Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven) is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.

I've removed an assertion that this was "the first product of his [Beethoven's] struggle with deafness." As far as I remember, Beethoven began to go deaf in the late 18th or early 19th century, before he'd written his first symphony. (Actually, now I come to check, I see that our own Ludwig van Beethoven article says that "Beethoven began to lose his hearing at least by 1801".) --Camembert

"the scherzo, an 'indomitable uprising of creative energy' and the fourth an exuberant outpouring of creative energy."

I had a friend who attributed it all to lots of strong coffee. -- Viajero 18:11, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] On the Anecdote

The feeling that the horns' entrance being premature was more widely felt than just in Beethoven's student. Indeed, Berlioz, on first hearing it, believed it to be a copyist's mistake.

--SamWilson 19:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find that interesting; one of the things I love about Beethoven, and it shines in the Eroica, is his layering. I'm not even sure I even know what part is being talked about. Is it the one slightly after the half-way mark? On a recording I have of Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic, a solo horn comes in at about 7:56 (the total movement is 14:10, for comparison), right before everyone comes in with theme at the beginning. If this is the part, I can understand the confusion, but I have to say, it's one of my favorite parts of that movement. -Eleusinian 22:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

That horn part was thought to be a mistake and ommitted by most conductors until sometime in the 20th C. By stating the tonic and dominant together, Beethoven brings the build up of tonal dissonance to a head right at the very end of the development. He took the sonata principle to a whole new level.

--tommac1983

Yeah. Since sonata form is driven between by the conflict between tonic and dominant keys, the horn false entry slaps both together (horn in E flat, strings have a tremolo on dominant 7 pitches) and brings the conflict to a head. This is why I believe the coda was added - to resolve the conflict. --Milton 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Other Anecdote

The story of Beethoven becoming furious with Napoleon is an exaggeration, according to Grout & Palisca (6e, p. 525):

...the title page of Beethoven's own score originally read "Sinfonia grande intitolata Bonaparte"...Beethoven conducted the symphony in Vienna in 1809 at a concert that Bonaparte was to have attended, and in 1810 he considered dedicating his Mass in C (Op. 86) to the emperor.

--Ed Baskerville, 3 July 2006

[edit] Finale

Stated as a variations and fugue on the theme of Beethoven's. This theme was one indeed one of Beethoven's favorites. It was initially Contradanse #7 from the set of 12 Contredanses (WoO 14), then it was used in the finale to the Creatures of Prometheus ballet. Then it was the basis for a set of piano variations (Op. 35) which are also known as the "Eroica Variations" for piano (Op. 35). In these variations, the bass line is stated first and several variations are made on the bass line before the main theme is introduced with variations on the main theme to follow. The 3rd symphony's finale is in some way a symphonic version of those piano variations also with the bass line introduced and varied before the main theme appears.


[edit] Analysis of the First Movement

I can't be asked to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly at the moment, but for someone who can, the sections of the analysis that need citation appear to be mostly pulled from Charles Rosen's "The Classical Style" pgs 392 - 395 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.38.214 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This analysis (contibuted by Jjmontalbo), though well-meaning, is very problematic. First of all, is this level of detail appropriate for a Wikipedia article? (Not a rhetorical question.) Second, I personally think he's wrong in many particulars which are matters of opinion, but it feels wrong to just toss his into the trash when I can seldom "prove" he's incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.65.126 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 May 2006

Just to be clear, I did not contribute the analysis text of the first movement; it was inserted by somebody else. I merely formatted and wikified some text on that particular section. I am also the one who put the "please wikify..." notice. I even thought of removing the section altogether but I do not know if it is worth removing. –Jjmontalbo 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It was added by User:Tommac1983 on 00:05, 27 February 2006, according to the article's history. –Jjmontalbo 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Leave it in for now, it's enough of a goad that I'm working up a (concise) revision.
Aye. Could stand to be shorter, and I think an analysis for the second movement is just as deserved - the shadings and color of it and the background "plot" are dazzling. --Milton 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it is appropriate for wikipedia, the analysis of the first movement was fun to read and made this article enjoyable rather than just dry facts. I wish there were similar analyses for the other movements, and for other pages on other compositions! Just saying. Pfly 08:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I found it wholly inappropriate. Quite an interesting interpretation for a paper on the subject, but well enough outside of mainstream interpretation to be quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I've never seen anybody break up the movement like that, dividing the development section and all, and, what's more, I don't agree with it. That it stretches the proportions of a regular sonata form does not make it not-a-sonata-form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I'm the guy who broke it into five sections, and the next few paragraphs (though no more). For what it's worth, I maintain the Eroica Project website.

I never said it's not in sonata form; it is. But in a typical sonata the exposition consists of main theme, modulation to the dominant, second theme, and optional closing. Here that's all happened by measure 83, and there's still another 71 bars to go. Following this, no sonata or symphony by Haydn or Mozart has such a huge Development -- often they're much shorter than the Exposition -- and the same applies to the Coda. So I called it a 'highly modified sonata form,' which seems sufficiently mealy-mouthed as to be irrefutable. (I note that the preceding commentor did not do so.)

Tovey's analysis (cited in the article by another author) calls everything after the dominant the 'second subject group', a view which is both 'obviously' right -- it's all in the dominant key, sort of -- and 'obviously' wrong: there are five different and distinct thematic episodes in this section, which in the context of Beethoven's work would certainly push the concept of 'subject group' beyond all reasonable bounds.

Yes, it's 'original research' in that it doesn't exactly match the "conventional" analyses, but there are several different and contradictory "conventional" analyses (some call m.83 the second subject, for example), and I feel after much study that my description is easily verified simply by looking at the score. If you need citations, Thomas Sipe's Eroica Symphony (Cambridge University Press, 1998) supports much of what I'm saying.

And for what it's worth, I'm also the guy who first asked if this level of detail is appropriate at all. I'm still not sure, but I couldn't let all this junk just sit there without trying to fix it. 24.189.13.199 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Eric Grunin

Eric Grunin contacted me on my talk page questioning my deletion of the new material. Firstly, let me say I think we are all agreed that the article's current analysis of the work is not well sourced, and has many questionable points. I would be in favour of a proposal to delete the lot and start again: I nearly did once, but decided that was a bit too bold for me! I would also be in favour of reducing the amount of detail.
The way forward is surely not to compound the problem by adding further unsourced opinions, but rather to find sources and incorporate information from them, and to discard content for which no published source is found. Tovey and Sipe would be a good start! Information for which there is no reliable published source should not be added. In particular, "my description is easily verified simply by looking at the score" contradicts both verifiability and no original research (which are two of Wikipedia's three content policies, the other being neutral point of view).
Many of the edits I removed were inappropriate. "In bar 7, something interesting happens" - not until bar 7?! And it's interesting to whom? "…and now we're on a 'normal' B-flat dominant 7th wondering what the heck just happened" - speak for yourself! "On paper it looks like a bouncy syncopation".
I applaud any attempts to improve the analysis section, but can we keep it sourced and sober, not original and exuberent? We should not document the listener's expected emotional or intellectual response to the music because it would necessarily be our response to it, and that is entirely subjective (quite apart from not being notable).
By the way, Eric, you are very welcome to Wikipedia. You could create an account, which carries many advantages, including ease of communication with other Wikipedia contributors. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Needed

Wikimedia Commons has an image of the title page of the Eroica. Should I use it?--Stratford15 04:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? DavidRF 22:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dedication and Premiere

I renamed the first section to be "Dedication and Premiere". I think its important to touch on this subject because its important to the title that was eventually given the work and the stories of the dedication are out there and widespread. Once I look at the sources I have they often back away from some of the colorful details of the anecdote. Here's what I can find citations for:

  • "Beethoven originally dedicated it to Napoleon Bonaparte. Beethoven admired the ideals of the French Revolution, and Napoleon as their embodiment"
    • Grove, George. "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies". p. 49-95. Dover, 1962.
    • Steinberg, Michael. "The Symphony: a listeners guide". p. 11-19. Oxford University Press, 1995.
  • "Beethoven was so disgusted when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French that he changed the dedication."
    • Grove, George. "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies". p. 49-95. Dover, 1962.
    • Steinberg, Michael. "The Symphony: a listeners guide". p. 11-19. Oxford University Press, 1995.
  • "before the work's publication in 1806, Beethoven inscribed the title Sinfonia eroica, composta per festeggiare il sovvenire d'un grand'uomo (Heroic symphony, composed to celebrate the memory of a great man)"
    • Grove, George. "Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies". p. 49-95. Dover, 1962.

What I can't find citations for:

  • The "erasing Napoleon's name so violently as to tear a hole in the paper" anecdote.
    • Grove says that he "tore the title-page in half and threw it to the ground". Personally, I have heard stories of the tear-a-hole-in-the-page anecdote, but I don't have a citation for it.

That's only two sources I have at the moment, so that is all I can contribute. Perhaps others have more. DavidRF 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That Grove quote about Beethoven tearing the title-page in half is from Ferdinand Ries' account, and it's also cited in Thayer's Life, pages 348-9 of the 1967 Forbes translation (I'm pretty inexperienced at this whole thing so I don't know how detailed a citation you were hoping for!). Be aware, though, that recent opinion (certainly according to Maynard Solomon, whose book 'Beethoven' I'm getting all this from) is that the whole process was rather more complicated than that. I'd fill more in myself, but I'm too busy at the mo I'm afraid - hopefully that citation will help a bit, and it's worth reading Solomon's discussion of it if you want more detail. I suspect that the anecdote about tearing a hole in the paper would also be in Thayer. Hutchies 12:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Other Three Movements

So much on the opening movement and nothing on the other three. I understand that the first movement analysis is pretty cool and we are hesitant to prune it at all, but there should at least be a sentence or two on each of the other three movements. There is a new article on the Eroica Variations that were a precursor to the symphony's finale, but I'm not sure where in this article it should go. DavidRF 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the analysis of the first movement: Following this, we get the infamous ‘new theme’ played by the oboe in bars 288-296 in E minor. This is the most distant key from the tonic in the whole movement. One could ask, however, whether this is really a ‘new theme’ at all. Research into the Beethoven sketchbooks has shown that the melody in the second violin and cello was composed before the oboe melody; the oboe melody was written as counterpoint. If the second violin/cello melody is compared with the opening theme, a striking resemblance can be found. This theme is not new at all – it is clearly derived from the opening. Yet for nearly two centuries, even some of the most revered scholars have called the oboe part the theme, and paid little heed to the second violin and cello. What kind of pompous nonsense is this? Beethoven CLEARLY INTENDED that this should strike us as a new theme - given the preparation that leads into it, etc. The details re its appearance in the sketchbooks are irrelevant - it's the final score which counts. Beethoven may have derived it originally as counterpoint to the main theme, but CLEARLY MADE A DECISION, in the fonal form of the work, to bring it in as a new theme. I also find it offensive that the critic refers to it as 'infamous' - he sounds like one of those university professors who cannot stomach the idea that a composer would disrupt the conventional structure so radically - one of the type who indulge in elaborate tap-dancing to try to proove the theme is not new at all. It's disappointing that this kind of critique has taken top billing in the article stakes. Also disappointed that there's so little about the other three movements - Chris

[edit] 1972 Olympics

Could somebody please cite the information about the use of the second movement during the Olympics in Munich? I seem to remember it differently. I recall seeing a documentary about the terrorist attack, and I believe that either an interviewee or the narrator said that the Egmont Overture was played repeatedly in the infield by the Munich Symphony during the memorial. I remember this making me really interested in the piece. I saw the Munich Symphony play last year with Philippe Entremont and they played Egmont as an encore; I thought maybe it was because it had become more frequent in their repertoire since 1972. I'm going to try to contact the Symphony and see what they say. But in the meantime, can someone please provide some evidence that will corroborate or contradict my claim. Thanks. 71.29.172.198 21:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The performance was by the Munich Philharmonic and NOT the Munich Symphonic Orchestra (my mistake). I have contacted the Munich Philharmonic and will receive an answer shortly. 71.29.172.198 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernadotte?

It is also believed that "Eroica" was finally dedicated to Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, who later became Charles XIV of Sweden, after Beethoven became disillusioned by Napoleon.

Surely, if Beethoven re-dedicated it to Bernadotte, the evidence would be apparent. I've never heard of a piece of music dedicated to someone without that dedication either being written on the score, communicated in some way to the dedicatee, or communicated to the world at large. In other words, there would be some written record of it. If the dedication was just in Beethoven's head - and I'm not saying it wasn't - how do we know about it? -- JackofOz 21:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical analysis of the first movement: Allegro con brio (moved from article)

This movement is in sonata form. The 'development' is twice as large as the exposition, and the 'recapitulation' includes a similarly large coda:

[edit] Exposition

The exposition runs as follows:

  • First subject area: 1–83

The Eroica is the first of Beethoven’s symphonies to start without a slow introduction. Instead, there are two hammerstroke chords. Such a dramatic beginning is not unusual for the period—Mozart used similar gambits. The theme, incidentally, appears to be based on the overture to an early Mozart opera, Bastien und Bastienne.

The first two bars clearly establish both the tonality and the rhythmic pulse; they act as a two-bar upbeat to the four-bar "macro rhythm" that is about to be established. Bars 3–6 confirm the metre, but as only one chord (E flat major) has been stated, the tonality has still not been confirmed. The opening theme is stated in the cellos, but it consists only of a broken chord rocking around the note of E flat, which falls on the strong beat of each bar.

In bar 7, the cello and bass move down to C sharp, a surprisingly early interjection of chromaticism in the piece, which has wide-reaching repercussions for the structure of the movement: not only does it unsettle the rhythm through the use of syncopation in the violins, but it introduces the three-note chromatic figure E♭-D-C♯ which is used at various pitches and in inversion at important cadences throughout the work. Indeed, C sharp is used (in its enharmonically equivalent form of D flat) as a tonal centre later, particular near the beginning of both the recapitulation and the coda. In the short term, the C sharp in bar 7 serves as a springboard back to D, which becomes the basis for the first dominant chord in the piece in bar 10. A stronger cadence follows in bars 13–15, which firmly establishes the key. The harmony in bars 7–15 is referred to by Donald Francis Tovey as a "cloud", which resolves in "sunshine".

The first subject area within itself contains a movement from I to V to I. Bars 1–22 are in the tonic, 23–36 the dominant, and 37–45 the tonic again. The effortless movement into the new key is achieved via an augmented sixth chord in bar 22 (note the three-note chromatic figure transposed to C-C♭-B♭ and inverted to A♭-A-B♭). In bar 25, just after the tonic has given way to the dominant, so too the meter crumbles. The sforzandos of bars 25–34 create syncopation and multiple bars of hemiola (in 2/4), interspersed with single beats, and finishing with three bars of 3/4 which cross the bar lines (b. 32–35).

Bar 37 sees the return of both the tonic and the "correct" meter, with a fortissimo tutti return of the main theme. Despite the triumphant scoring, the tonic still cannot hold its place, but the alteration of the flute and oboe parts in bars 38–39 looks forward to the eventual mutation of the main theme that will allow the tonic to hold strong in the recapitulation. The A flat chord in bar 43 avoids what would have been a hidden false relation between the E flat (bass) of b.42 and the E natural (treble) of b.44; and the G (treble) of b.42 and the G flat (bass) of b.44.

In bar 44, an augmented sixth chord—which led us into the dominant area in bar 22—here leads into a transitional episode from bars 45–83.

Bars 57–64 contain four bars of thematic material (57–60), which are repeated in variation (61–64). A significant feature of these eight bars is the contrary motion between the outer parts.

Bars 65–83 are important due to the introduction of a rhythmic figure of new intensity.

  • Second subject area: 83–147

There are diverging opinions as to what constitutes the second subject.

1. The second subject area contains a large amount and variety of material. Philip Downs states that "the creating of a second group of similarly enormous proportions and differences by means of an organic process is not accomplished until the Ninth Symphony."

At bars 109–121, the meter is again disrupted; this time the second beat of the bar is emphasized by sforzando chords in every bar except 117–118.

Bars 123–131 are the climax of both the second subject area culminating in six sforzando chords. These striking chords both look back to the opening of the movement, and signal the close of the exposition. A. Peter Brown calls the material in bars 132–147 "closing gestures".

Bars 148–154 forms a transitional passage that links the end of the second subject group with the repeat/development.

2. The alternative opinion is that the second subject is actually the descending motif in Bar 45. It appears where a second subject would normally be, but with no transitional passage. It spawns another motif directly following it; both are descending motifs that rise sharply before descending again. It receives considerable treatment in the development section, whereas the material at bar 83 occurs only once. Finally, Beethoven places it at the beginning of the recapitulation with subdominant qualities, a well–known Mozartian technique.

[edit] Development

It is worth noting that if the exposition repeat is not played, the development is almost 100 bars (two thirds) longer than the exposition.

Bars 154–160 take us into the principal key of the development (C major/minor).

In bars 166–174, the rhythmic pattern that caused metrical disruption in bars 45–56 reoccurs with similar scoring, and again leading from dominant to principal key (here, G to C major).

At bar 182, a sequential development of the opening theme begins. This is the first time in the movement where the whole harmony is moved up by a semitone, but it shall not be the last. This reflects the descending chromatic (melodic) phrase of bars 6 & 7. Bars 182–184 are in C minor; 185–188 in C♯ minor, and at bar 190 the key moves to D minor.

Again, an augmented sixth chord resolving to the dominant is used at a point of structural articulation, bar 223. Philip Downs tells us that "the peculiar force of the progression lies in the way it appears to change the harmonic flow very suddenly, giving the effect of the sleight of hand that brings the rabbit out of the hat."

Beginning at bar 224, Beethoven transposes material previously heard.

Bar 240–251 use the same rhythmic figure found in the preceding sixteen bars, combined with a fugato development.

The climax of the development begins with the forte chords in bar 252, and again incorporating syncopation and harmonic instability.

Following this, we get the infamous "new theme" played by the oboe in bars 288–296 in E minor. This is the most distant key from the tonic in the whole movement. One could ask, however, whether this is really a new theme at all. Research into the Beethoven sketchbooks has shown that the melody in the second violin and cello was composed before the oboe melody; the oboe melody was written as counterpoint. If the second violin/cello melody is compared with the opening theme, a striking resemblance can be found. This theme is not new at all; it is clearly derived from the opening. Yet for nearly two centuries, even some of the most revered scholars have called the oboe part the theme, and paid little heed to the second violin and cello.[citation needed]

The E minor episode is repeated in A minor, before the first key of the development, C major, is reached at bar 304. Here the opening theme returns in a familiar form, before being developed sequentially. Eventually, the E minor episode is repeated in E♭ minor (bars 324–335).

The final section of the development starts on bar 342. Here, the opening theme is presented in a new form; one which will finally allow it to escape its tonal instability. Whereas before the theme stagnated on E♭, leading to chromatic harmony to regain forward motion; here the theme finishes on the dominant note, a feature that will finally allow it to return to the tonic. Concurrently, the bass is moving in duple meter, yet it fits in perfectly with the theme in triple meter, and the harmonic progression is moving towards the tonic with piano dynamics in bar 377 and pianissimo in bar 388.

At bars 398 the horn entry provides what is perhaps one of the most debated moments in all of symphonic history. The opening of the main theme is played in the tonic, but over dominant harmony.

[edit] Recapitulation

  • First subject area: 398–448

The recapitulation starts with the main theme with original scoring, and, as in the exposition, falls down to C♯ (b.402), but resolves in a different direction. This is one Tovey has called "one of the most astonishing and subtle dramatic strokes in all music". Unlike in the exposition, the harmony moves to the dominant seventh of the supertonic.

  • Incorporating secondary development: 408–429

Although the music seems to be moving to the closely related key of F minor, an A natural appears, and a secondary development starting in F major appears in bars 408–429. What has happened with this modulation is that the music has moved to the supertonic, which is up two keys from the tonic in the circle of fifths. The music then moves abruptly from F major to D♭ major, which is down two keys from the tonic in the circle of fifths. The respelling here of the originial C♯ as D♭ is of Mozartian influence, as Mozart liked to utilise the relaxing effect of the subdominant side of the circle of fifths at the beginning of the recapitulation for a period of temporary relief following the extreme tension of the development section. The D♭ here is the flattened subtonic of the tonic key, E♭ major, the IV of IV. The harmony then resolves in a conventional manner via the subdominant to the tonic.

Bars 448–486 repeats the transitional episode which prepares for the second subject area that arrives at bar 486, this time in the tonic key. There are exceptionally few modifications, bar the small orchestration changes forced by the change of key and register.

  • Coda: 551–672

The coda begins by looking back to some of the core tonal centers of the development and recapitulation: E♭, D♭, and C.

In bar 580, the "new theme" is repeated in F, then in E flat minor. The tension of this theme being in the remote E minor has finally resolved.

The coda finishes with a giant composed‐out perfect cadence, which is disrupted in bar 677, just as in bar 15, with a sudden piano. Three final chords (bars 689–691) close the movement, mirroring the two chords heard right at the outset.

Taking into account the length of the exposition and its repeat, the unusually long coda balances the piece as a whole.

[edit] Ries Exaggerated?

I doubt it. I will remove that. ♫ The Grand Harp ♫ (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the, ‘Critical Response,’ section is not in good condition. Should it be tagged for lack of sources and (probably) original research? ♫ The Grand Harp ♫ (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Beethoven, form in the Eroica symphony and Wagner

From Sean McHugh 02- some thoughts on the links with Wagner

This essay looks at the influence on Wagner of Beethoven’s formal innovations and motivic technique that begin with the revolutionary first movement of his Eroica symphony. It outlines the Eroica’s historical and literary background, its radical expansion yet dissolution of sonata form and the problems it represents for conventional reductive analysis. The motivic technique uses the initial material’s characteristics to create unity in an unschematic though still highly organized formal design and is developed by Wagner into his through-composed style. In the music-dramas, motifs’ combinatorial potential is exploited to create endless or infinite melody and avoidance of cadences and closure, replacing architectonic form and symmetries with ‘inner form’ as he called it. Along with Wagner’s Schopenhaurian reply to Hanslick’s criticism of the legitimacy of the emotions in music, the essay will sketch how this more holistic rather than traditional linear form may relate neither to conceptual thought nor uncontrolled emotional expression but to an aesthetic content that articulates and justifies itself only as it evolves.

Wagner studied many Beethoven works but predominately the symphonies, conducting them numerous times except those he considered too indebted to classical style- the First, Second and Fourth. He is selective in which aspects of Beethoven’s compositional process in he takes up though, and his aesthetic appraisals are often made in the light of his own emerging theories of music-drama. The main links between Wagner and the opening Allegro con brio movement of the Eroica are centred on issues of form: melodic elements are reduced to flexible motifs and distributed throughout the work to shape and unify it, beauty from play of material within perspicuous structures gives way to fervent emotions, and a sense of striving arises from the motifs’ quality of becoming and their references to each other rather than to an external framework already set for them. The material’s movement across different voices is comparable with that in a drama and accordingly many conventional musical rules are sidestepped or overpowered, making them seem dispensable under the insight and resolve of a strong German personality.

Wagner continues Beethoven’s efforts to break down not only formulaic melodic and harmonic progressions but their associated classical regular pulse and strong and weak beat patterns. Advancing rhythmic complexity is set against a constant metre in the background and allows more faithful declamation of the German language: a musical prose develops to temper fixed poetic metre. And in Wagner’s mature works from Rheingold onwards he develops the interrelations of motivic working into a systematic technique of association for all components of the texture, where each can be derived from every other to a degree dissolving traditional differentiation into primary and secondary elements. In the Ring though, being on a larger scale than Tristan, Meistersinger and Parsifal, the motivic possibilities explored are more diverse and the integration somewhat less obvious.

Beethoven’s Symphony No.3 ‘Eroica’, in E flat op.55 (1803) is among the key works in music history in terms of form and emotional enrichment. The longest and most complex symphony then written, it consolidates his heroic middle period style expressive of turbulent currents in contemporary history and their aggressive, disintegrating processes- anxiety and tragedy are perhaps at its heart, but tensions are then transcended through the logic of the work’s form. The music’s vigour and resilience also represent a moral resistance to suffering, and include occasional moments of self-reflective comedy in the midst of adversity: the combination of dramatic impulse and expressive power of right action brings a new ethical aura and edifying quality. Moreover there are parallels between the Eroica’s new direction in form and Beethoven’s psychological realignment in respect of his serious hearing loss at that time, and between its character and his own spirit and resolve to move on to new challenges (Cooper, 1990).

There are also the beginnings of the involvement of literary texts in Beethoven’s symphonies, complementing the dramatic quality of motivic working, if only in the use of subtitles, historical events and a possible reference to the Prometheus legend. However though the work was first dedicated to Napoleon, its revolutionary character is all Beethoven’s own and its heroism expressive more of the universal experience of confronting difficulty to renew creative possibilities in life. Wagner goes on to deepen this constant presence of the composer’s voice- the individual characterization of the vocal parts is of far less importance than his own response to their situations, as expressed in the orchestra: form dependent on material of the composer’s own devising translates into Wagner’s personality being stamped across every measure of his work to a greater extent than the case with any other composer. He argues (1872) that despite the Eroica being conceived after a historical source outside, its highly individual nature shows the real inspiration comes from a composer’s own emotional responses, whether inwardly or outwardly focussed. But Napoleon as a revolutionary symbol is also apt for both composers’ achievements.

The C minor second movement is the greatest of funeral marches, followed by a scherzo, the first symphonic movement written to take this title, and the finale employs a set of variations providing some balance to the opening movement’s motivic transformations. The finale’s main theme is more extended than the motifs, but uncomplicated and chosen for its developmental potential rather than beauty of line; it also appears in three previous works- the orchestral Twelve German Contredanses, WoO.14 (1795-1802), The Creatures of Prometheus, op.43 ballet (1800-1), and the Eroica variations, op.35 for piano (1802). The version of the myth the ballet sets surely reflects Beethoven’s idea of himself as an instance of the suffering, misunderstood artist who eventually triumphs: humanity is ennobled through Prometheus’s gift of art fashioned from fire he stole from the gods, before he is punished and put to death by them, but is then restored and eventually gains recognition from humanity for his efforts on their behalf. The four movements of the symphony relate to Prometheus in as far as they express struggle, death, rebirth and apotheosis, and relate to the composer’s own spirit, despair and two stages of increasing assurance in the new path to be pursued (Kinderman, 1995).

The dedication was removed after Napoleon crowned himself emperor on 2nd December 1804, making his republican ideals redundant, and the orchestral parts edition of October 1806 then read ‘To the memory of a great man’. However by then Beethoven may have had in mind Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia who had recently fallen in battle against the French, or he may be punning on both men. Moreover Solomon (1977) argues Beethoven had largely negative feelings toward Napoleon prior to as well as after his coronation, so that the Eroica was always planned in terms of the life, death and resurrection of an abstract protagonist rather than in a spirit of homage for the present; it embraces conflict as Napoleon had across much of Europe but negates all need for disingenuousness. Then the testimony of one of his doctors suggests the plan had been to compose the Funeral march after a British event- either the wounding of Nelson at the battle of the Nile in 1798 or the death of General Abercromby at Alexandria in 1801. This movement in the first place though also hints that the symphony falls short of a dedication to any actual hero, since heroes were considered in essence immortal.

The first movement provides an expressive range beyond anything previously heard and involves the audience in a way analogous to a compelling literary drama: the unique zeal in the new control of material makes it among the most perennially rewarding of all musical works. However the increased linear fragmentation its organizational advances allow, along with the weakening of other formal conventions caused many at the time, despite the sense of arrival and freedom these bring, to regard the work as difficult music whose technicalities outweigh artistic achievement. And at least, in some of the later works using the technique, even Wagner is among those arguing Beethoven is not careful enough to avoid the motivic working’s intellectual element eclipsing its melodic, and thus incompletely realizing the endless interest of its interrelations. For instance he holds in the fugal finale of Piano sonata No.29 the formal abstraction lacks the expressivity needed to transform it into fullness of meaning, and further draws attention to Bach’s keyboard works where sophisticated counterpoint successfully defers the pull of closure and prescribed devices for long periods, yet those intellectual methods are rarely balanced by coherence in terms of feeling. He also argues though that feeling in music is a generality that only points toward the particular: Berlioz for one fails to appreciate this, trying to express too many literal details in his symphonies and needing extraneous programs to illuminate them, whereas Liszt by contrast derives his tone poems often only from central melodic configurations, affording them a general and intelligible feeling, or poetic idea as Wagner calls it, that spreads throughout the work. Hence the coherence of the more intellectual motivic structure finds a complement here in coherence of feeling (DeNora, 1995).

The short four-measure main theme of the opening movement is fragmented into motifs and disseminated throughout the music so that material is handled in a more methodical, less formulaic or stylised way. When individual motifs suggest implications these are overtly composed out at the time, rather than treated in terms of their place in a prior scheme; motivic elaboration and organization do require extensive sketching methods before setting down of anything definite but more for planning the developmental possibilities than to prepare finished melodies of the classical exposition. The material is selected for its exceptional quality of potential and dynamic tendency towards both melodic and harmonic completion, bringing the sense of determination to evolve. Whereas before, themes were only subject to more exploratory counterpoint in the development, motivic writing both evens out the process and shifts attention from the horizontal closer to the vertical, exploiting the energy of the chord by breaking it up melodically: the unexpected C sharp creating a dissonant chord in measure 7 initiates a loss of harmonic equilibrium that provides the impetus for the rest of the movement (Marston, 1991).

The first movement sonata form is expanded to over 700 measures and its usual proportions altered: in the exposition the modulation to the dominant comes quite early at measures 42-4 and a cadence at 83 is followed by a new theme which proceeds to double its length. The development is extended in a similar way, beyond the length of the exposition, and includes a luxuriously blended progression around a circle of fifths that intensifies the feeling of struggle and achievement, culminating in accented, syncopated discords; then the only reference to the second subject is reharmonized as dominant minor ninths in a passage with maximum disruption to all elements of the texture. Motivic fragmentation culminates in a dramatic silence in 280 where the rhythmic impulse is at its strongest, thereby undermining the basic architectonics of a pivotal point of the movement’s argument and focus and instead diffusing it (Cooper, 2000).

Heterogeneity loses ground to a constantly focussed homogeneity and the new section to follow this point is affected by minimal loss of impetus or vitality; the development throughout has the character of a battleground where issues are fought over yet the interplay of moods is one of great internal cohesion. In similar fashion the second horn anticipates the recapitulation four measures before it appears in the rest of the orchestra, disrupting and redistributing the key structural moment over a longer period. Motivic working begins to saturate the texture, with reconfiguring and recombining of motifs in place of unaltered return of ideas continuing even in the recapitulation, where the apparent improvisatory license almost makes it a second development section or fantasia. However, a gradual process of realization of motifs’ potential does cause finished, balanced melodies to begin emerging here, and such searching for themes from motifs gives expression to the human experience of searching for certainty from uncertainty or clarity from complexity, giving rational sense to the world. Wagner (1880) notes though that the vitality of the movement’s pursuit of self-realization does not depend on any emerging themes of opposed character and instead all the variety necessary issues from the reshaping and reuniting of shorter related elements among the interweaving voices. Also one other example of interest added only through change of emphasis is the more telling and vibrant, rather than colouristic, deployment of wind instruments. The coda, approaching the length of the recapitulation, underlines the movement’s unity in its array of motivic material but the peroratory phrases that would traditionally raise and differentiate the intensity, signalling the end of a linear argument, are at a minimum. All through the movement the linking passages of sonata form have the same melodic material as their surroundings, merging with them and negating their identity (Cooper, 2000).

The lavish degree of interrelation between the ideas makes conventional reductive analysis unpersuasive: trying to find a traditional skeletal substructure to map the complex motivic working onto has the problem of distinguishing foreground from background elements. The texture is uniform and democratized and even the more exact of the repetitions poorly articulate unitary prolongations that are thought in such an approach to exist between them. Rather than a relation to existing forms or concern for solutions to problems set out beforehand, the autonomy of the music’s onward development just tends to dissolve analysis back into the ecstatic flood (Kerman and Tyson 1980).

In the Fifth symphony (1804-8) Beethoven augments the opening movement’s similar spread of motifs with thematic relationships across the other movements as well, deepening the work’s overall unity or poetic idea. Berlioz’ then employs a similar process in his Symphonie fantastique (1830) with all five movements including his supple idée fixe motif, and Schumann develops the technique of cyclical themes that was soon to gain importance, as for instance in the first and last movements of his Second symphony (1846). Wagner however criticizes all such purely instrumental instances of motivic interplay as they cannot fulfil its latent literary content: for him the technique intimately relates to dramatic action of human relevance, thus reaching its fullest expression in opera, whereas the symphony must always trace its use to what he saw as this genre’s constraining historical background of dance rhythms.

In relation to both the Eroica and his own music Wagner then speaks of the growing together of a work into an organic whole- pre-given design is subverted, yet paradoxically a unity of form and content comes into view by virtue of the primary structural carrier being the dynamics of the motivic web itself. The diversity in unity of the Eroica first movement and the shifting expressive values of its recombinations are the beginnings of infinite melody and the through-composed technique in large-scale music. However though motifs in Wagner scarcely appear in the same form or orchestration twice, their underlying character is more clearly retained than in Beethoven and they have to be designed with malleable ends to aid their almost universal possible deployment. Integration advances to dissolve conventional formulae of numerous kinds, particularly sectional working to divert all hint of closure, and thereby undoes the finite timescales of architectonic form. The technique further acquires the flexibility to allow elements to be significant in terms of the drama’s as well as music’s evolving organization, and a monolithic consistency displaces linear development from beginning to end. The attention diffuses across myriad levels of interconnected detail as the building and peaking of successive lines of argument blur the moment, perhaps also reflecting the impossibility of consciousness pinning down the specific moment and instead its nature as constantly referring backwards and forwards (Kropfinger, 1974).

Wagner compares motivic working to a forest: the melodic detail branching out in all directions relates to sounds of individual interest that nonetheless merge into a single characteristic aural experience of a forest. We lose ourselves in this and it can’t properly be reproduced afterwards in the mind- we must only revisit the theatre or forest to recapture the fullness of such unity. Accordingly in his Programmatic explanation (1851) of the Eroica Wagner says that its heroic character refers to a complete man in possession of all human feelings at their most intense, a strong and rounded personality to which nothing is alien but everything is contained within itself: form by web of dramatic as well as motivic association provides a varied constellation of expression within an aesthetic whole (Kropfinger, 1974).

Wagner further claims that infinite melody, realized through contrapuntal virtuosity, chromatic harmony, interrelations with the vocal line and sophisticated orchestration brings an infinite meaning or interest that makes it impossible to become as familiar with his works as with architectonic works- without a framework to set them against their effect is specific only to their experience and can’t be reproduced or reconciled in the mind. As with the contours of a coastline, there is always the same further unschematic interest to arrest the attention no matter on what level the work is examined.

Motifs combining together to create themes, either through a more dialectical process in Beethoven or a more thoroughgoing relativistic one in Wagner, reflects Schopenhauerian aesthetics in that it is an instance of music bringing forth from its groundswell of potential, or universal will striving forward, a condensed set of feelings to experience. Wagner came to hold that a work takes shape non-conceptually through the shaping, movement and transformation of motifs to create feelings, and in his centenary Beethoven essay (1870) he revises his negative view of absolute music given in Opera and drama (1851) so that music provides the basis for the drama rather than the other way round; indeed the Eroica was already evidence for this. Despite drama’s poetic nature it still involves concepts and hence speech and action are not so much equal partners with music, merely with different characters to it, but literary and visual reflections of the primary musical source.

The traditional sequence of closed units in opera, and sealed-off periodic construction generally, Wagner likens to dramatic situations being literally framed or put under glass, and contrasts them with the perpetually startling and instantaneously experienced feeling provided by the unpredictable architecture of the motivic web. Rather than a museum quality to art there is visceral involvement- which then problematizes the traditional sense of distance between audience and artwork for their reflection on it. This immediacy through lack of traditional form-guided expectations for material to play within or relate to can be seen as uncritical and dangerous, but Wagner holds that an inner form and detailed organizing principles for the material to relate to do unfold as its dynamic possibilities become evident. A distance, based on a material-specific form, still exists in the midst of powerful emotional engagement. And with all a work’s motifs uniformly developed out of the same background musical or dramatic material, there are no prefabricated sections, as some have suggested, with distinct joints that are smudged over in through-composition with a view to stifling critical reflection. As Wagner underlines in Music of the future (1860) it is the existence of that single background poetic idea, rather than enclosed and foregrounded sets of ideas, that allows for everything making its intimate reference to everything else.

Wagner may have been influenced here by Goethe’s arguments for what he called an inner sense of form against rigidity in 18th century French drama; writing of Tristan, Wagner (1880) says ‘Completely confident, I immersed myself in the depths of the psyche and from this innermost centre of the world, boldly constructed an external form…the whole expansion of the melody is prefigured in the fabric of words and verses’. For him the determining factor in the moment of creative inspiration is inner feeling and its logic rather than prompts from prior formal schemes, and perhaps only feelings can propel dramatic contexts forward: rich configurations of motifs parallel characters’ complex relationships and the intuitive development of their ideas and emotions.

In Beethoven, Wagner clarifies his reply to Eduard Hanslick’s critique of the emotional effect in music: he holds conventional form is actually used in order to evade the true extent of music’s expressive powers and its embodiment of the essence of phenomena, or their underlying Schopenhaurian will. The intellect is overwhelmed by the experience of the essence of things and to try to separate or reconcile it by means of formal frameworks is a kind of denial- none could provide an unaffected, objective viewpoint. Life intoxicates us and the means to convey this with integrity is through form by motivic web and its overwhelming infinity of interconnections: linear thematic working and its dependence on the shifting, limited conventions of pre-compositional design cannot reflect the fullness of phenomenal experience. The unity, rather than replacement, of form with content however allows a non-dialectical critical distance from the world alongside full engagement with it- the will moves from moment to moment neither in accord with schematics contrived by the intellect nor arbitrarily, but in accord with the developing formal requirements of its singular context. Only infinity in form can ‘reconcile’ or give truthful aesthetic expression to the infinity in life. Rather than Hanslick’s aesthetic pleasure only in the beauty of intellectually clear forms, the Eroica is first to show that infinite melody may furnish an aesthetic content of not only a ruthless clarity but stoic, incorruptible character far from ‘narcotic delirium’.

The more free-flowing musical argument of form by motivic web also better reflects the moment to moment exchange of influence in dramatic dialogue. Indeed in the Eroica ideas develop as vigorous exchanges of energy and Wagner speaks of Beethoven as less a musician concerned with symmetrical balance and dialectics than an orator: there is growing concern to communicate the intoxicating essence of things through charisma. Dialectical or architectonic music is concerned with some form of presentiment, actualisation and reminiscence, so in this sense it too may be said to have an omnipresence of material, but in motivic working the interrelations and symmetries between these three stages are developed past the point where the stages can be distinguished. Sonata form’s need for reprise and repetition of material that Beethoven takes steps to avoid in the Eroica disappears completely in Wagner in as far as each motivic configuration already embodies past and future. The music’s direction is inscrutable, entrancing and disorientating the rational intellect, yet at every moment striving beyond itself to bring an inevitable onward momentum, expressive of the transcendental will.

A deeper, holistic integration is achieved without rudimentary dialectical restatement or the mid-way points of inertia in linear argument and symmetrical architecture, as began with the undermining of key inertial points in the Eroica’s development and recapitulation: the focus of interest is instead maintained at a constant level by new motifs always evolving and combining as older formations decay. Wagner’s dense networks have symphonic texture, but contrast and repetition are created through individual rather than group motivic relationships. The length of the work is also indicated by a degree of possible development and interconnection of motifs.

Nonetheless Wagner’s evolving structure still occasionally accommodates the traditional symmetries- for instance the famous opening scene of the third act of Walkure has the approximate form of first theme, second theme, development and recapitulation, though followed by a second development before a steady dissolution back into the heady groundswell of interconnection and fragmentation. Indeed at many other points in the Ring there are the remnants of set forms, such as the forging songs in Siegfried or funeral march in Gotterdammerung, but they emerge and submerge with long term planning and masterly avoidance of discontinuity with the wider system. Also some motivic recurrences certainly incorporate a recapitulatory function, for instance the Rhine maidens’ song at the start of Rheingold reappearing both at the ends of the opera and the tetralogy, though its effect each time is only one in a wide set of seething reminiscences. As passing moments in the Dionysian torrent they hardly signal the closure of external outlines and in Gotterdammerung it is immediately followed by the final love motif that first appeared towards the end Walkure. Over 90 motifs develop the texture at the close of Gotterdammerung and its sense of finality consists not in the recognition of a plan being concluded but in the wholly aesthetic control of material to create a sense of redemption and consummation, before finally disappearing back only into the silence and stillness from which it originally issued (Notley, 2000; Kropfinger, 1974).

Moreover on Wagner’s scale, architectonic landmarks would perhaps only get lost, whereas the motivic web and its sense of the whole in every part provides unity at all points. The network has no central point of reference- the initial material remains unstated in the background so that there are no original versions of motifs that their variations are variations of. The motifs always make reference only to this material though, it not being itself transfigured, and thus furnish another argument for the music being uncritical: formal structures in art and society are not given and can change, but instead of then working with and developing them critically, Wagner’s intention seems to be to rise above them altogether, taking the view that an underlying consistency does exist and that change only really takes place on the surface.

One argument for this though may be that truth, the ideal or divine is often thought to exist in the same way that the idea of a perfect circle exists, always hidden in the background but not existing in the material world: the only existing circles are imperfect variations of the initial idea, and in a similar way the holistic form or truth Wagner insists on may not be found in the material world but instead grounded transcendentally. By contrast the dialectical progress toward intellectual certainty in knowledge, as paralleled by architectonic form, has long been under suspicion. The finished melodies that do begin to emerge in the Eroica, expressive of giving rational sense to the world out of uncertainty or complexity, are in Wagner always broken down again to form new configurations- yet material still plays aesthetically rather than arbitrarily, merely in parallel with play of form rather than within form, and thus the sense of following in place of critical reflection need not be mistrusted. As with the search for intellectual certainty or rational principles underlying reality, the search for distinct themes is taken to be a wrongheaded enterprise.

To summarise, rather than perspicuous architectonic form finding a traditional linear path from beginning through middle to end, form by web generates a homogeneously interrelated network of motifs from dynamic characteristics of the initial material itself, making form as well as content specific to each work. Every moment of the canvass has the connotation of being extrapolated to create all the others, though this then means Wagner has constantly to build and burn harmonic bridges to move forward, leaving no traditional sense of connection with the previous music. Even in the Eroica, as a mid-way point between form by architectonics and web, the result is for conviction to increase rather than lessen as the attention spreads out from the linear direction and its pre-given conclusion. In Wagner’s use of the technique however, unlike Boulez’ further development of it in a work like Le marteau sans maitre (1953), linearity isn’t displaced by holism altogether in as far as the material present at each point is traceable backwards and forwards for long distances, with different levels of the music relinquishing their connections at different rates: his works retain the sense of methodical movement through the different regions of a vast argument.

Wagner’s ideas of art changing society by influencing audiences from within, through his inner rather than external form, and looking to them as religious congregations who transcend dialectical thought to a more holistic or spiritual awareness, may largely be products of his own theorizing than clear inferences from Beethoven. However in the Eroica, framed argumentation and Apollonian rationale do seem to dissolve instead into a genuine set of formal dynamics existing within Dionysian turbulence. The motivic web’s formal logic is unarticulated but is surely more than a ski-ride of the passions lacking critical space: instead of thesis, antithesis and synthesis resting on conventional frameworks or sets of cultural presuppositions forever subject to revision, it offers a non-conceptual foundation to thought based on faith and art as religion.

Bibliography

Cooper, B. (1990) Beethoven and the Creative Process, Oxford University Press, New York, pp.150-1

Cooper, B. (2000) Beethoven, Oxford University Press, New York, pp.120-1

DeNora, T. (1995) Beethoven and the Construction of Genius, University of California Press, Los Angeles, p.161

Geck, M. (1996) Beethoven, trans. A.Bell, Haus Publishing, London, pp.74-9

Kerman, J. and Tyson, A. (1980) The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Macmillan, London, Vol.2, pp.381-4

Kinderman, W. (1995) Beethoven, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.86-91

Kropfinger, K. (1974) Richard Wagner’s Reception of Beethoven, trans. P.Palmer, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.97-8, 119-21, 155-64

Lockwood, L. (1982) Eroica Perspectives- Strategy and Design in the First Movement in Beethoven Studies 3, Ed. A.Tyson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.87-93, 98-101

Notley, M (2000) ‘With a Beethoven-like sublimity’: Beethoven in the works of other composers in The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven, Ed Glenn Stanley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.239-41

Marston, N. (1991) Symphonies in The Beethoven Companion, Ed B.Cooper, Thames and Hudson, London, pp.214-6

Scott Burnham (2000) The Four Ages of Beethoven: critical reception in literature, the arts, philosophy, and politics in The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven, Ed Glenn Stanley, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.278-81

Solomon, M. (1977) Beethoven, Macmillan, New York, pp.140, 194-7

The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1980), Macmillan, London, Vol.20, pp.118, 124

Wagner, R. (1872) A Happy Evening in Pilgrimage to Beethoven and Other Essays (1994), trans. W.Ashton Ellis, Keegan Paul, London, pp.78-9

Wagner, R. (1880) On the Application of Music to the Drama in Religion and Art (1994), trans. W.Ashton Ellis, Library of Congress, USA, pp.176-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McHugh 02 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sean McHughSean McHugh 02 (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)