Fidelio

one should look for the opposite: does anyone know from memory any Beethovenian vocal pieces that are not strenuous? No, because if they are all like that, then it is a symptom of a vocal thought process (as... anti-physiological as it may be). To me, the Ninth has always seemed strenuous regardless of the joy...

LucaCavaliere wrote:

I was struck by a statement from Carlos. Happily struck. Namely, the fact that you claim, in several points, that the Finale of the Ninth pulls—vocal-wise speaking—towards the high register. (...)

However, I dare offer a personal impression: a suggestion that comes to me from listening to the Ninth, and which I propose to you as the function—reason and purpose—of certain arduous vocal writing of Beethoven's.

It is the 'fatigue of Joy'.

It is the fatigue of preserving a joyful spirit even within the fatigue of living (...)

What do you say? . . . . could it be?

Your explanation is very interesting in itself, but honestly I find it little applicable to this specific case, for at least two reasons, namely:

- the first, as Thallo says, is that Beethoven always writes in a way that is physiologically taxing for the voice, regardless of the text being sung; therefore, the 'fatigue' does not concern overcoming the difficulties of life to remain joyful;

- the second, even more important, is a technical and historical reason: if Beethoven used voices in the sense that you suggest we should derive, it would mean he is not only anticipating Romanticism, but is actually anticipating Verismo, which is in no way the case and is indeed (I mean Verismo) far from arriving. What I mean is that "expressing fatigue" and "writing something fatiguing" are not the same thing; I hope I am able to make myself clear.

The Finale of the Ninth is fatiguing because the writing is clumsy: the sopranos are very often above the staff and spanning between G and the extreme high notes, perhaps forced to sing piano, and the bass-baritones, also, very often above the staff, on D and E. But, to tell the truth, Beethoven himself knew he was exaggerating: at the entrance of the Solo Bass ("O Freunde, nich diese töne!") there is already an "or" [alternative note], and at the E of the word "Freunde," it is provided that a more convenient C# can be substituted. The same applies to the Tenor part, just before the letter K ("freudig wie ein Held zum Siegen."), where the tenor is forced to repeatedly touch the high Bb; there too an "or" is provided (and both are autographs).

Which would open and broaden the debate, namely: if Beethoven knew he was writing complicated or, at least, awkward music, it means it was not a lack of knowledge of the voice, and that perhaps he tried to do with voices what he did with instruments—that is, to push forward the instrumental limits (as Romantic composers would do, increasingly often, after him). I don't know, honestly, but I remain convinced that the argument cannot be the same for an instrument (whatever it may be) and for the voice, because, as I was saying, the "voice instrument" cannot be mechanically perfected as is possible with other instruments; therefore, one can improve technique, but it will be applied to a substantially similar instrument. It's a bit like asking Kissin to play Liszt's Sonata on an 1800 fortepiano. And the proof is that certain vocal parts remain, even today, decidedly arduous, but are supported by orchestras that "devour" the Ninth with a facility unthinkable only a century ago. It is decidedly "more comfortable" to sing Verdi's Requiem, and I would be ready to bet that any chorister, Italian or German or... however you want to put it, would affirm the same thing.

Ergo, in my opinion, no matter how you look at it, Beethoven had limits with the voice—forgive me this statement (!!!).

Hello Everyone.

As always, I keep well away from detailed descriptions of the opera, which others do excellently well. However, I have a first contribution: the text written by Bouilly (published in the seventh year of the Revolution) and which was performed on the 1st ventoso of the sixth year of the Revolution. You can find this rare text here: http://www.lvbeethov...Online.html#009 the size is about 35 MB. Nice; one can see the different dynamics of the action and how it is modified by the translator in 1805, in compliance with the provisions of the Austrian censorship. I should also find this text from '05, so I can add it to the site. To see the various modifications (often worsening), you can find the prospectuses here: http://www.lvbeethov...re-Fidelio.html

Finally, the highly educated musicologists following the post will be able to draw a parallel between the music of Gaveaux, Beethoven, and Ferdinando Päer. To find Ludwig's parts or CDs, there is no problem, everything is found easily, even the intermediate versions (a certain extra difficulty for the modified arias Hess 111 - 114, which don't add a damn thing to the whole story). For Päer, a double CD (decent) from Naxos has been released; but this one from DECCA is absolutely recommended: http://www.amazon.co...a/dp/B00B2M7DHS I had it in three LPs which I wore out.... The score can also be found. For Gaveaux, the situation is different: like all great musicians, he tends to be forgotten; but an LP version exists from the 60s....

Now I bid you farewell and will rummage through my books; I must have Sonnleithner's 1805 libretto somewhere......(without using those horrible ones inside the CDs!) This text is important, also because it is the pre-chainsaw text of Treitschke, who for this reason could have become a lumberjack instead of a poet.

A---------------------------------

The question can therefore be summarized as follows: did Beethoven write his vocal works in that manner because « he had limits with the voice » - as Carlos asserts - or because his “Spirit” - as Lippman stated - dictated it to him?

Aside from the fact that only he could, obviously, give us a certain answer in one sense or another, for my part I continue to think, after having read you all and recognizing Claudio – to whom I feel closer in thought in this case – and Carlos, as both saying perfectly correct things. For my part, however, I continue to think that a composer of Beethoven's greatness – though he would do the same even if inferior – could not fail to be aware of what he was writing and, above all, how he was writing it.

Beethoven – unlike Brahms – related to music and to all its rules dictated up to that point in a revolutionary way and this, - aside from the lied about which there would be another long and interesting discussion – left a devastating imprint: it is a matter of fact, isn't it?

If we analyze his music with orchestra and human voices, we must not forget that his early works date back to 1790, when still in Bonn, he first composed the “Cantata for the death of Emperor Joseph II WoO 87” - a work that should be performed much more than is done today and in which many of the future pieces of “Fidelio” are already in embryo – and secondly the “Cantata for the accession of Emperor Leopold II to the throne WoO 88”.

Both of these cantatas – and especially the first – were never performed because they were considered too difficult for the voice, a sign therefore that the young Beethoven already intended the composition with vocal parts in a certain way.

But if in 1790 it can be assumed to be a deficit of his, it seems equally incredible in 1805 and, even more so, when he composed the “Missa solemnis” and the “Ninth Symphony”: this insistence of his makes one believe more in a choice dictated by his “Spirit”.

Let us not forget that between 1798 and 1801, Beethoven took lessons specifically regarding the use of the voice from Salieri, composing various a cappella songs and other things. It should be noted that for the “A cappella songs WoO 99”, there are very often two versions: one written by Beethoven and the other corrected by Salieri, who often complained that the composer from Bonn, specifically regarding this matter, understood nothing.

And so, once again, the question I ask myself and that I pose to you: is it possible that a composer of Beethoven's caliber, despite the insistent lessons of a Salieri, continued to understand nothing, or was it rather a stubbornness of his, a choice of style?

And I ask you again: “Fidelio”, “Missa Solemnis”, the finale of the Ninth – just to name the greatest Beethovenian masterpieces in these fields – if today they are considered in a certain way, could it not also be because Beethoven conceived them that way? If Beethoven had composed “well” for the voices, would they have been so important and great?

I want to finish, as is my custom, by quoting the thought of someone who is certainly more qualified than I am to give judgments on the matter and with whom I feel in maximum harmony in this regard: Giovanni Carli Ballola « The observation that, in Beethoven's only work, the orchestral values far exceed the vocal ones, conditioning and subordinating them within the framework of a purely instrumental dimension, might seem obvious, if we did not deduce that it is precisely due to this shift of the musical and dramatic center of gravity that the work owes its strength and its exceptionally “modern” character. »

There, that is the point! Once again in Beethoven, his Spirit, as always, speaks toward the future: it is the redefinition of the relationship between music and word that matters to Beethoven and not the rest, which did not matter much to him, and makes him render it “modern” before “modernity”.

And let's say it once and for all: they may be poorly written for the voice but, nevertheless, they are performable since, regardless, they are all abundantly in the repertoire, and it would be a truly great pity to have to renounce such greatness.

Carlos . . . I agree on the fact that "expressing fatigue" and "writing something laborious" are not the same thing. Not necessarily.

Far from me is the idea that Beethoven acted intentionally in this sense (trick > effect). Far from me is this idea.

The fatigue, the effort, the tension of a choir - of a Humanity - that one would want to be better, is my impression listening to the Finale.

The fatigue of the voices is another thing (subsequent) that I personally notice only with the score before my eyes.

Hence my suspicion: my connecting the two things. And I believe Beethoven himself would laugh at it.

But my suspicion remains.

Let us extend, as Thallo proposes, the question to the entire Beethovenian vocal oeuvre. It is all laborious. Even the two beautiful youthful Cantatas mentioned by Daniele.

But does the dimension of fatigue, of tension - of streben - not underlie a bit of the entire Beethovenian oeuvre? (pianists, violinists . . . is there anyone who has an easy time with Beethoven!?)
and is the Ninth Symphony not perhaps the pinnacle of a life marked by tensions?

I don't appreciate Carli Ballola, but between the lines of my comments there was a common thought with him and with Daniele: writing for voice by "imitating" instruments has always been common. BUT! But before Beethoven (I'm just throwing it out there, I imagine he was the first but I am not at all sure, quite the contrary) the instrument that the voice was supposed to replace was a solo instrument. Gradually we arrive at instruments with chamber writing (and Mozart gives us various examples of vocal writing that imitates chamber ensembles and chamber writing that imitates vocal writing) and then, finally, we arrive at the instrument in the orchestra. Well, I have the impression that in the Ninth, as in Fidelio, the voice is an orchestral instrument. Good? Bad? I don't know; if I were a singing teacher, I would say that you study to sing the repertoire, and if the repertoire tells you to sing difficult things, then you study to sing difficult things....

danielescarpetti wrote:

"Both of these two cantatas – and especially the first one – were never performed because they were considered too difficult for the voice, a sign then that the young Beethoven already intended the composition with vocal parts in a certain way".

.........................................corrected by Salieri, who often complained that the composer from Bonn, specifically regarding this matter, understood nothing.

Dani, could you kindly tell me the origin of these statements, please? I mean the source, not the book (or books) that pass them down? I have the WoO 99 in front of me, in the copy kept at the Musikfreunde, and also Nottebohm's book (Beethovens Unterricht bei Haydn, Albrechtsberger und Salieri), but I don't see any major corrections, except perhaps in some accentuation, like "Salvò tu vuoi lo sposo" instead of "Salvo"... nothing transcendent....

As for the two Cantatas, who would have said it and where? The choir in Bonn wasn't bad; if anything, it was the deficient wind instruments (oboes and clarinets) and the absent flutes (one only needs to look at the instrumentation of the Elector Prince's Chapel).

Thanks a lot Daniele for the help! See you soon!

Sorry. Fidelio is playable, it is performed... what problem could Beethoven have?

Don't tell me that Bach's violin parts are convenient, yet they are playable and performed.

What am I missing?

Hello Armando, I apologize for only replying to you now but...!

In reality, I must apologize to you and to everyone who has read me because, in fact, you are right: the deficient part at the court of Bonn was that of the brass. As often happens to me, unfortunately, when I rely on my memory without verifying, I make gaffes. And yet I should be aware that I am now a bit of an old man!

As for the WoO 99, in fact, here too, you may be right, since the corrections mainly concern the various versions of “Fra tutte le pene”, where there are second versions corrected by Salieri.

However, my insistence in saying that Salieri thought very poorly of Beethoven is not so far-fetched.

I am referring to what Ferdinand Reis wrote in his biographical notes, published together, in 1838, with Doctor Wegeler. In particular, I refer to where Reis, describing the relationship between Beethoven and his three teachers in Vienna: Haydn, Albrechtsberger, and Salieri, wrote: « Each one claimed that Beethoven had always been so stubborn and independent that he had had to learn through a harsh personal experience many things that he had previously always refused as subjects of study. Albrechtsberger and Salieri were especially of this opinion. The arid rules of the former and those insignificant ones of the latter regarding dramatic compositions (based on the Italian school of the time) could not be pleasing to Beethoven. »

This part is very interesting because it coincides, as luck would have it, with the major criticisms that have been made of Beethoven regarding counterpoint – teacher Albrechtsberger – and vocal music – teacher Salieri – and demonstrates once again, always from my point of view, the idea of extreme freedom – far from just some licenses as noted in the Fugue for three voices of the Hammerklavier – that Beethoven took regarding the rules established until then in the matter.

But symptomatic of the relationship that subsequently developed between the pupil and his former singing teacher were the strong criticisms that Salieri directed at “Fidelio” and, more generally, at all Beethovenian music, and this, as I have already said elsewhere, even influenced Schubert in this regard.

In a letter from January 1809 – number 350 according to the Brandenburg numbering – Beethoven, writing to the publisher Breitkopf & Härtel, vented himself like this: « But people should know that no one here has more enemies than I do, which is all the more understandable as musical conditions worsen day by day. We have Kapellmeisters who not only do not know how to conduct, but do not even know how to read a score. At the Theater auf der Wieden, moreover, the situation is even worse. It is there that I had to give my concert, and it is there that the entire musical world tried to obstruct me. Out of hatred for me, the promoters of the widows' concert, Mr. Salieri at the head, have cowardly threatened to expel from their society any orchestral players who played for me. »

Dear Armando, beyond my undoubted gaffes, it is quite clear what Salieri thought of Beethoven regarding his way of treating voices and his music in general.

« The giant Beethoven appeared with his gigantic creations, but the instrumentalists were unable to perform them and the audience did not understand them. How many times, while attending the performance of a wonderful symphony by the master, did it happen to me to hear: “It is total absurdity” and to see how quickly (especially towards the end of a symphony) the audience emptied out, as if it had suddenly begun to pour rain, but it was not water, but pure spirit. Beethoven even had to withdraw the magnificent, the greatest masterpiece, the overture to the opera Leonore, because it was considered unperformable. Now the instrumentalists have studied all these masterpieces deeply; without a doubt, they know every note by heart and therefore perform these pieces with the maximum possible precision, and in this way, the audience has also learned to understand and love them. »

(From the memoirs of the poet Ignaz F, Castelli, Memoiren meines Lebens, Gefundenes und Empfundenes Erlebtes, ed. by Josepf Bindtner, Munich 1913)

Ciao Armando and... excuse me for yet another long rant!

Dear Daniele, what gaffes?

In effect, your sources are my sources. Unfortunately, they are irrefutable but tainted; letter 350 from Beethoven himself, in which he writes a missive full of that typical arrogance - self-pity - denigration and self-celebration typical of a young upstart; its value is therefore not objective. The second -- namely the excellent book by Beethoven's friends ---- was indeed written by Beethoven's friends (in particular Wegeler). Rummaging through the BH, I found this beautiful document that they have even put online: http://www.beethoven-haus-bonn.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=15366&template=dokseite_digitales_archiv_en&_eid=1507&_ug=Musicians&_dokid=b1003&_mid=Written%20documents%20by%20Ludwig%20van%20Beethoven%20and%20other%20people&suchparameter=&_seite=1

Of course, generic kindness, addressed to several people, but still irrefutable kindness....

Bye and thanks Daniele!

Before:

After:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcm17CFpoI

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Stunning! From stiegen . . . !

as soon as possible, I would like it to accompany my last journey.

danielescarpetti wrote:

We now enter the most dramatic and beautiful part of the opera: the second act. We are inside Florestan's dark cell, whose "darkness is broken by the light of a lamp." The symbolism of the opposition between darkness – evil – and light - good - finds its maximum expression of dramatic musical beauty here. In the words declaimed by Florestan, there is the acceptance of what the Divine has destined for him, comforted in this, however, by the awareness that regardless of what happens, he has fulfilled his duty as a free and honest man. The words that Beethoven makes Florestan sing are an expression of his philosophy of life:

And it's a long, long, long publication. It will absolutely take my entire evening to study. But useful!

We are sorry, but I couldn't understand exactly what you meant :-(

TravisSiler wrote:

It's a long, long, long post. It will absolutely take my entire evening to study. But useful!

We are sorry, but I couldn't understand exactly what you meant :-(

Always available, within the limits of my possibilities, to try and clarify!