. There is an excess of dogmas which in music are as absurd as they are dangerous.

Beethoven was a great experimenter and regarding this need of his to try and to"

works so different from one another must be dared, as well as attempts, then resumed after a long time, such as the one made with the Choral Fantasy op. 80, but asserting what you have asserted brings with it a paradox that I propose to you: let us hypothesize that Beethoven had actually written ten symphonies and that two were attributable to the "first style", five to the "second", two to the "third" and, the last one, to a hypothetical "fourth style". Following your reasoning, should we have asserted without a doubt that the tenth would have been "Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece because it is the only one written in the fourth style"? Do I make my point?

Having said all this, one thing remains certain: whether or not they are "the" masterpiece of Beethoven, works like The Coronation, like the Ninth (and not only), will always be and remain something for which it is worth doing the job we do, regardless of classifications and of "records" to which each person can assign whatever value they deem appropriate.

danielescarpetti wrote:

In short, dear Maestro, let's say it as it is: Brahms' symphonic corpus is second only to that of Beethoven, not just for chronological reasons but also for its importance, greatness, and beauty. No one between Beethoven and Brahms could do better, but neither did anyone – including Bruckner and Mahler – manage to do so afterwards.

Fine. If we make it a matter of taste, I can tell you nothing more than that for me Brahms' Symphonies are even better, so just think about it... I was trying to move the discussion to a more objective level, because otherwise anything goes.

And so far, I say, we can discuss this: I believe it is not true, but all in all, I do not think the clarification is entirely important, all in all. The only rational objection I can make, as a nitpicker, as is my habit, is: if in op. 124 Beethoven arrived at writing in this so-called "third style," why did he abandon it in op. 125 to go back? well, mysteries of life... this could probably only convince us that the separation of the three periods, as you rightly say later, is fictitious and that one can only speak of progressive evolution, especially regarding the composer who perhaps evolved the most in his compositional activity, along with one whose evolution is always talked about too little (taking it for granted and, therefore, minimizing it), namely Giuseppe Verdi.

But the answer is quite obvious: because the 9th Symphony had a much earlier genesis; we speak of 1815, but some suppose even earlier, perhaps in 1812 for the first sketches. Because it is the result of the union of three different symphony projects.

Agreed on Verdi!

First of all, leave the Maestro alone, who stayed at home; after that, be careful saying "it would certainly have been the Tenth" because from the few remaining sketches it seems that instead with the Tenth Beethoven would have returned to a more "pure" classicism, the one he had resumed with the Eighth.

Perfect Carlos! This links back to my discourse on the Eighth: that was the right path leading to the third style, looking to the past to renew it, to appropriate it by renewing it.

This statement continues to lack justification (and in fact even you cannot give it to him). The fact that "The Consecration of the House" is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece is a questionable assertion, at least for me, logically. I prefer other works from the "middle period" (we continue to use these divisions, for convenience, despite everything) and I am not even a big fan of the Ninth, to tell the truth. But the fact that it is Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece because it is the only music that belongs to the third style is not only questionable: it is wrong a priori, because it postulates a concept from which one must absolutely free oneself, namely that a composer's (or even just Beethoven's, if we want) last works are by no means the best. It may be shocking to state it, but it is by no means certain! If that were the case, Sonata op. 111 would automatically be better than the "Waldstein," which would certainly be better than the "Tempest," which would decidedly be better than the Sonatas op. 2 and so on... The fact that a composer has such an important evolution during his long compositional career as to "force" someone to partition his works to make this division scientific, cannot and must not automatically mean that evolution always and only brings improvement with every piece, and that, at that point, in symphonic music the "masterpiece" is not the last work, but the only one belonging to the late style. There is an excess of dogmas in music that are as absurd as they are dangerous.

Here it is you, with this discourse where you put taste in the foreground at the expense of the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the work. Beethoven's most absolute masterpieces – as with Verdi – are those of his last period. It is not I saying they are the classic two of clubs when trump is hearts, but all musicology. Then if one wants, one can well prefer the Sonatas of Opus 2, the Quartets of Opus 18, but, this yes, is personal taste.

Beethoven was a great experimenter and his need to try and dare is responsible for such diverse works, as well as attempts, then resumed after a long time, such as the one made with the Choral Fantasy op. 80, but asserting what you have asserted brings with it a paradox, which I propose to you: let's hypothesize that Beethoven had actually written ten symphonies and that two were attributable to the "first style," five to the "second," two to the "third," and the last one to a hypothetical "fourth style." Following your reasoning, should we have certainly stated that the tenth would have been "Beethoven's symphonic masterpiece because it is the only one written in the fourth style"? Do I make the idea clear?

Jokes aside, this is not the point. The third Beethovenian style is an absolute miracle, that is the point. All the greatest composers gave their best in their final years: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms... Perhaps there will be some exceptions, but exceptions do not confirm the rule.

Having said all this, one thing remains certain: whether or not they are "the" masterpiece of Beethoven, works like The Consecration, like the Ninth (and not only), will always be and remain something worth doing the [text cuts off]

the trade we do, regardless of classifications and "records" to which each person may assign whatever value they deem appropriate.

There! On this, not only do I agree with you 100%, but I hope that all this is also recognized by the powers that be on Earth and that they know how to take you into consideration for what you are and deserve to be considered

Fine. If we make it a matter of taste, I can tell you for certain that for me Brahms' Symphonies are even better, so think about it... I was trying to move the discussion to a more objective level, because otherwise anything goes.

Carlos, look, mine is an objective level: many think it is so. And when I say many, I don't mean the two of clubs, but the aces of hearts!

Anyway, between us, speaking of tastes, I don't know which to prefer!

Goodbye dear Maestro and thank you for your very kind attention!

danielescarpetti wrote:

Here you are, with this discourse where you prioritize taste at the expense of the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the work. Beethoven's absolute masterpieces – as with Verdi – are those of his late period. It is not I who say they are the classic 'two of clubs' when 'hearts' is trump in Briscola, but all of musicology. Then, if one wishes, one can well prefer the Op. 2 Sonatas, the Op. 18 Quartets, but that, indeed, is a matter of personal taste.

Hmm... I am not very convinced by this absolutism. I understand your position and I also understand that one must agree, as always, both on the "intrinsic" value and on the "extrinsic" one, to use your words. I mean that, certainly, one cannot fail to consider the evolution of style in terms of formal complexity, ability to process material, richness and, what is decidedly fundamental, boldness in the use of harmony, but music is not made only of these elements, but rather of the synthesis between innovation and the musical outcome achieved (and, pay attention, this problem, namely that of the progressive divergence between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects, will be found not long after in the music of the Second Viennese School).

The Sonata op. 106 - to name one - is, in many ways, a cornerstone of pianistic literature and, more generally, of musical literature, but are we sure that it is "more of a masterpiece" than a marvel such as, for example, the "Les Adieux" Sonata op. 81a? It is a question that naturally cannot be detached from subjective evaluations, but I would like to draw attention to the combination between "compositional edifice" (poorly put, but I hope it is understood) and "musical outcome" (which must remain - at least in my very modest opinion - the ultimate goal of an author). I mean that certainly Beethoven's innovative drive has an unshakeable and decidedly undisputed importance, but, for example, I find that a piece like Coriolan presents, despite (or perhaps "thanks to") a notable economy of expressive means (both instrumental, thematic, and in general structure) an equilibrium and a synthesis between these and the expressive result that pushes me to consider that piece among Beethoven's great masterpieces (and in the same way and for identical reasons I consider "Rigoletto" a masterpiece on the same level as "Otello", despite the enormous differences, but precisely in consideration of the synthesis between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" elements - I hope I manage to clarify my point of view).

Is the Mass in C minor "less of a masterpiece" than The Art of Fugue? Or is the value of The Art of Fugue more shifted towards the constructive aspect of the work, while that of the Mass in C minor towards the expressive one?

And is The consecration of the house certainly "more of a masterpiece" than Leonore III (this one, I hope no one has any doubt, a peak among peaks!).

I don't know, these are questions I continue to ask myself and which I am pleased to propose, since the discussion is very interesting.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Carlos, look, mine is an objective level: many think so. And when I say many, I don't mean the two of clubs but the aces of hearts!

Yes, I know, but I was talking about the direct "descendance" with respect to the Ninth, which represented for many composers the starting point of symphonism and, as we know, for at least two of the greatest symphonists (namely Bruckner and Mahler) a true sword of Damocles. Brahms (who, incidentally, is my favorite composer, followed closely by Beethoven) is much less innovative than his predecessor; this is what I was referring to when above I stated that "he fits into a more 'normal' vein compared to Bruckner" etc. But, precisely because of the discussion I was making above, namely the combination between formal construction and musical outcome, it seems to me that he has, I mean Brahms, reached levels truly unequaled from an expressive point of view, while remaining within a "tradition" very closely linked to classical models.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Hello dear Maestro and thank you for your very kind attention!

Hello, and thank you: it is a pleasure to talk about these topics.

[damn! Listening continuously these days to The Creatures of Prometheus is making me morbidly love the "heroic" Beethoven... even more than I would like]

Because it is to the voice of that Beethoven (the heroic one) that this Overture seems to belong... 'muscular' like nothing else. Excuse me, but such brilliance (also with a Haendelian scent) seems to me the result of a synthesis between the finale of the Fifth and the final stretto of Leonore III put together.

If we speak of "style", I insist on promoting as the quintessence of the third style the first movement of the Ninth: precisely for those characteristics that I listed in my other message. Taking Frank's list of the peculiarities of the third style as good (for me it is good), I ask you: is there one – at least one! – that can be found in The Creatures of Prometheus? Enlighten me, please.

But speaking of 'style' interests me only to a certain point. Rather than focusing on the second and third 'styles', I find it interesting to grasp how the emotional world, the idea, the ideal conception of Beethoven has changed over the years.

But before speaking in these terms about what is close to my heart, I would like to try to answer the question that Xenakis poses to Daniele: "What is style?".

I would answer like this: it is the way, or the ways, in which something is done. And, in the artistic field, it is the way or the ways in which the original idea of the work takes shape (colors, sounds, verses) and is expressed.

In recent years Beethoven arrives at radical stylistic changes, but what matters most (to me) is the change in the underlying idea that is felt in his works.

If 'the Beethoven' who manifested himself so clearly with the Third Symphony (and everything that followed) seems reasonable to me to define as 'heroic', I wouldn't know how to define that of his later works. It is enough for me to call him 'the late Beethoven', well aware that this says nothing. But wanting to spend a few words (beyond simple more or less fitting adjectives), it seems to me that the underlying idea of the heroic Beethoven is that of a struggle: the famous desire to "grasp fate by the throat" which in many of his works from this period is embodied in the dramatic-dualistic tension of the sonata form. The music of these years has a directionality, as tormented as one likes, from an adverse, dark, dramatic principle, and evolves towards a radiant finale conquered not without difficulty. In the late Beethoven, instead, one feels the position of a man who knows how to distance himself from the scene of the world, and arrives at a more comprehensive vision. Not that the torments of living have been eliminated, but the decisive gesture of the strong man who throws himself into the struggle gives way to the gaze of a man – no less strong – who grasps this life with its contradictions, conscious that they must be lived to the fullest.

These, for me, are the 'two Beethovens' that lie beneath the 'styles'.

That being said, and bringing the discussion back to these terms, there is one thing I agree with regarding what Daniele stated, namely that the Ninth does not belong completely to the late Beethoven. With this, however, I do not mean at all that each of its movements is a stylistic mixture in which characteristic traits of the heroic years and the final years are found (goodness, perhaps after a serious stylistic analysis it might turn out to be so, but that's not something that would interest me much). What I mean to say is that in the Ninth I sense an enormous shift that starts from the speculative regions of the late Beethoven (first movement) to arrive at the vigorous terrain of the heroic Beethoven (the Finale). When I question myself about the meaning of this symphony, I find that this dynamic, this enormous shift, has its good reasons for being. And I add that I do not consider it in any way a sort of "regression": the late Beethoven is not – for me – better or more beautiful than the heroic one. He is just different: wonderfully different.

And who knows if one of the many factors that make the Ninth Symphony what it is, is not this 'opening of arms', so vast, as to succeed in making the two Beethovens meet (in the same masterpiece)."

LucaCavaliere wrote:

[damn! Listening continuously to 'The Consecration of the House' these days is making me morbidly love the "heroic" Beethoven... even more than I would like]

Because it is to the voice of that Beethoven (the heroic one) that this Overture seems to belong... 'muscular' like nothing else. Forgive me, but such brilliance (also with a Haendelian scent) seems to me the result of a synthesis between the finale of the Fifth and the final stretto of Leonore III put together.

If we are talking about "style", I insist on promoting the first movement of the Ninth as the quintessence of the third style: precisely for those characteristics that I listed in my other message. Taking Frank's list of the peculiarities of the third style as valid (it is valid to me), I ask you: is there one – at least one! – that can be found in 'The Consecration of the House'? Please enlighten me.

I had already given you one reason and it is this: There, inspired by Handel, he concludes with that Allegro fugato which this truly is, an expression of the masterful compositional technique of the late Beethoven.

And who knows if one of the many factors that make the Ninth Symphony what it is, is not this 'opening of arms', so vast, as to succeed in making the two Beethovens meet (within the same masterpiece).

While remaining certain that the Ninth is a masterpiece, it certainly makes it more popular than the late quartets and late sonatas are.

Anyway, in the end, what we can all agree on - and this gives me immense pleasure - is to observe, beyond personal preferences, that there indeed exists a single Beethoven, but he is the one who composed music from 1782 to 1826 and who, in defiance of styles and Lenz, brought music from the late galant and classical period, bordering on romanticism, to the twentieth century a century ahead of its time. And if this does not mean being a genius, you tell me what it means! Beethoven was one of the most absolute intellects of humanity; this is what we must acknowledge. Like it or not!

Oh, come on: a fugato is not the prerogative of the "late Beethoven"!

his symphonic work is full of fugatos . . . funeral march of the Eroica, Finale of the Eroica, third movement of the Fifth, Allegretto of the Seventh, development of the first movement of the Eighth . . .

If you then say that there exists a single Beethoven, supporting the claim by saying that he is the one who composed music from 1782 to 1826 . . .

Of course I agree! : it doesn't even cross my mind that they were two distinct people.

So let's do this, I'll have Carli Ballola say it for you, then... you see, do as you wish!

Due to its novelty of conception, "The consecration of the house" represents a unicum in Beethoven's entire symphonic oeuvre. Behind its impressive architectures, it is not so much the Ninth and the Mass that loom, but rather the silent ghosts of the Overture on the name of Bach and the Tenth Symphony, with its sonic cataclysms.

Then, if you don't like Ballola, let's go with Cappelletto:

A tribute to Handel... But Beethoven does not limit himself to quoting and inventing; the pianissimo of the winds in the introductory march, the Maestoso sostenuto, the fanfare of trumpets and bassoons, the passage of solo strings, all prelude to the polyphonic creation of the Allegro con brio; the theme is taken up and varied, the structure grows together in height and solidity, rising along with the surge of the entire orchestra, the brilliance of the final C+ surpasses every thematic conception and the sound asserts itself as pure force. Ten minutes of music that represent a "unique piece" from the Beethovenian catalogue.

If then, as I fear, you like neither Ballola nor Cappelletto, I propose a third one that I know you like very much: Ugo Morale:

The work is in two movements, a Maestoso sostenuto and an Allegro con brio; the ideas are also two and contrasting: a magnificent march enunciated in pianissimo and the great fugue in the Handelian style conducted with rare compositional talent.

I can't say more than that...!

Be careful, though. All of this is fine and perfectly shareable, but none of the three speaks of a "third style" nor of the "greatest symphonic masterpiece" in the Beethovenian catalog... Carli Ballola (rightly) speaks of an "unicum in the entire Beethovenian symphonic output," Cappelletto says the same thing when speaking of a "unique piece in the Beethovenian catalog" [both things, mind you, would also apply to the Ninth Symphony, just to say... ] and Morale sticks to a more distant "rare compositional talent." None of these statements contradicts ours.

Ballola, Cappelletto and Ugo Morale—I like all three (and I also like what they write about Op. 124!).

So, off the top of my head (without going to pull them down from the shelf), it seems to me that Ballola and Cappelletto are found (cited) in Beethoven—gentlemen, here is the catalogue!—and Morale in his Introduction to Beethoven. Correct?

But my ears continue to hear Op. 124 as a splendid rock of heroic Beethoven (like Max Klinger, to be understood).

And listening to it is something that literally does good, lifts one from the dust, a whining hypochondriac as I often find myself being.

Semi-serious proposal:

a personal criterion that makes me identify the voice of the last Beethoven in a piece is . . .

when I cannot learn it by heart even after listening to it many times!

By learning by heart, I don't mean knowing the notes, but simply, during listening, knowing "where the piece is going."

I have been listening to Beethoven's symphonies for thirty years. After a while of listening, let's say within a year or two, I knew "the path" of all the movements (for the first movement of the Eroica, it took longer to learn not to get lost).

The first movement of the Ninth, however, I have never managed to learn by heart. Every time it was like a new mystery to be lived.

Only three years ago—when I obtained the score and Mila's Reading—did I understand where the joints, the nerves, the articulations of this wonderful organism were, which before reached me as a monolithic block.

In certain respects, I somewhat miss that spontaneous relationship I had before.

There is no doubt whatsoever that in this overture, at the beginning, there is also the heroic Beethoven and frankly, I am very sorry that in this discussion, in the end, I come across as a detractor of the Ninth - my most beloved symphony absolutely, along with Brahms' Fourth -

Carlos, none of the aces of hearts says that the Overture "The Consecration of the House" is the only work of the third Beethovenian style because, to say it, it is the two of clubs.

I have already said it and I repeat: I do not read scores because I am not capable - and I am truly very sorry - but I entrust my sensations to what I listen to primarily and to what I read afterwards.

So, I maintain that the construction of the Allegro fugato of this Overture is of a complexity that finds no equal in other Beethovenian symphonic compositions - including Eroica and Ninth - and that this was the announcement of what, unfortunately, only remained in the composer's brain.

At this point, I can do nothing else but invite you to provide yourselves with this score - and if you already have it, even better - and to disprove or confirm this sensation of mine.

If I am wrong, I will take note, but if I am right, you will have to give it to me. But.... no cheating, eh!