Beethoven's Ninth Symphony: A Portrayal of Its Musical Content, with Running Commentary on Performance and Literature as Well 0300054599, 9780300054590

Citation preview

Beethoven's Ninth Symphony

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

(fbeetf,o\'ett S

{Nintf, ~tJmpf?o»tJ A Portrayal of Its Musical Content, with Running Commentary on Performance and Literature As Well

Heinrich Schenker Translated and edited by John Rothgeb

Yale University Press New Haven and London

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

yn ~72.

'

,,.

1 '" :i.,

'{ f\ Lt.

53f

Published with assistance from the American Musicological Society. Copyright© 1992 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Designed by James J. Johnson. Set in Walbaum Roman type by Keystone Typesetting, Inc. Printed in the United States of America by Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. 10 9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Library of Congress Cataloging-inPublication Data Schenker, Heinrich, 1868-1935. [Beethovens neunte Sinfonie. English] Beethoven's ninth symphony : a portrayal of its musical content, with running commentary on performance and literature as well I Heinrich Schenker ; translated and edited by John Rothgeb. p. cm. Translation of: Beethovens neunte Sinfonie. ISBN 0-300-05459-9 i. Beethoven, Ludwig van, i no- 1827. Symphonies, no. 9, op. i 25, D minor. I. Rothgeb, John. II. Title. MT130.B43S313 1992 784. 2 It 84-dc20 91-36684

l

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

yn ~72.

'

,,.

1 '" :i.,

'{ f\ Lt.

53f

Published with assistance from the American Musicological Society. Copyright© 1992 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Designed by James J. Johnson. Set in Walbaum Roman type by Keystone Typesetting, Inc. Printed in the United States of America by Edwards Brothers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. 10 9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Library of Congress Cataloging-inPublication Data Schenker, Heinrich, 1868-1935. [Beethovens neunte Sinfonie. English] Beethoven's ninth symphony : a portrayal of its musical content, with running commentary on performance and literature as well I Heinrich Schenker ; translated and edited by John Rothgeb. p. cm. Translation of: Beethovens neunte Sinfonie. ISBN 0-300-05459-9 i. Beethoven, Ludwig van, i no- 1827. Symphonies, no. 9, op. i 25, D minor. I. Rothgeb, John. II. Title. MT130.B43S313 1992 784. 2 It 84-dc20 91-36684

l

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Contents

Translator's Preface Preface

XI

First Movement

29 30

Formal Plan First Part First Theme Introduction Antecedent Section Consequent Section Modulation PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Second Theme Part a Partb Part c PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Third (Closing) Theme

3

31 31 31 34 37 39 40 45 53 53 54 54 61 65 73

PERFORMANCE

Bo

LITERATURE

83

Second Part (Development)

89

Transition First Subdivision Second Subdivision Third Subdivision Fourth Subdivision

90 91 93 93 97 97 100

PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

viii I

Table of Contents

Third Part Recapitulation PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Coda PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Second Movement Formal Plan Main Division First Part of the Main Division First Theme Antecedent Section Consequent Section Modulation Second Theme Third (Closing) Theme Returning Modulation PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Second Part (Development) Continuation of the Modulation First Bar-Group Second Bar-Group Third Bar-Group Fourth Bar-Group Fifth Bar-Group Sixth Bar-Group PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Third Part Recapitulation Transition to the Repeat of the Development Coda PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

105 i 05 115 115 120 129 132 137 i

38

1 39 1 39 1 39 1 39 140 141 141 1 45

146 1 47

150 160 160 161 161 161 161 161 161 165 166 167 167

i69 i69 170 171

Table of Contents

I

ix

Trio

177

178 178 178

a2

Coda PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Third Movement

1 79

181 181

Formal Plan

183 184

Introduction Theme Intermediate Theme

185 185 196

First Variation Repetition of the Intermediate Theme Free Transition to the Second Variation

196 198

Second Variation Coda

202 203 210 214

PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Fourth Movement Formal Plan General Considerations First Division

Part I Recitative Theme First Variation Second Variation Third Variation Coda Modulation

Part II Recitative First ( = Fourth) Variation

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1 99

223 224 225 227 227 227 2 35 236 236 2 37 2 37 238

x I

Table of Contents

Second ( = Fifth) Variation Third ( = Sixth) Variation Transition

251 251 252

Fourth ( = Seventh) Variation Retransition Fifth ( = Eighth) Variation

252 255 261 261 268

PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Second Division First Bar-Group Second Bar-Group Third Bar-Group PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

Third Division Double Fugue Recitative and Transition PERFORMANCE LITERATURE

285 286 288 290 293 294 2 94 2

95

300 3o3 3°5

Fourth Division First Bar-Group Second Bar-Group Third Bar-Group

309 309 310

PERFORMANCE

314

LITERATURE

31 5

Fifth Division First Bar-Group Second Bar-Group Third Bar-Group

314

319

320 321

PERFORMANCE

32 3 32 5

LITERATURE

326

Appendix: Works by Heinrich Schenker

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

33 1

Translator's Preface

The 191 2 German original of the monograph translated here was the second of a series of analytical works which, as the author explained some years later, "had the function of amplifying the basic concepts of the [Neue mu.sikalische] Theorien und Phantasien. " 1 In 1910 Schenker envisioned it as one of several "independent literature appendices" to the as yet unwritten third volume of the Theorien und Phantasien. 2 Plans to publish a study score of the symphony as a separate companion volume-and thus to proceed in a manner consistent with other works of this more analytical category-were never realized. 3 Schenker never undertook a revision of the work, and thus its publication history to the present concludes with the issue of a second edition in 1969, in the form of a photomechanical reprint under the banner of Universal Edition's Wiener Urtext Ausgabe (Karl Heinz Filssl and H. C. Robbins Landon, General Editors). After the book's original publication in 1912, the most extensive documented re-engagement with the Ninth Symphony on Schenker's part occurred in 1924. On May 7 of that year, the symphony was l. Counterpoint 2, p. xii (see the Appendix, "Works by Heinrich Schenker"). The other works mentioned by Schenker in the same context are the Erliiuterungsausgaben of the last Beethoven piano sonatas, his edition of the complete cycle of Beethoven's sonatas, and the first volume of Der Tonwille. This list was circumscribed by the respective publication dates of the two volumes of Counterpoint; in principle it should also include, as a first entry in the analytical series, the Erliiuterungsausgabe of Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue; and, as subsequent entries, the remaining numbers of Der Tonwille and the three volumes of Das Meisterwerk in der Musik. 2. Hellmut Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, nach Tagebilchem und Briefen in der Oswald Jonas Memorial Collection (Hildesheim, Ziirich, and New York, 1986), 29. The projected third volume was at that time intended to include not only the completion of Schenker's treatment of strict counterpoint and the "Bridges to Free Composition" (see Counterpoint 2, p. 175££.) but also the theory of free composition itself. 3. References to this plan are found in letters in the Oster Collection at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts from Emil Hertzka, then executive director of Universal Edition, to Schenker of 7 March 1912 (File 52, nos. 432 and 433) and 12 Dec. 1913 (File 52, no. 440 ). The latter speaks of "an orchestral score based on the original manuscript, with your Erliiuterungen."

xi

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

xii I

Translator's Preface

performed in Vienna under the baton of Paul von Klenau, in celebration of the hundredth anniversary of its first performance. According to Klenau's preface to the published program book, For historical reasons the Ninth Symphony by Beethoven is to be performed today approximately as it may have sounded one hundred years ago. The same number of orchestral instruments are used as were, according to available documents, used then; the original instrumentation by Beethoven is employed, without additions or alterations of any kind. The tempi specified by Beethoven himself through metronomic indications are, after conscientious examination of the original score, to be realized faithfully. 4 Klenau had written to Schenker (with whom he had met on one previous occasion, for consultation about the Missa Solemnis5) as follows on 28 December 1923: "I am just now reading your Beethovens neunte Symphonie with great gratification; a splendid book, full of vitality and from a vital source. Your approach is unusually provocative. The material comes to life in an amazing way."6 A personal consultation took place on 30 April 1924, during which, according to Schenker, "we went through the whole symphony." 7 Schenker's evaluation of the concert can be found in his journal entry for 7 May 1924, which, to the extent that it concerns the Ninth, reads as follows: The first movement of the symphony very good with respect to tempo, but not free enough in the second and third themesdefinitely leaving something to be desired. The second movement very good in the first part, the Trio too slow. The Adagio noticeably following tradition in the beginning, timid in any case; the violins not well enough rehearsed. More animated toward the end, and more in accord with the original tempo. The last movement good, even very good, except for the opening recitative. A great success for the conductor. The program book mentions my Neunte in a footnote.8 Schenker's Neunte attracted the attention of other performing musicians as well. Doubtless the most eminent of these, Wilhelm 4. Oster Collection, File B, no. 84. 5. Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, 16!.i. 6. Ibid., 165. 7. Recorded on the same date in Schenker's journal. Ibid., 166. 8. See also Schenker, "Hundert Jahre IX. Symphonie," Der Tonwille 8-9 (April/September 1924):53-54.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Translator's Preface I

xiii

Furtwangler, has described his first involvement with the monograph as follows: This book happened to come to my attention when I began my career in Lubeck as a minor concert capellmeister in the year 1911, and it immediately aroused my most fervent interest. Even if I did not wish to endorse all details, even if I found the author's polemical tone excessive in many cases, the overall formulation of the questions, the thoughtfulness and insight that underlay the answers to these questions, were nevertheless so extraordinary-the work as a whole so set apart from the conventional musical literature-that I felt deeply moved. Here, for the first time, I found no hermeneutics; instead, the question was asked, simply and objectively, what really stands before us in the work-in the Ninth Symphony by Beethoven. There was no search for formal schemata, from which so much confusion arises today; rather, the actual form of the unique work was described. There was no talk of historical connections, but rather of the composer's inspiration, which most profoundly concerns and affects us all, and which has left its organically necessary stamp in the work. 9 It was the Neunte that motivated Furtwiingler to seek personal contact with Schenker in the first place, and later to consult him frequently on musical issues that arose in the preparation of scores for performance. lo Franz von Hoesslin, at the time conductor of the Symphony Orchestra of Riga, wrote to Schenker in an undated letter presumably of July 1913 that "I am again at work on the study of your book, with great enthusiasm." 11 Hoesslin reportedly went so far as to affirm that should the performance he was then preparing be successful, Schenker would deserve credit as well.12 In a letter to Schenker of 6 March i g i 5 Bernhard Paumgartner 9. Wilhelm Furtwiingler, Ton und itbrt. Auf5iitze und Vortriige J 918 bis 1 95 4 (Wiesbaden, 1954), 199ff. 10. The Schenker-Furtwiingler relationship is extensively documented in Federhofer, pp. 106-133. 11. Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, 15 7. 12. An entry in Schenker's journal many years later (8 Dec. 1928) reports on a concert conducted by Hoesslin: "To be safe, we visited H. before the beginning of the concert". Such precaution proved unnecessary, however, for the continuation of Schenker's entry declares his full approval of the performance and concludes: "We thus went once again to Hoesslin and congratulated him, which visibly delighted him." (Federhofer, 158.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

xiv I Translator's Preface

wrote that "when in a moment of good fortune-only far too late-I first became acquainted with your book about the Ninth, from the outset I was captivated by the excellence, the depth and originality of the work, which rests on a fabulous technical foundation."13 The Newite Symphonie brought Schenker communications from other, less well known conductors, such as the letter of 2 April 1926 from Georg Dohm of the Breslau Orchestral Society. 14 Identifying himself "as a connoisseur and admirer of various of your publications, especially your Portrayal of the Musical Content of Beethoven '.s Ninth," Dohm proceeds to question Schenker at length as to the correct performance of the head of the fugato theme of the symphony's second movement-in a word, as to whether the first and third notes should be staccato or non-staccato. Schenker replied on 5 April 1926 that "I concur for many reasons with your opinion that one should play as follows in the Scherzo: l )> ~ ."15 Critical reception of the Neunte Symphonie was generally positive. Several reviews were sampled in Musikpadagogische Zeitschrift for June 1913: A series of extremely probing reviews exist of this excellent work, which on its publication quite rightly attracted the attention of professional musicians and music lovers. Several of these reviews are excerpted in the following discussion. Prof. Dr. Max Graf writes in Die Zeit: "Noticeable efforts have recently been made in the field of music, as in that of visual art, to facilitate access to the masterworks of these arts by means of penetrating technical analyses. The problems of form are dissected, the path from the technical to the spiritual sought. Wolfflin, Voll, and others are to be credited with valuable formal analyses of visual art; we are likewise indebted to the Viennese music theorist Dr. Heinrich Schenker for several instructive analyses of works by C. P. E. Bach and of the Chromatic Fantasy by J. S. Bach. His latest work is a bar-by-bar exegesis of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which thoroughly and seriously investigates both the large-scale form and the small-scale articulation, and strives, through illumination of the inner tonal life of the Ninth, also to reveal the path that leads to a meaningful performance. Musicians and educated music lovers will read Heinrich Schenker's explanations with great profit, whether they completely agree with them or not, since the positive knowledge, the objective 13. Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, 183. 14. Oster Collection, File 8!2, no. !28. 15. Copy in the Oster Collection, File 8!2, no. !29.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Translator's Preface

I

xv

dedication, and the penetrating quality of the Schenkerian method of investigation will involve the reader too as a participant in spirit." Bruno Schrader, in Die Zeit am Montag, [writes as follows]: "The portrayal of content, which is at once formal analysis, performance instruction, and literature survey, reveals itself to be a masterful achievement, as thorough as it is clear, long unequaled by any other work in the area. All who relate to this revered work of Beethoven's-be it as conductor or player, as listener or as author-will be touched by this book. It takes the place of all [previous] literature on the topic." Walter Dahms, in the Konseroative Monatsschrift, writes that" ... the forty-page preface to this book on its own deserves broadest dissemination by virtue of its golden truths. Seldom has anybody spoken to us in such a hearteningly Germanic and clear manner. And Schenker is entitled to do so. For his portrayal of the musical content of the Ninth Symphony shows him to be one of the most able and learned of those who today set pen to paper about music. It is a book for very serious people-for such as want to enrich and deepen their understanding." Although none of the critiques consulted in the preparation of this edition expressed negative judgments about the content of the Newite Symphonie, opinion was divided about the obviously polemical character of many passages in the text. Several reviewers shared Furtwiingler's reservations,16 as mildly stated by Max Graf, for example, in Die Zeit: "I find the polemical part, or, more exactly, the tone of the polemical part, not altogether felicitous in the otherwise so excellent new book." Others differed, however. Bernhard Paumgartner wrote in Heimgarten (September i 914) of a "salubrious (wohltuende) polemic against the intolerable intellectual sloth perpetrated in the form of popular musical guides." It is perhaps appropriate to follow the advice of D. R. 17 in Der Kunstwart (September i916): "One should not be led astray by the overly testy, moralistically inflated preface, which makes things all too easy for Schenker's opponents." Given the scope of Schenker's subsequent theoretical develop16. An entry in Schenker's journal for 16 and 24 April 1920 reports on an evening spent with Furtwiingler: "Once again there is talk of my polemics, and I observe that F. has again changed his stance; it sounds as if he feels himself targeted as well, and this makes me still more irritated. As usual, I justify and defend my right to polemics, and, as we enter the cafe, I let myself be carried away so far as to say that I have the obligation to annihilate my opponents. 'There you have it,' F. says, 'is it any wonder that they defend themselves?'" 17. Not further identified.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

xvi I

Translator's Preface

ment, one might wonder how he himself viewed the Neunte later in his career. Those familiar with Schenker's work will hardly expect to find any subsequent retraction of opinions set down in 1912. As the work at hand does not encroach in any unsatisfactory way on the territory later cultivated more extensively, however, it seems likely that any adjustments Schenker might subsequently have wished to make to the Neunte Syrnphonie would have been of a supplementary rather than a corrective character.18 Indeed, in a letter to Otto Baensch of 4 July 1925, Schenker opens the possibility "that one day I shall find time to append to the Neunte Syrnphonie as well the Urlinie, 19 which is the ultimate authority in all matters of voice leading and form." 20 Schenker was in fact at work on the Ninth-and, indeed, on its Urlinie-in April 1924.2 1 An extant page of sketches in his handwriting shows the foreground of the exposition of the first movement in considerable detail. 2 2 The verso of the same sheet shows extremely i 8. The Oster Collection includes an incomplete draft in the hand of Schenker's wife, undated but obviously dictated in the early 1930s, of a rather long letter to Albert Einstein, in which Schenker appeals for Einstein's assistance in enlisting material support for the publication of Der freie Satz. (At the head of the draft is an annotation in Schenker's hand, nicht abgegangen [not sent].) The last paragraph of the draft reveals that Schenker planned to include, as an example of his work, a copy of the Neunte Symphonie, which "has become a standard work of the literature." Oster Collection, File 30, nos. 18-30. 19. Meaning not merely the fundamental line (i.e., the Urlinie in the sense in which the word was used later in Der freie Satz), but the comprehensive graph of the foreground. 20. Copy in the hand of Mrs. Schenker, Oster Collection, File B, no. Bo. The letter was written in response to one of 19 June 1925 from Baensch to Schenker (Oster Collection, File B, no. 79) in which Baensch enclosed proofs (File 2, no. 66) of his essay "Der Aufbau des zweiten Satzes in Beethovens neunter Symphonie," written for the 1925 Bayreuth Festival guide. The essay speaks of "the very penetrating and thorough book by Schenker," and allows that "the importance . . . of Schenker's explanations ... is so great that anybody who wishes to form a clear conception of the musical shape of the symphony will have to come to terms with them. To be sure, even those explanations cannot claim ultimate validity: apart from the fact that Schenker occasionally errs or overlooks important aspects, he lacks the concepts of forms of higher order, which [Alfred] Lorenz has derived from the music of Wagner." This latter observation obviously motivated the affirmation that closes the above quotation from Schenker's reply. 21. This reconsideration of the symphony was in all likelihood precipitated by the aforementioned Vienna performance of 7 May. Another contributing factor might have been advance knowledge on Schenker's part of the imminent publication of the facsimile of the first autograph score (Leipzig, 1924; reprint, Leipzig, 1975). Exactly when Schenker was first able to consult this source cannot be determined, but it was not before mid-1913. A journal entry for 20 July of that year remarks: "Reply to Hoesslin, Riga, with the message that to me personally the original [manuscript] (Ninth) is unfortunately still unknown." (Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, 158.) 22. Oster Collection, File 82, no. 32.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Translator's Preface I

xvii

condensed synoptic overviews of the remaining movements. Other pages show voice-leading strata for the Joy theme, very carefully worked out although in quite rough draft. 23 It is unfortunate that the results of this work were never published. Besides an inevitable assortment of misprints, the German original contained a substantial number of errors, especially in the quotations from Wagner and Rochlitz, that evidently resulted from printers' misreadings of the almost certainly handwritten manuscript.24 Corrections of these errors have in most cases been editorially noted for the convenience of readers who might wish to consult the original. Editorially added footnotes are enclosed in square brackets; all others, with one noted exception, are by Schenker. The musical examples have been reproduced from the original German edition, where they unfortunately included a number of errors of various kinds; these have been corrected to the maximum extent compatible with the need to keep production costs within reasonable limits. Consultation of original sources is advisable for the reader who needs absolutely definitive musical texts. The rubric "usw." often appended to examples is the German equivalent of "etc." Special thanks are due Jurgen Thym for his advice about certain problems of language, and Janet Schmalfeldt for valuable suggestions about several portions of the text. Robert Kosovsky of the New York Public Library provided a great service by photocopying, on his own initiative, a number of items from the Oster Collection, which were then most perspicuously collocated for my use by Hedi Siegel. The preparation of this work was supported in part by the National Endowment for the Humanities, an independent federal agency.

23. Ibid., File 82, nos. 25 and 26, the latter on free-hand staves hastily drawn on plain paper. Many other such references to the symphony, some with fragments of musical notation, are also found in the collection. 24. The original may indeed have been in Schenker's own hand, which does lend itself to misreading.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Translator's Preface I

xiii

Furtwangler, has described his first involvement with the monograph as follows: This book happened to come to my attention when I began my career in Lubeck as a minor concert capellmeister in the year 1911, and it immediately aroused my most fervent interest. Even if I did not wish to endorse all details, even if I found the author's polemical tone excessive in many cases, the overall formulation of the questions, the thoughtfulness and insight that underlay the answers to these questions, were nevertheless so extraordinary-the work as a whole so set apart from the conventional musical literature-that I felt deeply moved. Here, for the first time, I found no hermeneutics; instead, the question was asked, simply and objectively, what really stands before us in the work-in the Ninth Symphony by Beethoven. There was no search for formal schemata, from which so much confusion arises today; rather, the actual form of the unique work was described. There was no talk of historical connections, but rather of the composer's inspiration, which most profoundly concerns and affects us all, and which has left its organically necessary stamp in the work. 9 It was the Neunte that motivated Furtwiingler to seek personal contact with Schenker in the first place, and later to consult him frequently on musical issues that arose in the preparation of scores for performance. lo Franz von Hoesslin, at the time conductor of the Symphony Orchestra of Riga, wrote to Schenker in an undated letter presumably of July 1913 that "I am again at work on the study of your book, with great enthusiasm." 11 Hoesslin reportedly went so far as to affirm that should the performance he was then preparing be successful, Schenker would deserve credit as well.12 In a letter to Schenker of 6 March i g i 5 Bernhard Paumgartner 9. Wilhelm Furtwiingler, Ton und itbrt. Auf5iitze und Vortriige J 918 bis 1 95 4 (Wiesbaden, 1954), 199ff. 10. The Schenker-Furtwiingler relationship is extensively documented in Federhofer, pp. 106-133. 11. Federhofer, Heinrich Schenker, 15 7. 12. An entry in Schenker's journal many years later (8 Dec. 1928) reports on a concert conducted by Hoesslin: "To be safe, we visited H. before the beginning of the concert". Such precaution proved unnecessary, however, for the continuation of Schenker's entry declares his full approval of the performance and concludes: "We thus went once again to Hoesslin and congratulated him, which visibly delighted him." (Federhofer, 158.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:13 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface True connoisseurs of poetry have at all times and in all places been exactly so rare as true poets themselves. -LESSING

On being invited by the Association of Music Critics in Vienna to present a series of lectures to its members, I selected for the occasion the Ninth Symphony by Beethoven. For reasons that need not be discussed here, the lectures were never presented. This gives me no reason for particular regret, however, as the invitation by my publisher to transform this work into a monograph has provided the opportunity to make it accessible in a significantly expanded and enriched form to a larger public. I need not say aloud with what high spirits I set about the task! What work of music literature would be more worthy of an endeavor of creative imitation-in the best sense of the term-than the Ninth Symphony by Beethoven! I did not hesitate to subordinate to the new task for the time being the work Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien (vol. I: Harmonielehre; vol. 2: Kontrapunkt), 1 begun by me in 1906 and awaiting continuation, for no sacrifice was too great when the time came to harness my powers in the service of the Ninth Symphony! As in any endeavor of this kind, a variety of perspectives arose at once that did not need to be introduced only artificially and from without, but rather strode outward from within as though they were organic elements of the raw material, and literally demanded representation. Thus my first goal, naturally, had to be to reveal the musical content of the work. My second goal then presented itself no less naturally: taking as a basis the new results gained through the analysis, to set forth the accordingly reconceived peiformance canon, at least to the extent that such can be expressed in words. (1. See the Appendix, "Works by Heinrich Schenker."]

3

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

4 I

Preface

The third goal, however, was to verify the result of the analysis and forestall misunderstandings, so that, further, the Beethoven work itself should be insulated against any possible future errors. The latter goal I could accomplish only by subjecting the most prominent efforts in the literature on the Ninth Symphony to an exacting critique, and by striving to expose at least the most disastrous of the errors contained in them. It will have to be granted that the intentions just stated stand in the most intimate relation to one another, and that I am therefore justified in organizing my work in keeping with those intentions. Accordingly, three rubrics are established for the course of the work: analysis, performance, and literature, which will recur in this order movement by movement and section by section and which, incidentally, are also differentiated by external means.2 I take the liberty here, nevertheless, to impart to the reader a few general thoughts that lie close to my heart concerning each of the individual rubrics.

I Analysis of the content gave me the desired opportunity to specify the tonal necessities, hidden until now, that caused it to assume exactly one form and not any other. Thus it was necessary to place in evidence not only the individuality of that content as specifically the content of the Ninth Symphony, but to a still far greater extent also the primary character of such content in general. In the beginning was content! Just consider the fact that in Beethoven's time there was no textbook of composition that could have directed him with more or less well chosen words to those mysterious wellsprings that are the exclusive dispensers of everlasting artistic life. How did none other than Beethoven come to learn of them? Do not be surprised that I give the following seemingly paradoxical answer: a musical content that is so perfect in itself as that of the Ninth Symphony uncovers laws of tonal construction that most other human beings do, indeed, carry within their own bosoms, but that only the genius, by dint of natural gifts, can actually make manifest! Elsewhere, in an "Outline of a New Theory of Form," 3 I shall demonstrate that those laws are [2. That is, typographically. This applies, however, only to the literature rubric, which is set in smaller type than the remainder of the text.] [3. The treatise was never completed. Material pertinent to it is included in the Oster Collection at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I 5 by no means merely arbitrary discoveries of individual artists, but rather belong to all mankind. But it is tragic beyond measure that even when a genius has succeeded in finally placing them objectively before the senses in a work of art, man still fails to recognize these laws as his own and to grasp their necessity! What appears to be man's approbation, pleasure, and enjoyment of the work of art cannot be considered a full apprehension of the laws of creation that reside within the human being-that is, apprehension of the necessities of musical content. Instead, there is at the outset only a vague notion of what has been brought to fulfillment by a genius-a notion which, to be sure, is the only avenue of approach that enables mankind nevertheless to assimilate the content to a certain extent. From this point of view, unfortunately, the product of a genius always remains ultimately an image alien to mankind, one whose laws of origin are designated as arbitrary inventions of the artist under the name "form"! Such a hollow word for the expression of tonal necessities! Nature shows no respect for human professions, and distributes the gifts of genius according to imponderable laws-but certainly without regard to professions-; thus it happens that even music theorists, when they are not already blessed with genius by Nature herself, relate to the products of genius as complete aliens, just like the layman, without grasping the ultimate necessities of content. Small wonder, then, that instead of illuminating necessities and giving them expression in words, just as the composer has done in tones, they follow the opposite path-namely, the one of manufacturing so-called "forms" on the basis of numerous comparisons with other products, so as to fathom the content only in terms of these forms. Thus, while for the genius a specific content could produce only this specific shape and none other, the theorists grasp the con tent a posteriori only through a form arbitrarily abstracted by them, but one in which no manner of necessity rules. At least up to the present, however, the capacity to perceive such artistic necessities has been so exclusively the privilege of the genius alone that not even gifted composers, whose instinct for those necessities was sharper than that of theorists and laymen, were able to muster the power to perceive them through and through, and accordingly to bring them to fruition as a work of art. And so, in spite of all gifts, those composers had no recourse but to invoke the aid of more or less well conceived formal plans, to which they fitted the content! It goes without saying, however, that in such a case Art forgoes

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

6 I

Preface

Nature, so to speak-forgoes, that is, that ultimate truth which alone carries necessity within it. It should not be objected that there simply could be no other way for all of these theorists and composers, and laymen as well, to find access to content except through formal patterns. For in my view mankind would have to succeed-presupposing good will, to be sure, and freedom from partisan innuendos-in recognizing the necessities of tonal life as such (only thereby to gain a command of the foundation of formal conceptions) if they would but first recognize that the allegedly arbitrary creative laws of the genius are, as said earlier, in reality their collective property. ff those humans who are at all inclined toward music are to be able to learn as well as possible to interpret what is inherent in them in order to respond more adequately, with instincts thus deepened and schooled, to the works of genius, preliminary instruction in art will, admittedly, have to be more rigorous the less widespread the distribution of genius as a gift of Nature. No small amount of encouragement to follow the true path is contributed, incidentally, also by insight into the harm, both general and particular, inflicted by the practice and politics of art up to the present. Just look: on the one hand, in the instincts of the genius, mysteriously governing necessities, that truly cede nothing to the other marvels of Nature; but as resonance among the theorists, on the other hand, mere formal schemata devoid of necessities, or (worse still) among laymen, an even more helpless naivete! Such a clash of opposites! Woe to mankind, though, if, through overestimation of its own worth or (which comes to the same thing) insupportable deprecation of the genius, it misuses precisely its own inadequacy to usurp authority over "good" and "bad" in art, as is happening at this very time. What can be expected in that case except what we are in fact unfortunately obliged to witness today? Today people coin slogans like "classicism,'' "epigonalization," "Modern German School". They speak of "progress," of "reactionary music," and hurl these words back and forth, at this or that individual, so unfoundedly, aimlessly, and indiscriminately that a chaos necessarily arose in whose fog the true art has reached its demise. Moreover, how was the immunization against bad works (and there are truly more of them than of the good), which is so completely necessary, supposed to take effect so long as the art-works of our great masters were considered only in terms of the formal schemata falsely abstracted by theorists? Isn't it the bad works that hamper the

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

7

good, on the path to either artistic or economic success? And if the layman occasionally fancies having picked up a whiff of a purely mechanical formal cause of content, and therefore rejects, does he not then commit the far more disastrous error of designating just such a work as also belonging to the "school of the masters," and thus of holding the geniuses responsible for what their imitators nefariously produce? People then unfortunately call the forms simply obsolete and superseded, even in the hands of the geniuses. They have no notion that this judgment can never apply to those works of art that actually have nothing in common with the "form" so erroneously presumed to lie within them! And thus they arrive at the most intolerable dilemma: obligation on the one hand to show respect for "masters," but on the other hand to characterize the very works of those masters as mere formalistic expedients for solving tonal problems, and indeed as expedients that today allegedly have long since been surpassed by better ones. (But where do they suddenly find the gift of discrimination?) The dilemma subsequently becomes the more debilitating as the necessities contained in the art-work of a genius-notwithstanding all slogans about "progress," which is supposed to have elevated the art of today so far above that of a Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven-nevertheless claim their victory over the bad works! This fact alone already provides enough information about the true state of affairs and raises significant questions! How does it happen, we would have to ask, that what has been believed to be long dead can nevertheless again have a vital effect? Has the "form" changed while we were not watching, and with it the content as well? Or should we unjustifiably prefer to dismiss the effect, perhaps simply because we have formed false notions of what "form" in music really is, and peremptorily opt to "progress," even where "progress" in the generally accepted sense is neither needed nor, for that matter, possible? Can artistic truth and necessity, to the extent that they are present in a work of art, change into lies and fortuity or undergo any other form of belittlement just because (at best) a similar truth is thought to be encountered, or actually is encountered, in a different work of art? And thus, we conclude from all of this, all that matters in dealing with a work of art is to perceive with all senses the necessity unique to it; to enjoy it when it embodies the truth of such a necessity, to reject it when it does not! But this, as I have said, presupposes the art of apprehending necessities of tonal life! I personally have already attempted to the best of my ability in

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

8 I

Preface

two cases-in the edition of keyboard works of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach4 for one, but even more extensively in my edition of the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue by J. S. Bach5-to provide the player with a guide to the essence of the work of art. Now that I am, thanks to a happy stroke of fate, in a position to augment these two works with a third one (specifically the present one), I take this opportunity to inform the friends of my work that I shall find it possible very soon, I hope, to lend smiling fate a helping hand and organize my effort within the framework of a comprehensive plan. I can already announce with satisfaction as a certainty that I shall be able to come to the aid of the last five piano sonatas by Beethoven6 and defend them against editors, teachers, and performers of low understanding and possessed by dilettantish insolence. (This work, incidentally, was initiated some time ago at the behest of certain authorities in my homeland, who also promised to furnish the necessary resources; its execution, however, has been obstructed by intrigues and vanities.) And more besides: if my labors on my principal work7 leave me sufficient time, I contemplate describing, in a newly founded "Kleine Bibliothek, "8 with brief and concise words those necessities that hold sway in other masterworks by our geniuses. And I hope thereby to be able to offer more substantial contributions to the study of composition (Kompositionslehre) than are found in modem textbooks.

II Under the above mentioned performance rubric I have endeavored, without intending to encroach on the territory of a monograph "Die Kunst des Vortrags"9 to be published in the foreseeable future, to set forth performance instructions insofar as possible in general principles and rules. (I believe, incidentally, that I am the first to consider similar principles at all applicable to a material that appears to be in a state of constant flux.) Naturally I have also endeavored, however, to provide the rules in all cases with their psychological foundation as thoroughly as possible, in order to shield [4. See Appendix.] [5. See Appendix.] [6. In the Erlailterungsausgaben. See Appendix.] [7. Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien.] [8. This became Der Tonwille.] [9. This work was not finished by Schenker. A text has been pieced together by Heribert Esser from Schenker's notes, but publication plans remain indefinite.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I g them from even the appearance of being merely accidental and arbitrary. For this reason the rubric of performance would have automatically required still more exhaustive treatment; but in view of the greater importance of the revelation of content, I had to satisfy myself with less extensive commentary. Thus I am all the more obliged to deal with several general matters of the most important nature here in the Preface. In appearance, my performance instructions stand in contradiction to Beethoven's own orthography-that is, to the way he has written down the content. But this apparent contradiction resolves itself as soon as I explain the nature of the orthography. Specifically, it is not the task of the orthography, as is generally believed and taught, to provide the player with perfectly definite means for achieving effects allegedly specified and attainable only through precisely these means, but rather to arouse in his mind, in an a priori manner, specific effects, leaving it up to him to choose freely the appropriate means for their attainment. It is therefore incorrect to see in the orthography nothing more than the definite specification of equally definite means, and to take it literally in this sense. What is correct, rather, is that the orthography on the contrary allows the player free rein concerning the means to be employed, just so long as they actually do attain that defmite effect which alone was meant to be expressed by the orthography. In short: orthography announces and seeks effects, but says nothing at all about the means of producing them! From this standpoint, therefore, a legato slur, for example, expresses first and foremost merely the desire for the effect of a legato, without indicating in what way it is supposed to be achieved; and it is accordingly wrong to associate-invoking the orthography as the allegedly authentic wish of the composer-with a legato slur the conception of only one, completely definite, manner of execution from the outset. Or-to speak of dynamic markings as well-if the composer writes a p, for example, he wants it to express only the desire for the effect of a p: far from specifying any absolute quantity, however, he leaves it to the player to seek and express this effect by taking into account various circumstances, such as the instrument, the register of the melodic content (high or low), and so forth. Under certain circumstances, therefore, the effect of a p will be produced in, for example, a higher register by a dynamic quantity which, if measured by an absolute standard, would have to count as mf, or indeed even as/

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

10

I Preface

A second example: an sf notated by the composer signifies, again, the desire only for the effect of sf, but leaves to the discretion of the player himself to choose from among the numerous techniques of production the one which, in the given situation, is most desirable with respect to effect. It should moreover be noticed about dynamic markings in particular that in the works of our masters (granted, unfortunately, only there, however), far from merely suggesting dynamic conditions, they play as well a completely unique role in relation to synthesisthat is, form. They indicate in this connection not only cadences, modulations, and the like, but also formal parts, by connecting them, differentiating them, expanding them, guarding against disintegration, and so on. More than enough examples of such things will be found in the work at hand. Precisely from these relationships of dynamics and form, however, it can be inferred that dynamics do not represent a perhaps arbitrary determination by the masters, which ultimately could have been made differently for the same content, but rather signify, like the content itself, a definitive immutability! If the Ninth Symphony, for example, had, like most of the works of J. S. Bach, come down to us without explicit indications, a capable hand would have had to enter the dynamic markings exactly as Beethoven himself did. The task, therefore-this is the final, most important consequence!-is purely and simply to recognize from the orthography which effect the composer intended to be associated with it! But from this we derive not only confirmation of the fact that our orthography-as I have already pointed out in the preface to Counterpoint [vol. i, p. xvii)-still represents scarcely more than neumes, but also the recognition that merely in order to be able to understand the orthography-that is, the desired effect-one must know very well the laws of tonal life! As we see, the same postulate returns ever again! From this it follows with strictest consistency that ignorance of compositional laws obstructs insight into the true meaning of the orthography and thus must at the same time engender a faulty and incorrect representation of content! But an incorrect presentation or performance of content has completely different consequences in music than in, for example, poetry. In poetry, as in language generally, it is specifically the connection of the words to objects of the external world and other images based on them that, by itself, effects at least general comprehensibility and ensures reliable articulation into

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

11

principal and secondary clauses and so forth-a precision which, incidentally, finds external expression in writing through the use of punctuation, and in recitation through appropriate modulation. But it is different in music: for want of a general intelligibility confirmed by the external world, from motif to motif and through scale-degree progression, those relationships which resemble the words and sentences oflanguage must first be created and brought to expression. In music, therefore, the performance must create analogs of words and sentences-elements that in language are already fixed with complete certainty long before the performance takes place. Ignorance of the composition, and all that follows from it-misunderstanding of the orthography, as well as misrepresentation of the content-, therefore lead in music to senseless distortion through proliferation of what may be thought of as false musical words and sentences! In that case it is simply as though in language, for example, one were to pause suddenly in the middle of a sentence with the effect of a period, but on the other hand to speed past commas and periods, with the result that logic would suffer a slap in the face. It is immediately understandable that works that display ingenious and original traits of synthesis pose infinitely greater difficulties for both analytical comprehension and performance than works with simpler or faulty organization. That is also the reason genuine masterworks, which indeed belong to the first category, are as a rule read incorrectly with respect to meaning and performed in a distorted way, so that in those very works, which constitute the principal nourishment of musical humanity, in sharp contrast to the merely tacitly sensed advantages, the impression of boredom becomes un avoidable. From the standpoint of that boredom perpetrated by performers, works of the second category, on the contrary, evoke in a natural, but admittedly problematic, manner a much more lively impression. But who notices the true reality-namely, that the cause of the latter circumstance lies only in the so vastly lighter demands of the content and thus also of performance? How much easier it is, in spite of their deceptive superficial pomp, to play the symphonies of Tchaikovsky or Bruckner, for example, than those of Haydn! How many more ingenious features of content in the latter than in the former demand incorporation into the performance! While for more simply organized works the ease of performance and secure mastery of the modest requirements that in any case attend performance so mislead the public that they speak rapturously of the performers as having constantly "outdone themselves," it has long been no secret to

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

12

I Preface

more insightful conductors that a symphony by Mozart, for example, poses incomparably more difficult demands than any "modern" work. But is it right, just because the simple is performed with greater security than the complex, to add the favor of the more comfortable circumstances to the credit of the performer and to consider it a reason for special praise? And what superficial and faulty conclusions are moreover drawn by dilettantes from these misunderstandings! They ascribe the boring impression made by a performance of a classical masterwork to the "classicist," which they childishly construe and explain simply as a man suspended in an alleged state of "equilibrium" (that of "boredom"?), completely estranged from life for the sake of Art. Theimpression of vitality made by the nonclassicist, on the other hand, they relate-certainly not without self-flattery-to an allegedly "modern spirit of humanism" in the composers. Thus, under the influence of vanity and completely free of any sense of guilt, all conceptions of content and orthography, of good and bad performance, of classicists and moderns, and the like, are blurred together in the minds of dilettantes. And how very sad the consequences of all of these befuddlements even in terms of economics! Has anybody thought up to now about what an enormous significance within the gross national product attends the creations of, for example, a Beethoven, even as an economic factor? Which industry of the world can command figures of so many millions as he? Just consider that his works have been performed for more than a hundred years, and that their demise surely cannot be expected even after millennia. What an immense flow of money his works precipitate, when we take into consideration the autographers, printers, publishers, conductors, piano and violin virtuosos and other instrumentalists, singers, orchestra members, opera houses, choral organizations, reporters ("critics"), teachers (of piano, violin, singing, and so forth), concert bureaus, costume makers, and the rest, who strive to make a living for themselves and their families out of his works! This immeasurable monetary flow takes place in all states of Europe, America, Asia, and Australia, in plain sight, but in spite of it, the most insignificant merchant, whose intellectual capacity is limited to the contents of his ledgers, regards himself as a more economically necessary factor than Beethoven, whom he views at best as a luxury item, perhaps necessary on aesthetic grounds but nevertheless an economic burden for mankind! Such an indefensibly petty mercantile

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

13

point of view, however, has been the opinion of the whole world right up to the present, and this includes ministries and govemmentswhat parliamentary address has ever taken art into consideration at all, to say nothing of recognizing it as an economic factor!-, which still have no notion of the incomparable economic significance of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, or Wagner! At most, people recognize the more visible profitability of a Puccini; and if in recent years even travel bureaus have already learned to misuse musical art methodically with so-called "music festivals" and "musical weeks" in order to produce more income, that is evidence only of sullen egotism at pains to make money by any means. It does not signal a conscious recognition of art as an important economic factor, which under certain circumstances could also even lend a hand to needy tradespeople. Just ask all those who have enhanced their income through such "festivals" whether they in tum would occasionally be able to spare a few dollars for the needs of art and you surely hear the answer that they have no esteem for such a "luxury item".... 10 But what narrowmindedness, what ingratitude there is in such a viewpoint! Now perhaps, thanks to these observations, people will understand me when I call the bad performance of classical masterworks a transgression against the economic vitality of nations as well! Rich economic resources are squandered by impressions of boredom for which the performance itself is to blame; and in enterprises that could generate new millions, only petty cash is coined. What income J. S. Bach alone would generate if people only knew that his works (both those that have been performed and the innumerable ones that have not)-given a correct performance-could be infused with an impressiveness equal to [that of], say, Verdi or Puccini! Just perform them with the expression that is their birthright and they will set money flowing to an extent undreamt of from such a source by today's society! In view of this great importance of performance for art in both artistic and art-economic respects, musicians of insight consider even more farcical the activities of dilettantes and amateurs, who, through ignorance of the causal relation between content and orthography, so gladly dare to contradict none other than the masters! In their naivete they then invoke what is called "interpretation," which is supposed to be only a matter of instinct; and instead of [10. The ellipsis is in the original text.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

14 I

Preface

considering it an honor to learn to guide their own musical instincts onto paths parallel to those followed by the masters (which would be such an obvious choice), they arrogate to themselves a superior sensitivity, and prefer instead to distance themselves from the masters! The same is done, incidentally, by those editors, whether famous or unknown, who, allegedly more knowledgeable about the works of a Beethoven or a Chopin than those very composers, dare to introduce revisions, alterations, and addenda to those works that most crassly expose their own amateurish ignorance. And these discrepancies in the editions of editors are doubtless to blame for the amateur's delusion that all interpretation of content is in the final analysis only a matter. of _instinct, and therefore can be left up to the amateur himself, just as well as to the various editors! To forestall any possible misunderstanding, let the manner of performance here recommended be defended also against such objections as might be found in authentic or allegedly authentic accounts by contemporaries of Beethoven himself. Thus all utterances along these lines by, for example, Czerny or Ries, irrespective of their credibility or lack thereof, are to be regarded from the outset as unreliable, for the simple reason that even the two witnesses named, like all others as well, may by no means be ascribed the capacity for evaluating Beethoven's personal manner of playing as such-that is, its most profound bases-, to say nothing of describing it in words. Nobody, not even a Czerny or a Ries, can judge the performance of a composition if he himself does not have the most precise understanding of its content. How much has been written about Beethoven's "free playing," about his allegedly "capricious" performance-but in every case only with the more or less clearly expressed presumption that the ultimate cause of that manner of playing must have been lack of "practicing" ("Einexerzieren"). Such philistinism, and such a glaring proof that the ear-witnesses, as I have already said, knew the compositions of the master too little! And to make this observation still clearer through an analogous one from the most recent past, allow me to mention that similarly erroneous things have been reported by ear-witnesses about Brahms's manner of playing. Who, I ask, whether friend or foe, was in a position not only to grasp completely the compositions of the last-named master as he performed them for them for the first time, but also to assess at once any merits or deficiencies in the performance on the basis of the still not understood content? People to this day like to speak of a blurry type of playing by Brahms-but how few have stopped to think that their

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

15

mistaken impression derived from the octave technique so characteristic precisely of Brahms, one that had as almost an indispensable technical prerequisite such a light and, as erroneously believed, blurry manner of playing! Be most emphatically forewarned on this occasion, therefore, against the impressions of ear-witnesses. Whoever they may have been, they lacked the gift to grasp and judge the still unknown composition through a still unknown performance. Naturally, the converse is true as well.

III I have already indicated above the raison d'etre and purpose of the literature rubric and thereby anticipated the objection that I might engage in polemic only for its own sake. However unpleasant this part of my work may be to readers or authors who would prefer to do the polemicizing themselves (usually for lack of positive accomplishments on their part) and therefore wish neither to recognize nor to understand the advantages offered by my own polemic, I nevertheless here declare myself completely free of all vanity, and cite the content of my polemic itself as proof that I am concerned only with the illumination of truth. I regard it as precisely my most bounden duty to oppose every possible error-in the recognition, to be sure, that representation of truth by itself does not aid and satisfy mankind unless at the same time all paths of error are blocked. What would be the use, I thought, of stating in simplest terms the truth regarding the Ninth Symphony by Beethoven if I were not to avert the chance that one or another reader, purely for motives of opposition, should counter me with an ad hoc, deliberately contrived, and totally ill considered deviant "interpretation"! For this reason, then, it turned out that I took especially seriously the task of rebutting opposing interpretations. And it is probably self-explanatory that errors already set down in print appeared to me more suitable for treatment in an objective polemic than any that have not yet been formulated. Need I not fear, though, that many readers, quite dissatisfied that I so unceremoniously wrench these material objections from their hands, will substitute for them any others they may choose? Vanity alone drives most of them to make "objections" against the author at any price! How convenient, then, simply to accuse the latter-when his work so severely compromises one's own vanity-of

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

16 I

Preface

"verbosity"! With the greatest show of sangfroid and hypocrisy, one declares either publicly or privately that one would really, of course, have long known everything the author sets forth so "verbosely," and would therefore be unable to understand the purpose of the so "unnecessary" verbosity. To this complaint, which I certainly expect to hear, I counter in advance that how little the critics of this ilk know of the content presented here is most easily demonstrated by all that they have so far written or spoken. And for the rest, I make the same claim in my own behalf as that made by such a master as C. P. E. Bach, in a very significant letter, concerning the verbosity of which he had been accused: Should anybody allege my Versuch 11 to be too longwinded, he has said nothing, and at the same time betrays a great ignorance. I divide all keyboard players into two classes: to the first class belong those whose primary occupation is music, and all amateurs who want to be thoroughly trained. My Versuch belongs to players of the first class, and there is not an unnecessary paragraph in it. From the supplements to my treatises, which will be published later, 12 it will be seen that I have [not only] said nothing unnecessary, but have not yet said all there is to say.... It is therefore plain to see that an abridgment of a textbook on playing keyboard instruments will invariably harm rather than help the process of its thorough assimilation, even if this abridgment is otherwise free of errors. Every Master Compendium-Writer of whom I am aware has written in a certain sense too little, and in a certain sense too much-and, what is worst of all, a mountain of errors in all respects. What pitiful stuff one finds from some of them! The reason for it is this: to judge by the books, their authors have never learned the art of composition, which, however, they simply would have to know in order to ... 13 It is self-explanatory, finally, that in making the selection of texts (as not all, certainly, could be given consideration) I gave preference to those from leading writers and also treated them in chronological order: [ 11. i4?rsuch uber die wahre Art, da.s Clavier zu spielen (Berlin, 1 753 and 1 762); edited and translated by W. J. Mitchell as Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments (New York, 1949).] ( 1 !2. Apparently a reference to the VI Sonatine Nuove that were added to the 1 787 revision of the i4?rsuch.] ( 13. The ellipsis and discontinuation of the quotation are as in Schenker's text. The original ending in Bach's letter, which appeared in the Hamburgischer unpQJ'teiischer Correspondent 7 ( 1 773), would read in translation "be able to write correctly about accompaniment." The bracketed interpolation is mine.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

17

Richard Wagner, in the essay "Zurn Vortrag der neunten Symphonie von Beethoven" (1873); 14 Hugo Riemann, in the Katechismus der Kompositionslehre ([Leipzig:] Max Hesse, 1889), part l; Hermann Kretzschmar, in the Fuhrer durch den Konzertsaal ([ 2d. ed.; Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel,] 1890);15 George Grove, in Beethoven und seine neun Symphonien (1896);16 Felix Weingartner, in his Ratschliige for Ausfilhrungen der Symphonien Beethovens ([Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel,] 1906). 17 Let it be noted at once, however, that absolutely no polemical purpose underlies the excerpts occasionally cited at the beginning of the literature rubric from Beethoveniana and Zweite Beethoveniana by Gustav Nottebohm,18 as the sketches derived therefrom are intended rather to show the object [under consideration] from the most interesting aspect-specifically, the initial origin of the ideas. What a terrible shame, incidentally, for the whole world of musicians and those who are interested in music-but particularly for the German nation itself-that a work such as Nottebohm's, which belongs among the few truly valuable monographs in our literature, has not even appeared in a second edition since [it was first published in] 1872! Sketches by even a Beethoven exert so little power of attraction that in the course of forty years and twenty-five years, respectively, not even, let us say, a thousand teachers and students of composition can be found who have profited from such immeasurable treasures! One infers from this the comfortless, but irrefutable, result that most musicians obviously make the approach to their art easier than does even a Beethoven! How surprising is it, then, that even amateurs, according to them, claim already to possess music if they but derive some kind of pleasure from it, even of the cheapest kind? I believe I may say that I have succeeded in the examples cited under the literature rubric in demonstrating the presence of conse[14. Gesammelte Schriften und Dichtungen von Richard Wagner (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1888) 9:231-251. Originally published in Musikali.sches Wochenblatt, April 1873.] [ 15. The pagination of this second edition, which was not available to me, apparently differs from that of both the first ( 1887) and third ( 1898) editions. I have left Schenker's page-number references intact.] [ 16. German translation by Max Hehemann (London, 1906) of Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies (3d ed., London, 1898). See below, First Movement, note 20.] [17. See below, First Movement, note 22.] [18. Beethoveniana (Leipzig and Winterthur, 1872; reprint 1970); Zweite Beethoveniana (Leipzig, 1887; reprint 1970).]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

18

I

Preface

quential errors. Permit me now to derive important conclusions from them-conclusions initially pertinent to the authors cited here, to be sure, but immediately extensible from the latter to the whole musical situation of the present time in general. In particular, if, as is evident here, the otherwise so original and consequential Wagner has so completely misunderstood the Ninth Symphony precisely in respect to the most crucial artistic points-for example, in respect to voice leading, structure (Konstruktion), orchestration, style, and so forth-then must this not automatically discredit all the consequences he has drawn with such unprecedented passion from his own misunderstandings in support of an alleged progress based on the idea of superseding absolute music? Let the correction of the Wagnerian errors finally, however, count also as a contribution to the investigation of Wagner's musical nature, which, as has been freely and publicly acknowledged on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death, has, in spite of the enormous literature devoted to him, still received no illumination of any kind. The proof given here of Wagner's primitive relationship to the exalted laws that found expression in the works of our great masters-a proof which, incidentally, I plan to bolster further with countless additional arguments in part 3 of my New Musical Theories and Fantasies19_thus explains how it became possible for Wagner to apostatize absolute music and to embrace and promote the music drama on every possible pretext as allegedly the exclusively curative ideal. The proof moreover makes comprehensible how it came to pass that none other than Wagner dealt musical art its deathblow by appealing to the broadest spectrum of the populace as audience for his own "music dramas" (ah, the theater!) and thus incapacitating it for dedication to the more arduous differentiations of absolute music. It was he who, constantly flattering the so-called "naive" listener, made the approach to tonal art easier for laymen than they, with their laziness, self-indulgence, or conceit-and always with mutual assurance of their capabilities for decisive "judgment" on the basis of so-called musical sensitivity-already made it on their own accord! It was he, I insist, who was responsible if a new generation of (19. The plan was not carried out.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

19

composers finally completely neglected even to strive for that perfection found in the masterworks, which alone signifies the true salvation of art. He is to blame if they strayed off into a musical jargon that related to the true and perfect musical art of our masters just about as medieval or "kitchen" Latin related to the original Latin of a Virgil, Ovid, Cicero, or Seneca! But from this analogy, which can be taken literally, one should not conclude that, granting the decline of the high art of our masters, hope may still be nurtured for the birth of a new art from a new seed, just as surely as the more recent languages of younger nations have replaced the Latin language. For I answer that empires can doubtless come and go; that languages can die and give way to new ones; that birth and death thus affect only the one empire here, the one language there, as in a sense mere individuals, who will be followed or supplanted by other individuals. Tonal art, however, remains, after a centuries-long evolution, an art based in its ultimate products on laws immutable from nation to nation, from race to race, from century to century. Once dead, it has died not merely for a particular nation, but for all of humanity! Tonal art will never rest on laws different from those discovered in it by the great masters! It was therefore Wagner, I repeat, who precipitated that massive catastrophe whose witnesses we now become! It was he who bestowed, with what may be compared to usurped imperial powers, the general suffrage, and thus elevated the "naive" listeners, the millions of ciphers, to the status of "individuals" and "personalities"! Now the new Wagner-creatures fill up the world with their unproductive noise! But how farcical to see how, instead of cultivating the much publicized "progress" in art in a true sense, not just an imaginary one, they unite in a millionfold outcry in hopeless nostalgia for the one personality! Thus it is not they who themselves help: they merely grovel for the help of another! (The bankruptcy of the false personalities can be observed today, incidentally, in other domains as well-in politics, for example, where the all-too-many unproven "personalities" in tum long in identical hopelessness for the one true personality who could bring reason and change to the exigencies of sociopolitical life! How clear the inference from this that all salvation is ultimately to be expected only from the genius, who also truly activates personality, in contrast to which the so many putative "personalities" rolled up together once again amount to only a-mass! We tum now to Riemann. Anybody who agrees with me that Riemann's interpretations are false will find it impossible simulta-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

20

I

Preface

neously to defend the theories that led him to such results. What did he gain, for example, by beginning in his Kontrapunkt20 exactly at the point where "strict setting" in truth has rather to leave off? Did he imagine himself thereby to introduce composition students to the art of composition in the best, because shortest and most convenient, way? It is demonstrated here, however, that he is not even able to do justice descriptively to a composition stemming from the earlier contrapuntal school-one that he presumably would not dare to describe as poor! And don't his hordes of all-too-vainglorious students betray the fact that the alleged alliance of contrapuntal study with composition has in fact deprived them of the possibility of approaching the ultimate necessities of the masterworks? Of the remaining authors cited here it must be said that Kretzschmar and Grove present almost no kind of technical basis in their analyses and judgments, while Weingartner, just by virtue of his serious substantive efforts-which, to be sure, apply exclusively to the practical aspects of performance of the work-acquits himself to very good advantage. Thus while we must regret that the last of these authors failed to enrich the purely practical viewpoint by investigating structural coherence in order to attain correct results, in the case of the first two, their complete unproductivity in all directions-that is, toward both interpretation and performance-must be affirmed. But now to the general conclusions. If we extend the result observed among the authors mentioned ad minores to the many musicians, theorists, writers, academy directors and other school principals, who fail even to possess insights (for all that they cannot be accused of such failure), then we gain the dismal picture of the present time, with all the whining that is typical of it! In view of the results of my critique, can it still appear bold to assert first of all that the ~isjudgment of the art of a Beethoven by the cited authors is obviously not confined to his Ninth Symphony? Mustn't a misjudgment of the products of all remaining great masters then logically be assumed? What a glaring contrast between this inexpressibly lamentable situation and the delusion of modern mankind that they could claim to be intimately acquainted with the works of our masters, especially with the Ninth Symphony! If the author of a much-publicized recent Beethoven biography expresses the following thoughts: "Modern books about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or (20. Lehrbuch des einfachen, doppelten, und imitierenden Kontrapunkts (Leipzig, 1888).]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

21

Wagner may be interesting as attempts to show that which has long been known in a new light. In pure substance, however, they can scarcely provide new knowledge. They represent a literature of luxury, through which our understanding and judgment is at best 'refined,' but not directly 'enlarged.' "-am I not in such a case obliged to combat such stuff and nonsense, and to declare my readiness in respect to this author to prove to him, just as to Herr Kretzschmar or Grove, that he knows nothing of that which differentiates Beethoven from any arbitrarily selected bad composer of our time? Alas! If people only knew just who our old masters really are! Today as ever, it is exactly the so denounced older masters who set the table for contemporary mankind-the annual statistics on number of performances will convince the most skeptical-, not only in the sense of spiritual gratification, but also in that of the economic benefits so uniquely convincing to the Americanized world. But how ungrateful a world that rakes in quickly enough what the masters bestow in gratification and monetary profit, but fails even to exert the effort to get to know them well enough at least not to besmirch them with low and self-serving comparisons and ideas! Modem table guests of a Beethoven resemble all too closely those justly despised parasites who eat their fill at table but then abusively cajole and mock the host! Here are a few random samples of the shamefully distorted conceptions people associate with the masters. Sometimes people say of a contemporary composer that he has "become the heir to" Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and dub him, precisely by virtue of the laudable "heirship," the herald of "progress." They deem it possible in such a case, therefore, to achieve "progress" even while adhering to the "old masters." But then a different composer's alleged fidelity to the "form of the masters" is chalked up simply to a "reactionary musicality," so that the same masters who on the one hand are granted the status of godfathers of progress are on the other hand exposed as co-conspirators in musical obsolescence! Where are the masters to be found, I ask, and who do people think they are? Or, further: it is in vogue on the one hand to chide none other than Brahms as an "epigonist," but on the other hand to honor the "heirs" to the "epigonist" as the full-blown "modem" musicians! Who can reconcile this contradiction? Or further still: the modem "prodigies," whether composers or performers, are, flippantly enough, elevated above those precocious .

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 of:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

22

I Preface

geniuses and actual prodigies from which finally grew masters like Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, Mendelssohn, and so forth. But observe: suddenly the precocious genius of the young Handel has to suffer a very unflattering comparison with a composing boy wonder, cranked up to unusual heights by excessive publicity, to whom there will certainly never be granted even an inkling of the greatness of a Handel! I ask: is Handel now lesser or greater? Which Handel has the author of this comparison intended, and is it not rather to be suspected that he clearly has no understanding of the Handelian in Handel-of that which makes him a genius? Or again: pleasure is taken in private social circles in glibly prophesying a Brahms twilight, to begin in fifty years at the latest. (Ah, if only these little prattlers had the courage to put this fatuity on paper, that unintentional heroism just might at least secure for them what their own accomplishments are never able to secure: a place in history!) Nevertheless, Brahms as the musical "forefather" of a modern artist is still given the highest marks. Which Brahms do they mean? As can be seen, the chaos of opinions is incorrigible! Even at the risk of doing an injustice to the masters, as dispensers of the most splendid musical excellences, everybody nevertheless worships only his own "sensibility," his own "naivete," and nobody points out that understanding and knowing by no means exclude naivete! We should just ask whether knowledge of German grammar robbed all the many millions who have used and still use the language of their naivete. And is it supposed to be different only in music? Is it not clear to see that our contemporaries, with their selfserving publicity for their "naivete," have wanted only to proclaim the right of ignorance? In the Americanized world ignorance has become a profitable business, for how easily the genius of ignorance draws other ciphers to it, who thus become, in the cheapest, most convenient way, "personalities"-even if only personalities of the second rank. How simple the tactic: one disavows the masters, proclaims oneself a master and dubs others knights; then all proclaim "progress" and regard themselves as its standard-bearer! But since they are unable, all efforts notwithstanding, to produce progress themselves, but can only hope for its attainment by the eagerly awaited messiah (how feeble a gesture), they pass the time till his coming with all manner of nonsense and frivolous direct or indirect blasphemy against the great masters!

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I 23 Thus, for example, an unmusical Englishman or continental musicologist travels to an isolated island, collars any islander he sees there, and records primitive tonal patterns in order to proclaimafter "scientific" processing of the data-a new tonal system as a result, which could be of good service even to us, in spite of all the treasures of our musical culture!! Even if I leave aside the fact that the accomplishments of the musicologist in question, as we have long known, do not even give him the right to consider himself a true connoisseur of musical art, how does he manage, I ask, to find among the island's inhabitants exactly the one informant who is the most trustworthy and musical? What if he happened on a completely ungifted islander? Which "critic" will pass judgment there about the level of musical capability? This state of affairs is so grotesque and the presumption of the musicologist so laughably absurd that I cannot resist posing the analogous question: How would it be if, conversely, a Chinese, for example, wanted to orient himself regarding our tonal system, and through some trick of fate should happen on the theory of none other than Riemann or his students? Would he then form a true picture of the practice of our masters?! Can it not be understood, then, that in frequently used locutions like, for example, "China has the following tonal system" (substitute "Ceylon," "Java," "Sumatra" at will) completely unverifiable assumptions are concealed in an all too arrogant manner? And the endorsement of the presumptive "systems" is analogous to a modern architect's praising stilt buildings and the like as "progress" in architecture: "Renaissance, Gothic, ancient style? What is all of that to the "modern" age, which needs new means of expression? Only stilt buildings can satisfy every modern wish!" Now perhaps the reader will have an inkling of the conclusion of the "conclusions": We must finally manage to understand each work of art in terms of its own necessities! But where else than in the masterworks can insight into such necessities of Nature and Art be gained?! Therefore, in my view, the first obligation of the present era is to make restitution for the offenses committed against art by preceding generations, and to find the surety of all recuperation only in assimilation of the treasures that have come down to us from our masters! Vacuous propriety must at last become true possession! Do not dare to trifle with the future! It is high time to put aside anxiety about the "judgment of

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

24 I

Preface

posterity"! For throughout all eternity, judgment on past as well as future art will be rendered by nobody else but-our masters! Thus it will not be, as is assumed, aestheticians, "critics," salesmen, beautiful girls and women and the like who will pass definitive judgment in future centuries; rather, just as always, only the scores of the masters will function as tribunals! A symphony by Brahms, so long as it continues to resound, will be the judge of all who today or later either compose symphonies themselves or merely undertake to judge them! So long as our masterworks resound, they will lay bare the compositions of, for example, a Berlioz, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, and the like. There would be only one way for the latter works to claim parity with the former, and that would be finally to burn all of the masterworks at the stake! I warn you: do not dally with Art! Break the back of the fierce resistance of mankind, which always reduces the genius to a kind of cost-free sunshine and would like to take Art as a beautiful garden-one that, by the grace of God (and therefore once again cost-free) dispenses pleasures of blossoms and fruits! Sunshine, blossoms, and fruits are bequeathed to us by the munificent Creator, but Art by artists, by human beings. Therefore Art demands responsibility on the part of humanity, and the duty of cultivation! How often-alas, unfortunately all too often-has it happened to men that, more or less guilt-laden, they have inflicted damage to seed and harvest without being able to rectify the damage! In the organism of every individual human lies a dark hour of crisis, which fairly introduces the decline of the body. The marked man still knows not that his last hour awaits him, nor for what reasons; but the demon, once having crept in, only lurks in wait nevertheless to bring him down. This applies no less to the life of each individual nation. I fear that in the artistic life of the German nation the generation of those fathers who lived in the second half of the nineteenth century have played an all too fateful role! May their children succeed in averting the calamity! Let none try to disarm the grievances and prophecies detailed here, either for himself or for others, by saying that long before me, in earlier decades and centuries, others, including even highly praised masters, had similarly prophesied the decline of art, but that the latter has nevertheless always continued to progress! In all modesty-which, please believe, has been given to me in far larger quantity than to the most insignificant layman and which prevents

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I 25 my joining the ranks of the authorities who raised their voices in Cassandra-cries long before me-I must, for the sake of the truth, which stands even higher than modesty, proclaim clearly that those very masters were not themselves acquainted with the type of rational deliberation that I apply to musical questions, and therefore could not themselves have applied it! But, incidentally, have the gloomy prophecies of C. P. E. Bach, for example, not actually proven most lamentably true? Has the general state of mind of the musician and the music lover not, in spite of the geniuses who came after C. P. E. Bach, actually declined to just the low level he predicted? Has the time not come when the proudest works of our literature-those of J. S. Bach-cannot even aspire to a suitably worthy performance, just because they lack performance markings and because musicians no longer have a practical command of thoroughbass and continuo? Has the art of improvisation not been extinguished in the meantime? (Judging from historical reports, I assume that Mendelssohn may have been the last who still possessed this art; whether even Brahms possessed it is at least unknown!) And who knows whether that art of improvisation was not inextricably bound to that character of sensitivity, always so appealing even in the midst of pathos, that spread so much light, warmth, and cheer over the works of our masters, and for which no manner of philosophical commitment or mad chase after unresolved appoggiaturas and the like has since been able to substitute? Now I believe I am obliged to fear that the feelings of all who have directed their efforts toward the Ninth Symphony will suffer more injury the more the truth set forth here proves instructive to them. The intrigues of human vanity are familiar enough! What do most people care about truth when their vanity is at stake? Anyone who has enjoyed a position of authority, be it as father, husband, friend, or teacher, knows only too well how little he is inclined to inquire as to whether he enjoys this authority truly with justification! If it but flatters his vanity, he is content to rest comfortably in his authority and tolerates no disruption. If he is suddenly confronted by a truth whose mysterious power causes his authority to waver, his vanity immediately capsizes into offense-taking, and he begrudges the disturber of his peace, without noticing that he provides exactly thereby the clearest proof that he undoubtedly never deserved the presumed authority! For truly, it is only incompetence which, once unmasked, cowers before the light and rages only until that darkness

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

26 I

Preface

that has so salubriously concealed it for such a long time returns through the whizzing arrows. In view of this condition, I wish now to request most earnestly that the seriousness of the work at hand be shown at least the respect of a substantive response. We live in a hard time of intellectual robber-baronry; and no Maximilian has yet come into view who would be able to promise peace in the affairs of intellect. One shuns suggestions from other quarters, as one shuns learning in general; and where our forebears (even a Goethe!) openly expressed gratitude for suggestions that proved of value, today the very sources of inspiration are discredited! What a sorry state of affairs! Sometimes the author is treated to a conspiracy of silence-not that the conspirators abjure the benefits they derive (in proportion to their gifts, naturally) secretly from his works. Sometimes, in the absence of worthy accomplishments on their own part, people try to equate themselves with the author at least by claiming unjustly to have "objections" to his views, while if challenged they would in truth be able to name none! Or, they shirk the duty of substantive discussion in that they deceive the reader, with locutions like "this is not the place," for example, into believing that the critic could in some other place present perfectly definite substantive rebuttals. Or, a reviewer uses the word familiar, that ominous word familiar, to sneak in an idea that heretofore has by no means been familiar, so as to intrude his own countenance upon the reader at the expense of the idea's originator. In short, one expresses agreement on the one hand, but dilutes it on the other with hints of objections, which are not exhibited. But anyone who knows, as I do, the ambition of critics, and knows that they would be able to find just as much space for the presentation of substantive objections (assuming their ability to do so) as they use up for the presentation of their completely idle thoughts, feels obliged to proclaim such unworthy exploitation of the work at hand to be misplaced. And so, in conclusion, let the words of Fichte, which came to my attention only very recently, speak for me as well: Whoever wishes to judge publicly my stance or that of any polemicizing philosopher should have first read and assimilated what is said here. And if I fail to convince, let him lay his counterarguments clearly and openly on the table, so that I and others who think as I do on these matters will be better able to perceive

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Preface I

27

and correct our shortcomings. I am scrupulously prepared to do so, and it will cost me no victory to retract my error and to ask the pardon of the public and all concerned. But if a person has no such counter-arguments, let him be silent and refrain from interfering with what he cannot alter on rational grounds, however it may affect his feelings. His feelings may well be wrong.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Allegro ma non troppo, un poco maestoso

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

to0 ell

11.

"'tl

c: 0

C,) Q,)

l---~;•"'-®'------+-+-~1---+J_ .rJ .r) ~ ' I ]-jJJJ I J?j , I

J___,

_._..j J__.._.J

"Anfang"

n J-nl-

"Timpani" ..,..........,1

"On a page that was used either at the same time as tha t sketchbook or som ewhat later," Nottebohm writes on p. 163, "Beethoven decides in favor of the sextolet motion al the beginning of the first movem ent, abo ut which he had still been undecided in the sketchbook": Fig. 29. " nur 6tel und im Stiick 16te l"

rr rt

'

usw.

Beethoven 's additiona l notation given in the next example (see Not-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

47

tebohm, p. 1 59) obviously relates to the conclu sion of the antecedent section. bars 34- 35 of the score:

How infelicitous, still, the expression of the portamento' The following sketch (Nottebohm , p. 159) pertains to bar 6:,ff. , in the consequent section:

This is where work on the symphony stood in the year 181 7 (or 1 818). Concerning its further progress, Nottebohm writes (p. 164): The drafts mentioned thus far of the first movement of the symphony, and of the symphony in general, were written during th e composition of the Sonata Op. 106. Two of Beethoven 's greatest instrumental works thus fall in more or less the same time period with respect lo date of origin. In the next four years the work did not go well. It was interrupted by work on other compositions. Among the greater works to originate in this period are the three piano sonatas Opp. 1 09, 1 1 o, and 1 1 1 , the second Mass, 14 and the overture 15 Op. 1 24. Beethoven was most intensively involved with the Mass. Only when it and the overture and chorus 16 were fully sketched did his attention turn almost exclusive ly to the symphony. The state of the work as it was resumed and continued in summer or au tumn of 1822 can be determined from a sketchbook. Work on the first movement has, as these excerpts show, advanced som e what:

[14. Missa Solemnis, Op. 123.J [ 1 5. Die Weihe des Hauses. J [ 16. "Wo sich die Pulse jugcndlich jagen ," WoO 98.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

48

I

First Movement

....... I 11

Thus Beethoven, as the sketches show, has all of a sudden considerably worsened the version of the introductory bars to the principal theme in comparison to that of 1817 (or 1818), since the thrust of the newer version is obviously to achieve the tonic of the principal theme merely by the most primitive rolling-out of V 7 • All the more advanced, however, is the appearance of the principal theme itself, which already shows all rudiments of the motivic units mentioned earlier of bars 21-24, 25-26, and 27-30! Riemann describes on p. 140 the course of the Introduction as well as that of the antecedent section as accurately as is at all possible in view of his terminology. He does manage to distinguish the Introduction from the principal theme and he doesn't overlook the subdominant (instead of the [lowered] ~II in D minor he speaks of a " 0 d 2 > chord of the Neapolitan sixth"). Nor does he miss the ellipsis at the~ chord on A in bars 33-34. But Beethoven's higher interests, aiming for the most perfect art of synthesis, he is unfortunately able neither to perceive in an artistically true manner nor to interpret correctly in theoretical terms. Thus the V scale degree in bars 33-34 prompts him to speak of a "halfcadence," without considering that in the course of a thematic idea not every dominant automatically signifies a half-cadence, but only those do that coincide with points where the content to some extent makes a concluding gesture, which, however, certainly is not the case in bar 34. He fares worse still in assessing bars 51 ff., which he describes as the "relative of the subdominant, B~ major"; thus he assumes here instead of a VI belonging to the principal key the presence already of a real key of m major. And now a group of ancillary errors, which stem from the primary one just cited: "This time as well the cadence of the fourth bar 17 (b~ +) is confirmed. The consequent arrives at a cadence on the tonic in the eighth bar, but-because of the sequential construction-with the third in the bass, which necessitates a repetition of the consequent, leading to an ending on the dominant (a+)." Doesn't Riemann owe himself and us a "re-modulation from Bh major to D minor"? and should we be satisfied with "sequential construction" and similar products of embarrassment? Regarding bar 63ff. he says the following: "the half-cadence first acquires two four-bar confirmations (a 7 Mixolydian)"-here a quotation of bars 64-67-"upon which the last bar-motif (the half-cadence 0 a - a+), [ 17. That is, bar 54; this text pertains to bars 51-63.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

50 I

First Movement

respects doubly dangerous and slothfully incorrect-word like "precursors" at all! Grove describes the Introduction in full detail on p. 306. Concerning the principal theme, he first writes correctly as follows: 20 More and more winds join in, the tonal volume increases with each bar, until the whole orchestra breaks loose with a tremendous unison into the principal theme spanning the D-minor triad. [An example is given here.] Now the close relationship of those broken motifs of the beginning to the theme is also revealed. Like the latter, they move downward through the octaves in the intervals of the tonic chord, except that the omission of the third imprints upon them a mysteriously indefinite character. Naive and wrong, however, is the immediately following remark: "This is even more apparent when this 'prologue' is repeated in D, after the establishment of the principal theme." What a poor orientation these words provide concerning the consequent section as such, and the so unusual circumstance that an Introduction ("Prologue" according to Grove!) is bound to it exactly as to the antecedent section! There too the strings take over both theme and accompaniment, and clarinets and horns now join on the latter: Vl. I.

Fig. 33.

"

w ••

'

~ ~

~ sotto voce

•

I

I~

. . . . . . _ . . , , - . . . _ . . . .--r----

This time, however, the principal theme answers in Bb major, as preparation, in a way, for the subordinate theme that stands in the same key: [example follows]. At the same time, however, the tonal poet already shows us-in a few bars formed from the motif: Fig. 34.

~I~ ' ' '

./I..

sf

[20. The German translation by Max Hehemann (see note 16 to the Preface) from which Schenker quotes was not available to me. To judge by Schenker's quotations, the translation is apparently quite free; because it differs significantly from the English original, what I have provided here is a back-translation into English of the German text used by Schenker. (The discrepancy between the German translation and Grove's English is occasionally great enough that Schenker's rebuttal of Grove's interpretation may not app ly-at least not with full force-to Grove's original text.) For this reason I have kept both page and example citations as they appear in Schenker's text, although all such citations differ from the corresponding ones in Grove 's own text.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

51

-what he plans to do with the sixteenths and their rhythm 21 in the principal theme (see a, No. 17) 22 for which he has a special role in mind. But he first turns back from the briefly announced Eb major into D minor and introduces an additional, powerful theme , ben marcato and with full orchestra. The sn decisive quotation in figure 33 is unfortunately incomplete, and thus incorrect, and likely to mislead the reader, since the horns , which are here so crucial (see p. 37), enter already a bar earlier, before violin I presents th e motif. Also incorrect is the assumption ofB~ major and there upon a turning back to D minor. Finally, it is at least incautious to speak as early as bar 63ff. of an "additional, powerful theme." Weingartner23 concerns himself (p. 1 79ff.) chiefly with questions of performance, which do not, at least in all cases, provide e ntirely clear information about his views concerning the form . Thus the question , so acute especially today, of doublings of the horns will be discussed comprehensively only at another point in this work . Attention will be limited here to those passages that pertain in one way or another to the construction of the themes. Thus he speaks of the portamento of bars 34-35 as follows: "The strange run in the first violins and violas together with the diminuendo seems to me like the sudden vanishing back into the earth of a gigantic, ghostly apparition. It is very important that the same breathless pp as at the beginning should be resumed here." How little notion he still has, then , of the true facts. Only an understanding of them, however, would have been able to provide him access even to the correct performance! Regarding bars 76-77, Weingartner writes: The entry of the flute is no simple doubling here. In view of the preceding phrase on this instrument, which is to a certain extent completed by these five notes , and also in the interest of the melodic leading, which I interpret thus:

I let the flute play ... [etc.].

In response, however, one would have to point to the unique personal quality of Beethoven's instrumental technique, which is sadly still so unknown . It was a consequence of that technique that he often chose doublings for only the tiniest particle of the motif, so that in this practice he was able to advance to that completely subtle technique which can be found even in his piano writing, as is shown here by two examples from the Piano Sonata, Op. 106, Adagio: In Grove 's original, "the rhythm and intervals of the semiquavers" (p. 340).] Grove's reference to his own example showing the principal them e .] [23. Translations of Weingartner's texts are by Jessie Crosland from "On th e Performance of Beethoven's Symphonies," in Weingartner on Music and Conducting: Three Essays by Felix Weingartner (New York , 1969), pp. 179-234. All page-number citations of Weingartner have been adjusted to the pagination of that source .] [21. [22.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

First Movement

Fig. 36. 1a. b. 14

usw.

p

.,...

usw.

or:

On comparison of ia with 1 b , we see at the fifth eighth note [of 1 b] a reinforcement by the octave carried out exactly in a manner that is otherwise usable only in orchestral music. But what the example confirms in relation to the preceding concerns of our presentation is that such a reinforcement, in keeping with Beethoven's technique, can enter even at a point in the motif which otherwise exhibits no particularly decisive significance for it. Beethoven's orchestral technique is all the more to be expected, then, in a case such as the following, for example: Overture to Coriolanu;, Op. 62

Fig. 37,

Fi.I~~

Basses cresc.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

J

First Movement

I

53

Now who, except Beethoven himself, would have the courage to enter with the reinforcement by the flute precisely on a passing tone (as in this case the second half note g)? On the other hand, who would allow himself to be led so far astray by such an unexpected reinforcement as to misunderstand the course of the melody and continue it in the region of the reinforcement?24 (Compare, in figure 67, the flute in bar 4!) Moreover, it was yet another principle of his technique that deterred him from so blithely abandoning a higher register of the flute activated by doubling. Because of an effect perceived as poor, he avoided, specifically as a matter of principle, using an octave region merely for doubling but then leaving it subsequently unused after having committed himself!

Second Theme (Bars 80-13 7) At bar 80 the second theme begins. It consists of three more or less independent bar-groups, 2 5 which I here indicate a, b, and c. Part a comprises bars 80-87, part b bars 88-1o1, and finally partcbars 102-137. Part a The content of this first thematic segment is the following: Fig. 38. CL

b~'

~·

>-

Fl.1

I

l>~

Ob. >-

J'

sI r· t I r· I r· ! I ~ +

Fl.

t~

~

It subdivides, as we see, into twice four bars, wherein the latter four bars moreover present only a repetition of the first four. The scaledegree progression moves exclusively with the alternation of I and V. It is on the one hand the brevity of the theme that naturally calls for continuation. This is supplemented on the other hand, however, by the fact that even from the harmonic standpoint the alternation of I and V alone appears insufficient and therefore needs continuation. (24. The "who" in this latter conundrum is Richard Wagner; see the discussion under the Literature rubric. This also accounts for the next, parenthetical, remark .] (25. Tongruppen (tone-gronps) in the original-almost certainly a mistake.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars 8off.

54 I

First Movement

Part b Bar

ssff.

Now the second thematic segment appears. If one wants to grasp its meaning in terms of its ultimate cause, it is advisable to trace the content back to the succession of the following cardinal points: 2 fi VI. I.

Fig. 39. Fl. .(:I. b. 88 P4=

~12 Scale degrees in

I

m maj.: I

-

V

-

VI -

III -

VI

I1>7- IV - V (Half cadence)

The form of this theme thus shows a half-cadence already in bar 95, but a further reinforcement of the cadence is generated in bars 951o1 by means of repetition and expansion of bars 92-95 (see the bracketed bar-groups in the example).

Part c Bar

102ff.

With bar I 02 begins the third thematic segment. Itself articulated into two parts, it exhibits antecedent-consequent construction. As the scale degrees I - IV - V are consumed, the antecedent, bars 102-105, is assembled from two different characters (see below, the brackets in figure 40): Fig. 40. VI.

,~ r~w I

Bar 106ff.

Bar

108ff.

s ... I rtl s ... ~·I r· at I

I

IV

........

r r v '

In the consequent, however, which begins with bar i 06, along with an otherwise strict response to the first motif, a mixture also occurs immediately, in that the minor triad is used as IV in bar i 07. This minor subdominant in turn provides an incentive to have a ~II (Phrygian-cf. Harmony, p. 50) follow in bar 108ff.: c~ - e~ - g~ for c - e~ - g~ in B~ minor, so that now the second motif of the [26. Hauptpunkte; perhaps the word intended was Hohepunkte (high points, or apex-tones).]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

55

antecedent (see the second bracket in figure 40) is already extracted here in the consequent from the harmony of ab II of Eb minor. For the sake of more convenient orthography, Beethoven writes the motif, to be sure, in the spelling b - d# - f#. Musicians should long ago have noticed that the motif of the second bracket in figure 40 shows a different slur articulation in the antecedent (bars l 04-1 05) than later in the consequent (bars l 081 og-[ see below in figure 41 ]): where in the former a slur is written for each bar, in the latter only a single slur spans both bars instead . An artistic sensitivity that had grasped this notable distinction in the first place would then no doubt have been able to solve the great puzzle of the following bars l l 0-1 13 as well. But what all hasn't been read into this, and falsely too! And exactly just the one and only correct meaning has occurred to nobody: namely, that the content of the bars just mentioned represents nothing other than an enlargement of the motif given in the preceding bars:

(Enlargement)

~

And let us marvel at the care with which the master deliberately binds the motif first with one single slur in bars l 08-1 og, so as to be able to "bisect" it the more effectively by means of two slurs in bars 1 l 0-1 l 3: specifically, just as the motif seemed to gain expansion through lengthening of the slur in bars l 08-1 og , it also admits of a thematic enlargement2 7 in the subsequent bars.

27. Analogous examples of an immediately ensuing enlargement are found , for example, in the finale of the Ninth Symphony (see below, Fourth Movement, first Division, bars 198-199):

or in the Ballade in

A~,

Op. 47 by Chopin:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

56

I

First Movement

Concerning the bass in bars

102-103

(and likewise later in bars

106-107):

Fig. 42,

~~~ ~ j'f

it is widely assumed that this is merely a slip of the pen on the part of the master and that the following version was intended instead:

;~·46·.w An incorrect assumption; it is only for the sake of harmonic precision that Beethoven refrains from having the bass as well participate in the neighboring-note construction immediately at the first appearance of the motif. It is for the same reason that he dared only in bar I 03 that which he did not yet consider appropriate in bar 1 02. One must likewise decide in favor of the original version in the cello in bar I I 1; thus:

And similarly-although admittedly on the basis of a cadential situation-Brahms writes as follows in the C-minor Piano Quartet, Op. 60, finale: Fig. 45. VI.

~I J J P+

--=:::

,..----"9- ~

r i¥$¢J r ::::::=-

q.p.

I

1 1

I

~

~

I~=t±Fl=usw.

dim.

PP

3

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

First Movement

57

instead of: Fig. 48.

Here too the neighboring note is avoided, again only for the sake of better clarification of the fundamental B, whose octave is, after all, stated at the same time in the treble.28 It is scarcely to be overlooked that during the enlargement in bars i i 0-1 i 3 the motif of bar i 02-or more exactly only its rhythm:

-continues to be used in the lower voices. At bar 116 a change of scale degree must be assumed. Here it is, to be precise, a scale degree V, which follows upon a hII. The dominant is imprinted with complete clarity in bar 120, from which point it is to be regarded as in complete control up to the entrance of the closing theme, thus up to bar 138. 29 Such breadth of scale degrees! In the figuration of bars 1 16-1 17 a second motif is generated, which undergoes the following transformations. First it takes on a rhythm of eighths in bars 1 16-1 19 Fig. 49. Ob.p '")

&it t ~

~trr VI.

--..

~::::t=~ ~er;;;t::· ~r--~tr"""'!:::r==l === 1

:=:t::I

so as to arrive at an enlargement already in bars 120-127, as the following illustration shows: Fig. 50.

-

~~k tr

__,

ag. J ~

-since figure 50 obviously has to be understood as follows:

From a different perspective, however, figure 50 shows at the same time a contraction (Verkleinerung) as well, as can be seen in the [28. It might be added that the original version supports the pairing of bars better than does that of figure 48.] [29. The original has 132 by mistake.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar 116ff.

I

58

First Movement

first two sixteenths. Precisely this contraction now governs bars i 281 29, so as to lead finally to the following intensification in bar 1 30:

Bar 12off.

Far more significant than the fate of the second-motif just cited, however, is that of the particular third-motif that surfaces for the first time in bar I 20 in flute I: Fig. 53.

Who would suppose just at this point that the motif, which, as the following example shows, first presents itself modestly merely as a filler, almost as a product of inattention:

nevertheless already represents the seed of the closing theme (see bar 138) with its deluge of expression! As early as bar 128 the third-motif appears two sixteenths sooner: Fl.

Fig. 55.

~

11 ~ . ,-

Ob',-

VLL~2~ ~ It is clear, however, that this surely is only a consequence of the abbreviation of the motif in the violins. In bars 130-1 31, still, it appears as though the two motifs-the second- and the third-motif-would grapple with each other, since the shape of the violin figure admits both readings: Fig. 56.

r-----.

!2

...

-=HI f

t:

I j

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

i

I

j

First Movement

I

59

In the subsequent bars 1y2-137, however, it is exclusively the third-motif which, in the form of a tenth-leap in the basses,30 ultimately carries the day! And in the further course of events it is finally again just the third-motif that breaks forth in the oboe as principal motif of the closing theme itself! That the motif of bar 20 is in the meantime used in bars 132-137 in the oboes (and, in figuration, in the first violins as well) as counterpoint against the thirdmotif of the basses should no longer mislead about the true state of affairs. This very counterpoint, however, deserves close attention for a different reason. Specifically, if we examine a precis of the bars in question: Fig. 57, VI. I.~

VI. II.

;~! &3=usw. I

VI. I.

ff j r tusw.I fjj f ~~J

VI. II.

VI. I.

4~-t.---rj~$JSjSJ__,.}~u-sw.~l~j~j~~f ~ ~

(:!:)

;~2

e

VI. II.

~

VI. I.

I I-

+------

~

I@ ff

t~

p

we see immediately that in the performance of the motif dissolved into thirty-second-note figuration, violin I and violin II alternate, and in such a way that the former goes first. (The reinforcement of violin I by the viola in the lower octave changes nothing in this connection.) This alternation occurs three times in the six bars, and is moreover combined with an alternation of registers in which the individual entrances take place as well. The succession of events in particular is the following. In the first two bars (bars 1y2-1 33) violins I and II remain in the same two-line octave with their entrances (eb 2 and f2). In the next pair of bars (bars 134-135) the register-alternation just mentioned enters with its differentiating effect: the entrance of violin I takes place in the two-line octave, and that of violin II in the one-line. The same procedure is followed in the next pair of bars (136-137): violin I enters with bb 2 in 30. See Counterpoint

1,

p. 87.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

60

I

First Movement

the two-line octave, but violin II begins in the lower register with c2 (if the register-alternation were excluded, c3 would be due). Now it is noteworthy that in the last bar (i.e., bar 137), violin I nevertheless joins violin II as reinforcement in the higher register, and that the juncture takes place not with a 2 (as the first thirty-second note of the second eighth), as might be expected, but, surprisingly, and in a seemingly only unnatural and grotesque manner, with a 1. How can this action by the master be explained? Consider first that in this bar Beethoven was faced with the problem of satisfying two different necessities of compositional technique, between which , however, in the interest of unity of effect, a compromise had to be struck. Foremost was the need to honor consistency and provide continuation in bars 136-137 as well to the principle of register- alternation introduced in bars 134-135. For this reason , then, the lower register had in principle to be kept open for violin IL Second, the master had to take care to conclude the six-bar group (bars I 302-13 7) with a final intensification, an effect that obviously can be secured only through reinforcement in higher or lower registers ; therefore violin I had to be invoked in support of violin II. (In the last two eighths of the bar the violas also participate in the intensification.) The entrance of violin I with a 1 is precisely that technical recourse with which Beethoven achieves equilibrium between the competing interests in the most ingenious way. The effects of that entrance are as follows. First, a 1 in violin I preserves the right of the lower register, which is to remain the leading register in bar 13 7 as well; and if the immediately following leap to bP and the continuation of the thirtyseconds in the higher register appear to contradict the interests of the lower, a 1 alone nevertheless suffices to keep the principle of registeralternation in effect. Second, at presages by virtue of its register the first eighth of the following bar 138, b~ 1 , a connection that prevents the latter tone from appearing out of the blue and entirely without sonic preparation! To understand these two effects, it is advisable to consider the version avoided by Beethoven: Fig. 58.

ii'

jfjf

§4t:

(!)

ri.f ifif I ~

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

61

Now we undoubtedly have every reason to marvel at what a thirty-second note can bring about in the world of tones under certain circumstances. What mental energy and what subtlety of ear must our master be credited with! In the course of this work I will have occasion again and again to point out similar profound voice leadings and constructions; unfortunately also to observe how often, precisely because of their profundity, they have been and are misunderstood. The incapacity to cope with such difficulty was willingly served by a very convenient expedient: since people are less familiar with the reasons behind the master's way of writing than with the fact that he grew deaf, they point simply to his deafness as the ultimate cause of all those imagined unevennesses! PERFORMANCE

Bars 80-83. Care should be taken to avoid handling the marcato indication at each fourth eighth-note simply by means of external physical pressure, as we unfortunately hear almost regularly in performances; rather, it should be interpreted as a delicate, almost sensitive emphasis of metric weakness, with most subtle psychic expression, similar to the following, for example: Fig. 59,

&

Schubert, String Quartet in A minor, Andante ...........-:;; ......--:---...

,,,.- :--,,.._

~:e:~.. ~

r1~1

1 r1m

mf

t:

~

... r1r1 ~ ~

~!=t

~j

decrtsc. ~

&

t: ..

r

jrff

To find the correct expression, one should at first imagine the figure as legato, thus articulated as follows: Fig. 60.

_, 1--J usw.

By dint of an incontestably valid law of performance-see C. P. E. Bach, third Hauptstiick, §21: "the notes found in fig. V [figure 61 here] are played in such a way that the beginning of each slur gets a slight pressure from the finger:"31 [31. Versuch, part I, p. 127; Essay (translated by Mitchell), p. 157. Our translation is somewhat more literal than Mitchell's. The bracketed interpolation is by the translator.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

62

I

First Movement

Fig. 61 . . . -

____.

$ s I 8£U

I

*

I

- a finely balanced pressure would be in order for the eighth-notes. When this has been securely assimilated, one can with confidence leave out the legato slur and retain on the eighth-notes only the pressure! (It should not be overlooked that indeed a similar legatoarticulation is brought to fulfillment-as though it alone were the long desired, and basically the only foreordained , articulation-in the immediately following bars 84ff.) Bars 84-87. Here the marking -=:::: ::::==- , by which Beethoven himself provides such clear orientation, is to be scrupulously observed as a signpost! To elicit from the players here an expressive performance of the sixteenths-here of such thoroughly melodic origin-and to channel the flow of the thematic idea securely across the obstacles of the eighth-note rests (which is the only way to achieve the impression of a variation in relation to the preceding bar group 80-83), Beethoven, through the marking -=:::: ::::==- , expressly contained the four bars under discussion as a self-enclosed unit by dynamic means. Let conductors at last understand how completely in this case the creation of such a unit, which might be considered indivisible at least from the perspective of dynamics, necessarily secures at the same time the melodic (i.e., spiritual) unity of bars 84-87 simply through illusion and association! 32 One need only avoid a performance like the following: Fig. 62.

--:;:+-./I.

----

;~'' , r

St

::::=-

1 .,

r ~ Ii

:::=-

--:&+

~

T

~+-

~ J

:::=-

in order to produce, with only a small expenditure of energy, the desired correct effect that brings the larger structural unit to express10n. Bar 88ff. As symbol of the inner unity of bars 88-95 , the descending line revealed above (figure 39) should be kept securely in view. One should try above all to give expression to that line and not hesitate to combine with the cresc. around bars 94-95 at the same time a stringendo; but restitution for this temporal leap forward 32 . Compare the so widely ignored cresc. indication in bars 4-5 of the variation theme (Andante molto cantabile et espressivo) from the Piano Sonata, Op. 1 og!

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

63

should then be made through a compensating hesitation (Kunstpause) at the beginning of bar 96. The articulation of the sixteenth-note figures from bar 92 on meets with special difficulties in performance. How badly, in spite of the weak-to-strong legato slurs, the whole passage is played into the ground most of the time, sadly lacking all expression, and almost as if it were simply a scale or exhibited only an ordinary articulation! Just this passage, however, demands at this point a particularly expressive performance, especially as it is obvious that the melodic content of bars 88-92-a content from which strong expression certainly is not to be withheld-has through its descent by seconds also provided motivation for the continuation of falling seconds in an altered rhythmic form, that of sixteenths. The desired result may ensue automatically both from observation of the indicated cresc. and from compliance with the rule of performance mentioned earlier in connection with bar So (according to which the first of a pair of slurred notes receives pressure). Conductors may determine by experiment whether they should not at this point use in addition the highly effective technique of having the strings accompany the increment of crescendo and tempo with longer and ever longer bowstrokes. Bar no. The enlargement should be performed in the manner of a mere parenthesis and as though echo-like-note the pp! Therefore the enlargement itself, naturally, should stand in the foreground as the principal content, and not (as one is unfortunately accustomed to hearing) the merely accompanying rhythm-its thematic significance notwithstanding-of the violas and cellos! And in sustained consistency, the content at bar I 14 should be continued as though it linked directly back to bar i 09-that is, as though the enlargement had not intervened at all! It should by no means be seriously objected that such would be completely impossible to realize, for an intent strictly directed toward the required effect will certainly be rewarded by success. Bar 116ff. Sempre pp, Beethoven's own indication, which incidentally is expressly repeated in bar 120, signifies profoundest tension and expectation. The word "breathless" describes, as is well known, that condition in the act of listening in which nerves of the listener are severed from the subject and directed exclusively to the object, to the narrative. With a similar breathlessness, we now must sever ourselves from the present here as well, and fix our gaze only on the future-eager, as it were, only to discover what it may bring us.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

64

First Movement

All accents and nuances of pressure must therefore be reduced to a minimum. And just as in harmonic terms only the one scale degree, the V, literally seems to lie in wait from bar I 20 on for the tonic (which, however, does not arrive until bar i 38), so too all melodic content, as a great, careening mass that gives the impression of being under a single slur encompassing eighteen bars, must likewise obey only the one driving force-the force that drives toward the future, embodied by the closing theme! Attention should be given, nevertheless, to the gentle conflict in bars 120-129 of gt. and g at the beginning of the violin figures. This involves, specifically, applying different coloration to the two tones so as to highlight their difference as well. Still more important, however, and despite the sempre pp, is to direct attention for the first time to the third-motif of the flute through the following mode of performance: Fl. ,.-Fig. 63.

®~

.,,

q

©£

Ob.

q

.,,

i

q

i

:::=-

:::=-

~

.,,

I

usw.

If such performance commends itself already on the basis of the rule mentioned several times above, according to which it would be completely wrong to play

....

,.--

Fig. 64.

~

!j_

~

Ff -=:::

~

i

~

~

i

..

~

-=:::

u

under any circumstances, another consideration provides a still stronger reason for the manner of playing shown in figure 63: the fact that the third-motif is the seed of the closing theme. And in the sequel as well, the conductor should devote greatest attention to the destiny described above of the third-motif, especially in bars 132ff., where the motif is found in the basses (doublebass, cellos, and bassoons I and II). Here he should suppress somewhat the oboes and also the violins and violas, in spite of the thematic significance of their motif and in spite of the f, and instead give the thirdmotif, which surfaces here in transformation to a tenth, that espressivo quality which alone is capable of preparing the closing theme! The suitable shading for this purpose is approximately the following:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

4k

65

~

Fig. 65.

_I

.Fa,_.._.

--=

I

p

___.._4 ~

8f

~

~

p

sf ~

:::==--

s±~ ~ -p

which secures dynamic prominence for the sf accent. LITERATURE

Nottebohm reports on p. i 64-165 that the following motif is first found in the sketchbook from the summer or autumn of the year i 822: Fig.66._

.-

~ t lr·t (~ttilQ¥!fi§:f~'S;Q/ I' n' The sketchbooks obviously appear, however, not to have given him any information about the remaining motifs that also crop up in the second theme. The activity of Richard Wagner in the service of Beethoven is familiar enough to need no extensive acknowledgment. The artistic and agitatorial powers that lay in him he always placed particularly at Beethoven's disposal, with greatest enthusiasm. He formulated his relationship to Beethoven often and from various perspectives. Nevertheless, fate played an unkind trick on him in this matter; for whatever and however he thought about Beethoven, all of his thoughts unconsciously and ineluctably flowed into that artistic purpose which he envisioned as his own. He went forth to find Beethoven and found, ever anew, only himself. It was a tragic and in many ways disastrous vicious circle in which he moved: outward from himself, through the detour by way of Beethoven, and back again to himself. Nothing can better demonstrate the truth of Wagner's so misfortunately fortunate relationship to Beethoven than his thoughts about the Ninth Symphony, to which, as we know, he devoted special care in writings and deeds. Those very thoughts show, as we shall see in a moment, a chasm between Beethoven's and Wagner's artistic outlook and practice that is deeper and more unbridgeable than any that could be imagined. The discovery of this fact, however, teaches us to understand and judge the course that music history took in the nineteenth century in a way completely different from the usual one! The predominant viewpoint and constant concern of Wagner was " clarification of melos." Thus he writes in his essay "Zurn Vortrag der neunten Symphonie Beethovens" as follows [Gesammelte Schriften, p. 245]: These works [meaning Beethoven's] were lacking in clarity of execution, because the production of such clarity was no longer secured in the organism of the orchestra that was being used, as in Haydn and Mozart, but could be attained only through the brilliant accomplishment, bor-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

38

Bar 4 9

I

First Movement

consequent section is built here on the tonic itself. This alteration naturally brings with it in the course of events significant deviations in harmonic and thematic respects. For while specifically in bar 15 the harmony was able to turn from A toward D (i.e., from dominant to tonic) in bar 49, on the contrary, the tonic, having just been used up, had to be left and a different scale-degree progression initiated; and indeed it is here the falling third from D to (i.e., to VI) that henceforth points the content in new harmonic directions. Incidentally, a simultaneous consequence of this falling third is the further difference in comparison to the situation at bar 15, namely that the new harmony here automatically includes its third: D - F. The principal theme itself, however, which begins with the consequent section in bar 51, is here continued only four bars, which, as previously mentioned, are all moreover created out of scale degree VI. After four bars the content of the consequent section veers off in order to seek an approach to the dominant (recall that the antecedent section closed with the tonic!), at which point, instead of that motif which appeared from bar 21 on in the antecedent section, it is only the motif of the third bar of the principal theme that finds exclusive employment:

m

m-

Bar 51ff.

usw.

In the meantime the scale degrees traverse the following path: VI in bars 55-56, VII (V)5 in bars 57-58, 13- #3 in bars 59-61, IV and #IV in bars 61-62, and finally V in bar 63ff. This scale-degree progression, then, proves most conclusively that the major triad on is not at all to be immediately interpreted as perhaps already a key of m: the true modulation is reserved for a later point in time and moreover for [motion to] a genuine B~-major key. Let a tonal complex like that of bars 49-56 clearly instruct the listener, finally, that however deceptively a composed-out entity may resemble a genuine key, the two concepts (see Harmony, §?6ff.) must be kept strictly separate if our tonal sense is not to lose itself in chaos! The dominant in bar 63 brings a new motif:

m

5. Regarding the equivalence (under certain circumstances) of VII and V, see Harmony, 1 goff.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

67

distorting, as though merely accidentally strewn, patch of decoration, which we would like to cause to recede with its harmful effect. Thus I cannot remember ever having heard the beginning of the Eighth Symphony (in F) 35 without being distracted in grasping the theme in the sixth, seventh, and eighth bars by the unthematic intrusion of the oboes and the flutes above the singing melody of the clarinets. By contrast, the preceding accompanimental effect of the flutes in the first four bars, although likewise not strictly thematic, did not obstruct comprehension of the melody, because the latter here is brought out with penetrating clarity by the strongly staffed violins in forte. Thus Wagner admits in full candor that oboe and flute in the bars cited have distracted him from grasping the thematic content-from which it follows that for the sake of better comprehension he would rather have seen the melos "up front." Now, however, the quite different Beethovenian principle must be explained. Since the clarinet enters in the fifth bar and presents the continuation of the preceding content, without, however, sustaining damage as principal melodic instrument at the hands of the others which merely accompany, the listener's ear attaches itself completely involuntarily to the clarinet, which it is ready to follow until further notice. The situation remains just as favorable in the following sixth bar, notwithstanding that now the oboe already joins "unthematically," as Wagner puts it. Certainly the tones of the oboe are to be understood primarily as only a continuity-voice (i.e., merely a filler-voice) 36 -Wagner's neutral epithet "unthematic" is 35. The reference is to bars 5-8:

~

Fig. 67. Flutes

~·

pl-J

"" :!:

-I

=

I Idolce

Oboes

p

Cl.inm

,..-...._

_,.--

Bassoons

p

~

[36. " .. . eine continuale d.i. blofifilllende Stimme." Such a voice merely follows the general course of a strand of the voice leading without adding independent or distinctive melodic content. The opposite of a continuity- or a filler-voice is an obbligato voice. A third category is reinforcement, which has already been mentioned.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

68

I

First Movement

really too far removed from the true concept-; but just as surely as it is impossible for our ear to connect from the last eighth note (b 1) of the clarinet in bar 5 to the e 2 of the oboe in bar 6 as a melodic continuation, all danger is to the same extent ruled out that the clarinet should sacrifice any of its leading role in the subsequent bars 37 as well just because of the entrance of the oboe and later of the flute. It would certainly have been a different matter, and more reproachable, if Beethoven had overpowered the clarinet by filler-voices already in bar 5; but with secure instinct, he avoided such an error, and thus it happens completely naturally that in bars 6 and 7 we continue to follow the clarinet, from which alone we have to await the further track of melos. Applied in such a way, Beethoven's technical device just described of leaving the clarinet still completely uncovered in bar 5 thus signifies precisely that securing of melos that was so dear to Wagner as well. (Incidentally, the continuity-voice of the oboe changes to reinforcement already at bar 7, so that from that point on any misunderstanding is nipped in the bud.) But it was precisely the Beethovenian manner of securing melos that Wagner considered altogether insufficient. True enough, he too was concerned with securing melos, but he obviously wanted still more radical guarantees of its security. In other words, both of them, Beethoven and Wagner, strove for the same thing-namely, to protect the principal narrative against misunderstanding at the point in question. The only difference between them was choice of methods and degree of insight into the psychology of the listener. Beethoven's more powerful and ingenious instinct had hit upon the necessary technical precaution, and then confidently left all else up to those laws that operate so dependably in the soul of the listener. Man-of-the-theater Wagner, on the other hand, who dispensed with security of instincts and technique, worried constantly about the receptive capacity of the listeners, and thus was driven to offer everything possible literally to compel them to allegiance. For Beethoven: security of means, secure confidence of technique and indifference to the personal relationship of the listener. For Wagner: underestimation of completely trustworthy technical means, and, as a consequence, brute force as a means of coercing an unnecessary degree of clarity. In contrast to the Beethovenian way, that of Wagner may well be designated rather as one related to the Italian character-how naively this truth is betrayed by the first quotation above!-; that is, clarity of melos, as Wagner sought it, is based on the radical operatic "up front," just as the Italians' superficial natural tendency has made it the law of their operatic style. Wagner approached the Ninth Symphony, then, from such perspectives as these, which, in the stricter sense, are to be called nothing but Italian; and the strongest counterevidences that Beethoven marshalled in his score were not able to free him from error. There are many passages in the symphony that Wagner wanted, for one reason or another and by one means or another, to make clearer than in the version left to us by Beethoven himself. Starting from the premise that hardly anything can be of such paramount importance for the future of musical art than insight into this (37. That is, subsequent to bar 5.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

69

remoteness of Wagner from Beethoven, I mean in the course of this work to subject all of Wagner's suggestions for alteration, as well as for performance nuances, to thorough critical examination. They will be discussed, to be sure, not in the order in which they occur in his commentary, but instead in that of the passages in the score to which they pertain. Thus Wagner introduces his suggestions for performance of bar 96ff. as follows: When we reflect on how uniquely important it is in any musical communication that the melody, though it be presented to us by the tonal poet's art often only in its smallest fragments, keep us incessantly transfixed, and that the correctness of this melodic language, if it is not to mislead us through unclarity exactly as an incomprehensible verbal sentence does, must be no less exact than the logical correctness of the conceptual thought that finds expression in verbal language, then we must recognize that nothing is so worthy of the most painstaking effort as the attempted rectification of unclarity of a segment of a bar-even of a single note-in the musical communication to us from a genius such as Beethoven; for every creation of such an eternally true essence, however surprisingly new, springs only from the divinely consuming impulse to disclose to us poor mortals with crystal clarity the deepest secrets of its world view. Just as one cannot bypass an apparently obscure passage in the work of a great philosopher until it has been clearly understood-just as failure to achieve such understanding inevitably leads on further reading, through growing inattentiveness, to misunderstanding of the teacher-, so one must not glide over a single bar of a tonal poem like Beethoven's without clear consciousness of its sense, unless one is concerned only to beat time in performance as is done by our well-established academic concert conductors, from whose quarter I am nevertheless prepared to be treated, because of the suggestions just offered, as a vain offender against the sanctity of the literal. In spite of this trepidation I cannot omit to attempt a demonstration, with a few examples, that here and there a well-conceived revision of the written text can foster correct understanding of the master's intention. Here we easily recognize first of all the same thought that was expressed in the quotation initially cited. Now we hear his substantive recommendations on nuancing of the performance itself: 38

In this connection I have to mention yet another dynamic performance nuance which, although correct in intention, nevertheless serves in performance to make precisely that intention unclear.... I have found that the crescendo marked also for the strings with their rising contrary motion figure at the second entrance by the winds 39 was inimical to the required decisive effect of piu crescendo in the violins at the third entrance, because it distracted attention prematurely from the predominantly melodic idea-by comparison, too weakly asserted-in the [38. What follows is a direct continuation of the preceding quotation.] [39. Bar 98.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

70

I

First Movement

winds, and at the same time rendered difficult for the thematic entrance by the violins the characteristic hallmark of this passage, precisely the crescendo that is but still to come. This defect, however, which here makes its presence felt only in a delicate way, would have been completely remediable by means of the discreet poco crescendo, which unfortunately is almost unknown to our orchestral players, but which necessarily precedes piu crescendo. It is for this reason that I wanted to recommend, through detailed discussion of the passage under consideration, this eminently correct dynamic performance nuance for special practice and assimilation. A critique of these ideas issues automatically from a clarification of those principles by which Beethoven was guided in this passage . In bars 9293 we see in violins I and II the motif, whose origin was shown above, presented in undisturbed clarity and moreover in a register that certainly attracts the ear just because of its high position. By thus abjuring everything that could have endangered the clarity of the motif here, where it first appears, Beethoven has done all that was necessary and possible for the purpose of securing melos. Under equally favorable circumstances, then, the melos is entrusted to clarinets I and II in the corresponding bars 96-97. By this twofold act of artistic precaution and ingenuity, the motif was secured to the extent that the master, obeying the principle of variety and contrast, could now venture with greatest confidence to camouflage the melos to some extent in the subsequent bars, and thereby to expose a state of tension, without having to fear that the listener would lose orientation and continuity! Thus in bars 98-99 he reinforces the motif in the clarinets by adding flute II in a higher register, while the rising motion of a countering voice in bar 99 enables violin I to achieve in bar 1 oo the register in which it gains the requisite affiliation with flute II, as shown below : ~

Fig. 68. r.

I

E.#t ~~~~~~~...~ --~

Fl. II.

VI. I.

Moreover, flute I sustains the tone g 3 in bars 98-99, whereby it contributes a filler-voice. Thus the situation here is exactly as in the example cited from the Eighth Symphony: since the tensions that Wagner sensed as altogether

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

71

too strong and therefore disruptive enter the picture here as well as in the earlier example only after the melos has been completely secured, they are by no means still able to distract the listener's ear from the true path. And accordingly, there is no doubt that precisely the gentle, artificial camouflaging has more profound artistic effects on the ear, while a continuation of the incessantly unadorned technique shown in bars 92-93 and 96-97 would on the contrary have had to produce in the sequel an impression of monotony! Now if Wagner recommends to the strings a more discreet poco cresc. in bars 98-99, this suggestion may certainly be allowed to stand uncontested, especially as under certain circumstances it would lead to the same result if, conversely, a performance of fuller character were to be elicited from flute II and the two clarinets! [The application of] similar dynamic shadings, incidentally, goes without saying, and it is up to the conductor to effect possible dynamic moderation of countermelodies as needed. This reflects the fact that the degree of dynamic shadings indicated by the composer is never to be understood and executed as absolute, but always only in keeping with the primary content-therefore as relative. Granted, then, that the crescendo marked by Beethoven for violins II and I in bars 98-99 under certain circumstances represents in performance perhaps only a poco cresc., this is not a sufficient reason to consider Beethoven's way of writing as any kind of offense against the requirement of clarity! Beethoven therefore-to draw, finally, the conclusion from the whole discussion-is exactly right in moving from initially quite clearly presented melodic states to others that are somewhat camouflaged. If the artistic truth of this psychological progression is but understood, means will always be found to clarify the melos for the listener, even without modification of the markings. That Riemann construes the beginning of the second theme incorrectly I have said already in connection with the portrayal of the modulation-theme; but he also misunderstands the further course of the theme both in general and in its details. On p. 143 he quotes, under the rubric of a "second theme," bars 74-87 (thus including, as previously stated, the modulation-theme), and then remarks: "[It] thus acquires two four-bar confirmations, and then continues, forging ahead into a second phrase (Satz):" (the quotation of the subsequent bars 89-95 follows here). He then explains further: "The consequent begins once again, but instead of cadencing directly, it is spun out sequentially-that is, it becomes the point of departure for a new phrase:" (here a quotation of bars 96-105). And further still: "Bars 5-8 [i.e., bars 102-105] are repeated, but turned toward C major (written as B major), which reveals itself in a new phrase as the chord of the Neapolitan sixth (Ob~2>), that is, as subdominant4 0 of Sb major:" (here a quotation of bars 106-1 19). And with the words "the balance of the thematic section remains in major and is to be viewed as what is called cadential appendage, specifically the following (as a direct continuation of what preceded)," 41 he finally takes care, under the rubric "Closing Group" (Schlilfle), of the whole remaining complex of bars 120-158!

m

[40. The II harmony (whether diatonic or lowered) is regarded in Riemann's theory as belonging to the subdominant function.] [4i. A quotation of bars 120-158 follows here.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

72 I

First Movement

The points in Riemann's discussion that must be considered errors are that he ( 1) describes the cadential reinforcement in bars 96-1o1 as "consequent" (Nachsatz); (2) assumes in bar 102, where in fact a new thematic subdivision is adjoined, a merely "sequential spinning-out"; (3) claims in bars 108ff. the presence already of a new key, "C~ major," where all that appears is a II (lowered, to be sure); (4) fails to recognize the enlargement of the motif in bars 1 10-1 13 as such and dismisses it as nothing but a "new phrase"; (5) assumes a re-modulation from c~ major to m major (note the words: "which reveals itself ... as subdominant ofm major"); (6) comprises summarily under the title "Closing Group" ("the balance of the thematic section remains in m major") a large complex of bars that requires a more detailed differentiation simply because in bar 138 the actual and independent closing theme begins; and (7) completely fails to recognize the preparation of the latter by the third-motif in the basses, which, incidentally, follows still more clearly from his incorrect citation of bars 132ff.! I think there are truly enough errors here-more than enough! After first quoting bars 74ff., Kretzschmar, in an again altogether naive way, contents himself with the following comments (p. 115): Here again the potency of the lengths, which characterizes every thematic and formal entity of the Ninth Symphony, and especially of this first movement. The same demonic unrest, which ever again rouses perception and imagination. It charges forth here from the realm of the mild nostalgia of sympathetic yearning, of consolatory remembrance, into the impetuosity of battle [here a quotation of bars l 02-102]. Immediately after follow again pictures of peace and of blissful contentment [here a quotation of bars l l 0-1 15], etc. All torment sleeps momentarily; but even from the soothing cradle of the dreamworld, opposing forces make their presence felt [here a quotation of bars 120-123]. In an instant there appears a new expression, in which the basses, with tempestuous upward gestures, now take over the leading role: [here the bass figures of bar l 32ff. are quoted]. Poor in insight-alas! but how these commentators drift about on the most barren stock of phrases, empty words and pictures! Can such activity be of use in any way to the layman, performer, student, or conductor?! Grove writes comments of greater relevance (p. 309), but at the same time falls from one error into another. Thus, according to him the modulation-theme (bar 74ff.) belongs to the "second subject"; part b of the second theme (bar 88ff.) he designates as "a codetta finishing in G minor[!] instead of m major". Concerning bars 92-95, which in fact contain a scale-degree succession V - 11' 7 - Nin m major, he speaks as though of an m-major phrase, and further on similarly also of "C minor" and "D minor," where it is likewise permissible only to assume scale degrees of them-major key. In the motivic enlargement of bars l l 0-1 13 he espies a "broadly drawn, two-bar411

[42. The English original does not include the qualification "two-bar."]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 001 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

73

theme in B major"; in the V of bar 12off. a "new episode" ;4 3 and, like Riemann, he hastens over the great difficulties of the remainder merely with the ineffectual words, "Eb major now remains the governing key to the end of the first division." What a limited view, and how wrong everything is besides!

Third (Closing) Theme (Bars 138-159) The closing theme consists of two bar-groups: 138-149 and 150-159. The third-motif, which has dominated the preceding bars in ascending series, now appears in the first bar-group in the descending direction, occurring twice in each bar. The motif thus newly shaped appears in several versions in bars 138-145: in bars 138-1 39 in the sense of I, in bars 140-141 in that of II, in bars 142-143 in that of 1~7, and finally in bars 144-145 in that of IV; all of this over and above the numerous additional variances associated with those versions, which are to be investigated more thoroughly here. As a preliminary observation, however, let it be noted moreover that the complete harmonic content of bars 138-145 can be reduced to the succession of four sixth-chords:

aH 1~~rt1 ;m

Fig. 69.

~~,

Formed most clearly by the strings, this succession could possibly cause the II and 1~ 7 of bars 140-143 to appear as only passing harmonies. The misguided interpretation of the closing theme that I will expose below in comments on the literature-and, even more, the circumstance that the arts of transposition of a motif to different harmonies as Beethoven applies them in the construction of the closing theme are today, in spite of their far-reaching compositional significance, so completely undervalued and discredited merely because of the difficulties that attend them-obliges me to devote my effort here to the most detailed description of the individual transpositions. In keeping with the principle Beethoven always observes of completely securing a motif immediately when he introduces it, the [43. In the original, "an episode entirely different and distinct from anything that has come before it."]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

42

I

First Movement

Bar I 7. The ff of the principal theme of bar I 7££. gives me the opportunity to demonstrate onc" and for all the technique of performance of a fortissimo: if it is clear that not only a 2 , but also d 2 and f 1 of the figure are to acquire particular emphasis, then in the execution of these tones it is necessary to subtract in each case as much of the tone's value as is necessary to collect in a free and elastic way that force which is demanded by the subsequent emphasis. An image something like that of pouncing is thus offered, wherein the moment of propulsion away from a fixed surface involves, as we know, only the smallest quantum of gravity itself: if one wants to leap away, the last thing one can do is to weight down and depress the place from which one wants to leap.8 In the performance of a series of accented tones, then, one must observe a similar principle-that is, one must take care not to exert pressure at exactly the point where one is preparing to spring ahead to the accent. Therefore nobody need fear to apply curtailments of note values for the sake of a subsequent accent! The reward of such a technique is multifaceted: through the emphasis of the accented tones, the content itself above all gains in vividness; but the hand of the string player or the breath of the wind player as well, to speak of purely mechanical matters, ensures, by constantly renewing the stored-up force to approach the accent, a fresh mobility, which comes precisely from the fluctuation that rests on a sound psychological basis. Bar 19. The first sixteenth note must be sundered from the second one; it must therefore not sound like the following, which we unfortunately always hear: Fig. 23.

J_J This latter version is reserved for the development and the coda, where it then appears as already a thematic modification of the motif presented in bar i g. 9 [8. Obviously pressure must be applied to the point of departure in order to gain energy for the leap; the moment to which Schenker refers is the very last moment of contact between leaper's feet and fixed surface. The time gained by the foreshortening he recommends might also be compared to the time that elapses between the propulsion away from the fixed surface (Abstofien) and the landing on the object of the pounce.] g. For purposes of comparison I offer here yet another similar example, from Beethoven's Piano Sonata in D major, Op. 1 o No. 3, Largo e mesto:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

75

in the [treble] position of the fifth. 44 Just this circumstance, however, confers a very significant advantage upon the voice leading from the outset, in that the fourth g2-c3 at the beginning of the figure, when added to the bass tone Eb, yields a securely formed~ chord, which, as already said above in connection with figure 69, is of such crucial importance here. (Such a sixth-chord would have been lacking in the exact replica of figure 72.) This proves first of all that the beginning of the transformation here in question could only take the shape shown in figure 71. But the change from the original octave-position into a fifth-position (always understood only in the horizontal direction! 4 5) does lead to still further consequences. For when it begins with the fifth, the motif arrives at the root of the triad already at the beginning of the second bar, so that the composer, if he is not to deviate from the temporal length of the motif, has all of two quarters left over to fill out. To descend below c2 for this purpose was ruled out, however, on the grounds that the figure would then have arrived at g 1, [yielding] an interval which, as a third, would be less desirable from the standpoint of the sixth-chord to be forged at the end of the figure than the tone c2, which represents the sixth of the bass, or-which amounts to the same thing-the root of the harmony. In this sense, therefore, the figure had to be brought to a conclusion in such a way that it could end with a reappearance of c2, and thus arose in bar 141 that tum in the variant (see the bracket in figure 71) which begins with c2 and, after taking the detour by way of the fifth g2, also concludes with the same tone. (Observe that only such a procedure could also lead again to an optimal expression of the sixth-chord!) This fifth c2 - g2-the "knee" of the figure, so to speak-now cancels most decisively the [priority of the] constructional principle of the third, which has been the basis all along of both the prototype in bars 138-139 and the variant in bar 140. This breach should be noted well, and one should confirm as the most important result of the comparison of the two versions the fact that the variant now shows instead of three arcs of thirds only two. 4 6 [44. Schenker measures from the root here and in the subsequent remarks.] [45. That is, by "original octave-position" Schenker means the octave-position of the B~ harmony in bar 138, not a conceptually "original" octave-position of the C-minor sound currently under discussion.] [46. Literally only one; but the fourth-leap at the beginning of the variant of bar 140 is not yet regarded as canceling the third-principle, since it is a minimal possible adjustment for the sake of the sixth-chord. The breach of this principle occurs only in bar 141, where an available third-leap is bypassed (for the reason given in the preceding paragraph) in favor of a fifth-leap.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

76 I First Movement Ba rs 1..p -141

The version according to Ib 7 in bars 142-143 appears as follows: Fig. 73.

Flute I ----~~~~~~~~~--~

It is clear at first glance that we here stand before a new, second variant. What are the reasons for its origin, and what are its relationships to the two preceding variants? It is here again the perspective of the sixth-chord, which had to be formed with perfect clarity at both the beginning and the end of the motif, that served as regulator of highest authority. Thus possible replications of figure 70 such as the following were ruled out from the start: Fig. 74. a)

'~lz ~

It ' I

-replications, that is, which, because formed in the octave- or thirdposition, would more closely have approached the prototype of bars 138-139 (precisely figure 70 ). The intervals produced at the very beginning-4 or ~ in the case of a and ~ in the case of b-clearly contradict from the outset the demand for the ~ -chord. The fifth-position on the other hand, to the extent that the chromatic tone of the lowered seventh was also to be taken into consideration, would have had to lead, according to the model provided by the variant of bars 140-141, to the following replica:

,~,

1i i ! I

I I !I

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Qi3

First Movement I

77

Accordingly, the version Beethoven ultimately settled on as definitive (figure 73) is in fact closer to the fifth-variant than to the original prototype. What specifically appears as a common feature of both figures 71 and 73 is first of all that they arrive at the root (bh2)47 already at the beginning of the second bar (thus differently from bar 139 in the original motif), and next, that in order to fill out the space of two remaining quarters, the aid of a melodic "knee" (in bar 141 a fifth-, here in bar 143 a seventh-arc) must be invoked. But from this it follows that even precisely the seventh, since it is a thematic replication of the fifth in bar 141, itself in turn has thematic significance and therefore represents a real seventh, and is not, as is unfortunately assumed, to be understood as perhaps only the inversion of an originally conceived second! In order to arrive at the ultimate version , however, Beethoven had to apply a few improvements to figure 75. First, he found it necessary to set the tone d3 in place of the first sixteenth f3, for only thereby, when the bass is included, does the required~ chord f - d - a~ arise (the diminished fifth , incidentally, immediately provides orientation as to the function of the harmonycf. Harmony §66-, which points to the triad Eh - G - Eb). Second, he had, in spite of the indebtedness of figure 75 to the model of bars 140-141, to omit the first syncope, since it was no longer feasible to use the tone eh 2 as the fourth sixteenth-note of the first quarter, which alone would have been able to make the syncope possible: Fig. 76.

But this eliminated also the second syncope, across the barline of bar 142, which-after deletion of the first syncope-would itself now have appeared as the first, and could as such scarcely have made a good effect at this point. Thus the variant of bars 142-143 dispenses with any syncope, which latter has always been the hallmark of both the prototype in bars 138-139 and its first variant in bars 140-141. In spite of such lack of syncopes, however, the second variant must be derived-and this is doubtless the point of greatest emphasis-from the first variant, not from the prototype! [47. In figure 73; c2 in figure 71.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

78

I

First Movement

All of this discussion now leads to the final conclusion that the second variant in bars i 42-143 is presented not by oboe I, but by flute I (see above, figure 73)! The oboe, after all, shows the following version:

-and one need only consider the last sixteenth note g2 of the first bar to verify the presence in this idiom of a complete departure from the melos; while the flute in the same place, on the other hand, adheres completely-the missing syncope notwithstanding-to the construc tion prescribed by the prototype: Fig. 78 .

.-_'f:.+

+-+-..._

1 113

Bars 144-145

(Precisely the g 2 of the oboe would then form a~ harmony with e~ 2 of clarinet 1148 and c 3 of the flute, which again proves that at the end of bar i42 the flute alone must count as main upper voice, i.e., as soprano of the harmony!) In bars 144-145, finally, the IV is composed out in the following manner:

m

Fl.I

Cl.I

~t -qWf£4tf B I ,. +~ I "f-1~III' n.

I

......__

~

J. ~-i1 ~= ~=

Fig. 79.

+

\7 --J. ~

Fr rm

!Cfi ;·••~ c::::::::c= I

I

"

__..,,,...

As with the first variant in figure 71, we encounter here again the fifth-position of the motif. What distinguishes the two shapes of figures 71 and 79 from one another in a completely new way (one still not found even in the second variant of figure 73), however, is the canonic imitation in clarinet I and flute, which could appropriately [48. Klarinette I in the original, obvious ly by mistake.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

79

be described also as stretto. Notable moreover is a characte ri stic trait of variety, which consists in the fact th at within th e imitation , th e flute, in contrast to bassoon I and clarine t I, forgo es the syncope. Th e circumstance, however, that it would originally have h ad to go as shown by the syncopated version:

causes the seventh of the definitive version to appear to us on ly as an opened-up second (cf. Counterpoint i , p. 84ff.) and not as a re a l seventh born of thematic causes. Obo e I, incidenta lly, also confirm s the truth of the matter: ~

Fig.BI,

~Q=tif ~~ The following depiction of all the b eginnings and endings of th e prototype and its variants shows the consistency with which th e ~ chord is forged:

ti

(j

3

T6p+ 3

-

• Now we continue in bar 146 to the cadence, a nd ind eed to qrv and v as th e suitable continuation of th e rv that appears for the last time in bars 144-145. The motif of the ca dence is n ew:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar

146ff.

46

I

First Movement

Fig. 26.

Fig. 27. "anfangs vielleicht auch Tri olen "

@f.

J

~· ek.-

j JJJI J JJn IJ llJ- j JJJiJ JJn IJ II

(Regarding the last sketch in particular, Nottebohm says on p. 162 that " the remark on the sixth sketch concerns the treatment of the violins. Beethoven was undecided about whether triplets should be used instead of the indi cated sextolets.") But we also com e upon the following version of the principal theme among the sketches (see Nottebohm, p. 160): Fig. 28.

~ r I$ij I P Qi{>---~;•"'-®'------+-+-~1---+J_ .rJ .r) ~ ' I ]-jJJJ I J?j , I

J___,

_._..j J__.._.J

"Anfang"

n J-nl-

"Timpani" ..,..........,1

"On a page that was used either at the same time as tha t sketchbook or som ewhat later," Nottebohm writes on p. 163, "Beethoven decides in favor of the sextolet motion al the beginning of the first movem ent, abo ut which he had still been undecided in the sketchbook": Fig. 29. " nur 6tel und im Stiick 16te l"

rr rt

'

usw.

Beethoven 's additiona l notation given in the next example (see Not-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

81

of its presence mainly by mobilizing every available sign of an inner dynamism of content (a minute acceleration from bar 145 to bar 146 will suffice!) as though in hot pursuit of the coming V. He will then undoubtedly succeed in transferring his sense of the whole to the listener as well, and the V (bar 146££.) will appear to the latter-and this is the principal objective-as though he himself had long since foreseen its coming. In particular, it is necessary to observe scrupulously Beethoven's markings, which suggest with greatest precision the path to be followed. The first espressivo marking is found in oboe I in bar 1 38, from which it follows that here alone is to be found the origin of the theme that now comes to the fore . The second espressivo mark is in flute I in bar 1 39, and is intended to suggest that the continuation of the melos is to be found exactly there. The oboe contents itself at this same time, after all, merely with the following locution: Fig. 8_6_.- - - - -

,p~--m

SI

'1

Incidentally, this manner of continuation confirms that principle of Beethovenian instrumentation technique according to which, for reasons of variety, he often enough employs two or more different octaves for the presentation of a certain content, even where the content could and "should" have continued within the confines of a single octave.49 A technique of this kind is to be strictly distinguished 49. We find similar application of the same principle in, for example, the piano works of Brahms as well:

Fig. 87.

Brahms, Intermezzo, Op.

b&;AJagi•• •

117 ,

No.

1

~

1-~

WhJ)r&{rfcr IsiliW'hhf=l ..

~

..

. 1-r Y'l,.I

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

----·

usw.

First Movement

I

47

tebohm, p. 1 59) obviously relates to the conclu sion of the antecedent section. bars 34- 35 of the score:

How infelicitous, still, the expression of the portamento' The following sketch (Nottebohm , p. 159) pertains to bar 6:,ff. , in the consequent section:

This is where work on the symphony stood in the year 181 7 (or 1 818). Concerning its further progress, Nottebohm writes (p. 164): The drafts mentioned thus far of the first movement of the symphony, and of the symphony in general, were written during th e composition of the Sonata Op. 106. Two of Beethoven 's greatest instrumental works thus fall in more or less the same time period with respect lo date of origin. In the next four years the work did not go well. It was interrupted by work on other compositions. Among the greater works to originate in this period are the three piano sonatas Opp. 1 09, 1 1 o, and 1 1 1 , the second Mass, 14 and the overture 15 Op. 1 24. Beethoven was most intensively involved with the Mass. Only when it and the overture and chorus 16 were fully sketched did his attention turn almost exclusive ly to the symphony. The state of the work as it was resumed and continued in summer or au tumn of 1822 can be determined from a sketchbook. Work on the first movement has, as these excerpts show, advanced som e what:

[14. Missa Solemnis, Op. 123.J [ 1 5. Die Weihe des Hauses. J [ 16. "Wo sich die Pulse jugcndlich jagen ," WoO 98.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

83

ingflevels, and for that reason it is incorrect to perform the four-bar group in uniformf or ff Bar I 50.ff. Only at bar 150 does a sustained ff state set in; yet those tones to which Beethoven has added sf(bars 150, 151, 152) or has repeated a simplef(bars 154-157 50 ) are to be specially emphasized even here, which again, however, is possible only if the tones that precede in each case are played as weaker. With the foreshortening or telescoping of the motifs from bar 154 on an acceleration of the tempo should begin, which should reflect in the medium of time that quality of compactness that has built up in the medium of the motivic. LITERATURE

In Nottebohm we find no published sketch material relative to the closing theme. The attitude of Wagner concerning bars i 38ff. confirms anew that fateful opposition to Beethoven in regard to opinions about the nature of German instrumental music that we have already encountered above. Out of ignorance of the thematic reason that induced Beethoven to use the interval of the seventh in flute I in bar i43, 51 he writes as follows [p. 246]: Who can claim ever to have heard this passage with clear consciousness of its melodic content in our orchestral performances? Liszt, with his uniquely brilliant insights, was the first to place it in the true light of its melodic significance through a marvelous piano arrangement of the Ninth Symphony. His remedy was to disregard the primarily distorting admixture of the flute where it took over the continuation of the oboe theme in the higher register and to restore that continuation to the lower register of the melodically leading instrument. He thus protected the original intention of the master from any possible misunderstanding. What manner of misjudgment isn't implicit already in the words "distorting admixture of the flute"! Instead of recognizing in such a techniquewhich is, after all, abundantly in evidence in Beethoven's works-an exalted instrumentational principle of the master, Wagner perceives in it, exactly to the contrary, a distortion of clarity-but, to be sure, clarity only as understood by Wagner himself. The quotation continues: "in Liszt's arrangement the melodic passages go as follows:" Fig. 88.

i~ ti 1

rr1 rTr rf j

P espressivo

[50. Bars 155-157 in the original, apparently by mistake.] [51. Bar

i41

in the original, by mistake.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

84

I

First Movement

i

As the example shows, Wagner misunderstands not only Beethoven's technique but unfortunately also even that of Liszt, on which he would so like to lean for support. For if we examine Liszt's arrangement:

it is clear that the governing factors were those having to do with the piano, which is clearly a different instrument from the orchestra. Thus it was not

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

85

possible for Liszt, in transcribing first of all bar 139, to follow flute I into the higher register on the piano as well: because in the orchestra it is specifically the variety of tone colors that provides the reason and at the same time the justification for that Beethovenian technique, the piano, on the contrary, with its lack of similarly differentiated colors in its own domain, must still completely abstain from such a technique. H Liszt thus restores "the continuation of the oboe ... to the lower register of the melodically leading instrument," he does so not, as Wagner would have it, to correct some offense by Beethoven against clarity, but only for purely pianistic reasons, because otherwise the all-too-exact copy of the orchestral conception on the piano would have sounded simply absurd. Precisely this restoration of the melos to the lower register in bar l 39 was moreover the ultimate reason Liszt was constrained also in transcribing bars 142-143 to remain in the register of the oboe and not in the higher register of the flute. Unlike Wagner, he undoubtedly considered the melos of these bars to be taken over only by the flute. This follows, specifically, from the fact that he writes not g2 of the oboe but c3 . of the flute as the last melodically definitive sixteenth of bar 142! That he does not at the same time reproduce the octave position of the latter as well, however, has to do, as already stated above, with the nature of the piano: what an ugly effect would have resulted if he had at this point, just for the sake of note-for-note procedure, suddenly replicated the high register of the flute as well! How out of place such a register would have sounded here, after having been deliberately and rightly avoided at a decisive point in what immediately preceded! It follows from all of this that Wagner overlooked the difference between a piano arrangement and an orchestral text, and thus had no right to invoke Liszt's transcription in support of his own opinion, which in any case rests, as already mentioned several times, on complete misjudgment of a vital orchestrational principle. Wagner seems to have an inkling of the truth when he writes in the subsequent course of his presentation that "it might appear too daring and out of keeping with the character of the Beethovenian instrumentation, in which we must observe very well justified peculiarities, if we were here to omit the flute completely, or include it only as a unison doubling of the oboe for reinforcement." But instead of investigating the "well justified peculiarities" and probing the essence of Beethovenian instrumentation, he contents himself merely with the appearance of awareness. Even short of all awareness, however, it would have been so natural simply to accord a master like Beethoven the trust he deserves, and to eschew from the outset any revision of a Beethovenian part writing. But Wagner, now under the pressure of his wrong interpretation and possessed by the delusion of a "clarity," decides instead to undertake alterations (p. 246ff.]: "I would therefore advise retaining the general course of the flute, only having it remain completely true to the melodic line, and instructing the player to hold back somewhat, with respect to both tonal strength and expressive nuancing, in favor of the oboe, since the latter must be perceived above all else as predominant." Here we see the error articulated with complete clarity, then, that in bars 142-143 the oboe {and not the flute) is "predominant"! Wagner continues:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

86

I

First Movement

Accordingly, the flute, in continuation 52 of the higher register line of the fifth bar: ~

17t:... ....

Fig. go.

... +-:)::

--

~

+-!:+::~

§f1 fl ! I J

~~ll ~

should play the sixth bar not this way: ~

Fig. 91.

p.._~

.I. f+-:I= II=;_.,~ +-;i::~

~ ...

+-+-

but instead as follows:

and thereby the melodic line would be asserted more correctly than it could be by Liszt, who was limited by considerations of piano technique. It is now no longer any wonder that Wagner, exaggerating the clarification-mania, then proceeds to change the oboe as well in bar 139: Now if we were finally to alter the oboe just in the second bar as well, so that it fully continued the melodic idea (as in the fourth bar) and accordingly played:

instead of: Fig. 94· ~

...-...._

-then, to give the whole passage the correct, decisively attentionarousing expression in performance (as is now so completely neglected), we would have to apply the following nuance, which should be supported through a slight retardation of tempo:

[52. Verbriiderung instead of Verbindung by mistake in Schenker's text.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

50 I

First Movement

respects doubly dangerous and slothfully incorrect-word like "precursors" at all! Grove describes the Introduction in full detail on p. 306. Concerning the principal theme, he first writes correctly as follows: 20 More and more winds join in, the tonal volume increases with each bar, until the whole orchestra breaks loose with a tremendous unison into the principal theme spanning the D-minor triad. [An example is given here.] Now the close relationship of those broken motifs of the beginning to the theme is also revealed. Like the latter, they move downward through the octaves in the intervals of the tonic chord, except that the omission of the third imprints upon them a mysteriously indefinite character. Naive and wrong, however, is the immediately following remark: "This is even more apparent when this 'prologue' is repeated in D, after the establishment of the principal theme." What a poor orientation these words provide concerning the consequent section as such, and the so unusual circumstance that an Introduction ("Prologue" according to Grove!) is bound to it exactly as to the antecedent section! There too the strings take over both theme and accompaniment, and clarinets and horns now join on the latter: Vl. I.

Fig. 33.

"

w ••

'

~ ~

~ sotto voce

•

I

I~

. . . . . . _ . . , , - . . . _ . . . .--r----

This time, however, the principal theme answers in Bb major, as preparation, in a way, for the subordinate theme that stands in the same key: [example follows]. At the same time, however, the tonal poet already shows us-in a few bars formed from the motif: Fig. 34.

~I~ ' ' '

./I..

sf

[20. The German translation by Max Hehemann (see note 16 to the Preface) from which Schenker quotes was not available to me. To judge by Schenker's quotations, the translation is apparently quite free; because it differs significantly from the English original, what I have provided here is a back-translation into English of the German text used by Schenker. (The discrepancy between the German translation and Grove's English is occasionally great enough that Schenker's rebuttal of Grove's interpretation may not app ly-at least not with full force-to Grove's original text.) For this reason I have kept both page and example citations as they appear in Schenker's text, although all such citations differ from the corresponding ones in Grove 's own text.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

88

I

First Movement

stood; and thus, since integrity of the melos has been seen to with complete adequacy by Beethoven himself (if only the fact be recognized), the performance will undoubtedly find its way to the listener's heart even without troublesome revisions. The only particular in which one may join Wagner is thus just the performance itself-that is, his indication of the several occurrences of -=::::::::: as shown in figure 95. The continuation of the passage quoted there adds the following: "in the seventh and eighth bars, on the other hand, a beautifully drawn and at the end quite penetrating crescendo would help to achieve the expression with which we now plunge ahead to the vehement accents of the coming cadential passage"-an instruction that doubtless goes too far, and should by all means be reduced simply to the one I recommended above, with justification, concerning bars i44- 1 45. Riemann's error in connection with the closing theme was discussed earlier, on p. 72. All that remains to be mentioned here is that he too (like Wagner, but without giving reasons) unfortunately reads bars i 42-143 as follows:

=====- ,

Fig. 96.

~

~~ 6 r if stJ/~ l5Kretzschmar has the following to say about the closing theme (p.

i 1

5):

The woodwinds try to assuage; they plead for a more congenial tone:

And they succeed, in that the first part of the movement is concluded with a certain potent joyfulness. Great heavens, what intellectual sloth! Such a way to write about music! Grove's ineptitude regarding the closing theme was portrayed above on pp. 72-73; the reader is referred to that discussion. vr.i?ingartner (p. i82) allies himself completely with Wagner in the matter of bar i 38ff. "It would be puritanical," he writes, "to deny that his alterations, both here and in the similar passage which occurs later on, without doing detriment to the style in any way, conduce to a clearness which cannot be obtained by means of a merely literal rendering."

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Development (Bars i 60-300) General plan Beethoven dispenses with repetition of the First Part; thus the Development begins in bar 160-observe in this situation as well (cf. above, bar 35) the extremely orientating function of the horn part! The first tonal complex, bars 160-1 79, accomplishes two tasks at once: it is just as much an introduction for the subdivisions that follow as also-because it includes two modulations-at the same time a transition. It is followed by four carefully circumscribed subdivisions, which represent the actual Development: first subdivision: bars 180-197 second subdivision: bars 198-21 7 third subdivision: bars 218-274 fourth subdivision: bars 275-300 Their content consists throughout of the working out of only bars 14 of the first theme (bars 17-20 of the First Part) and-again-only bars 1-4 of the second theme (see bars 80-83). As in so many other works, Beethoven has chosen also for the Development of the first movement of the Ninth Symphony that technique of working-out which adheres strictly to the order of the themes, and within them to the order of the bars. Thus appearing in the first two subdivisions are bars 1-2 and, at first independently, bar 3 of the first theme; in the third subdivision bars 3-4 of the same first theme; and finally in the fourth subdivision bars 1-4 of the second theme.5 4 But here, in the Ninth Symphony, Beethoven gives all subdivi54. A similar technique, indeed just as beautifully forged as here, is found in particular in the great m-major Trio, Op. 97, first movement.

89

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

go

I First Movement

sions, without exception, a common feature of a completely original stamp-a feature not to be encountered in other works: at the end of each subdivision he always uses-fully with the effect of a refrainonly bar 3 of the first theme (bar 19 of the First Part), whether in its original version or in a derivative form! It is precisely this refrain that expedites differentiation of the individual subdivisions. Now to the details. Transition Bars 160-179

At the beginning of the Development, the Introduction returns, and with it a situation similar to the one we already encountered before the beginning of the antecedent and consequent sections of the first theme: just as in those earlier situations, here as well it was necessary to preludize before the first two bars of the theme! Thus is the organic character of the introductory material (see above, p. 34) confirmed by the transition as well. If we consider the succession of keys, however, we observe that here no fewer than two modulations enter the picture. The first modulation (already beginning, indeed, as early as bar 158-cf. above, p. 80) is based on a reinterpretation of the tonic of B major as VI of D minor, so that the scale-degree progression is fashioned as follows: Bars 158-159,

m maj: I

i

60-1 70,

i

70-

--

D min:VI--

V--

I

The second modulation takes the following course: Bars i 70-1 78,

i

78-

D min: I# 3 - Gmin:V - -

I

From this it can be inferred that in bar i 70 the tonic of D minor obtains a chromatic alteration at the third (fli) so as to be able to function immediately as Vin G minor (and not as I in D major!). It is still more urgent to observe, however, how deeply concerned Beethoven is about the highlighting of those places at which he plans respectively to realize the modulation to G minor and to place the tonic of the newly gained key: after settling on the second, and therefore weak, quarters of bars i 70 and i 78 for these respective roles, he has kettledrum and trumpet enter already at bar 160-just This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

!

I

91

for the purpose of preparing and announcing these unusual rhythmic happenings-as follows: Fig. g8. Tpt. in 0

~-~=~=~~:=J

.,

i

PP!,;

Kettledrum

~Ep?~ ='" ':= ~-=~==--=~l;_p: ~= _p=: ;-~: ; ~_. .i~;: =-=~'1=I:~-=~=-

dentally, is so obvious that Beethoven may well have considered its expression in notation to be superfluous. It has already been remarked that the nuance just mentioned requires a retardation of tempo. But such retardation is so minute that the conductor scarcely needs to indicate it expressly. (This too, incidentally, is doubtless part of the reason there has by convention been general, standing agreement since earliest times about the rule given on p. 61 !) In comparison to the melodically leading oboe and flute, clarinet and bassoon-let this too be mentioned here-must obviously be kept in the background. Bars 195-197. The reason for Beethoven's a tempo indication at bar l g6 (after the rit. at the end of bar l g5) is that bars l g6-197 themselves already represent a composed-out ritenuto, which, if complicated by a second [conducted] one, would lead onto the precipitous course of a self-perpetuating ritenuto. Bar 198ff. Exactly the same applies to the performance of the second subdivision as to that of the first. Bar 218ff. And in the third subdivision as well, in spite of its greater scope, the essential thing is again to attain that view into the distance that allows us to see already at the first entrances of the fugal section (but only as an application of fugal procedure 62 ) the syncopes of bar 236ff., the modulations, and finally the broadly relaxing cadence in A minor (bar 25g[ff.])! From this perspective, then, one will avoid from the outset exaggerating the J at the first, second , and third entrances. One has ample reason, indeed, to conserve all energy and passion for bars 241 ff., since one has yet to negotiate the narrow ravine of the syncopes! Bar 24rff. Here an intensification is obviously appropriate by reason of the situation and would by no means amount to a contradiction of Beethoven, who again found it superfluous to mark an explicit cresc. or even an ff For in fact, a true ff condition is something still very different from the intensification that is supposed to emerge

[60. The discussion that follows actually pertains to bar 192ff.] [61. Through an artwork error, the slur in the original encompassed three sixteenth notes instead of two.] [62. That is, the section is only fugato and not a real fugue.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

99

here from a simple f and in a way replicate in the medium of dynamics, through association, that accumulation of tension necessary to negotiate the syncopes and to effect the two modulations! To express the two-bar-long tension of the suspension up to its resolution (which immediately becomes in turn preparation of the next suspension), one is obliged to use for the syncopes of bars 241252 approximately the following dynamic shading, especially in the basses: Fig. 106.

o=~

(quasi piano)

tJ J~ R m¥---n (4~xq~~ J~ 1

'--

(quasi piano)

2±JiJ--- J. J. J.µ;IJ ....

1

======---

usw.

And similarly also in bars 243, 245, 24 7, 249, and 251. Bar 252. In bar 252, however, the ::==- added consistently by Beethoven himself to all participating instruments must be observed. Its purpose is as though to clarify the exit from the ravine. Bar 274. At the end of bar 274 it is advisable-this goes without saying, incidentally-to reduce the tempo slightly, so as to signal the conclusion of the entire subdivision. Bar 2 75.ff. So far as the dynamic aspect of performance of the fourth subdivision is concerned, it should not be overlooked that only its first four bars (bars 275- 278) stand within the territory of the pp. The next bars (bar 279££.) are already to be performed somewhat louder-Beethoven himself writes poco meno p (!) and moreover adds a p for the horns. Bar 283.ff. The pin woodwinds, trumpets, and kettledrums in bar 283 definitely indicates a p also for the melodically leading violins I and II, especially after the preceding poco meno p. It should be noted further that here the cresc. marking (unlike thP one in bars 84-87) encompasses three bars (bars 283-285), while only the last, fourth bar (bar 286) is reserved for the dimin. marking ::==- . Bar 287.ff. The performance remains in p for bars 287-295 as well, where the cresc. then leads to the/(in bar 29 7££.). Within the/ a foretaste of the recapitulation should be imparted, especially of its grandiose inception; and all spiritual powers should therefore be harnessed in its preparation!

-===

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i

oo

I

First Movement

LITERATURE

The sketch transmitted by Nottebohm from the year i 81 7 ( 1818) may, even in consideration of its early appearance on the scene, pertain already to the third subdivision of the development: Fig. 107,

; ctrP I•@f91 hB I hn IM

M]

Clearer, it must be granted, is the sketch from the year 1822 , which Nottebohm quotes on p. 165: Fig.108.

; :;_JJJJ I JPJ JJj) Jj Jj) JJ J I J JI - a sketch which, as we know, eventually prevailed in exactly this form, even to the inclusion of the Eb-major key. Riemann acquits himself on p. 14 7 by merely describing-and that only in the baseless linguistic conventions of his theory-instead of illuminating the inner nature of the events and their interconnections . Thus the rhythm of the trumpets and kettledrums in bar 160 comes into consideration for him only as a "general upbeat"(!). The consequences of this ingenious feature from the compositional point of view, however, he is unable to specify. The meaning of Beethoven's having entered in bar 160 into the region of the harmony A (~) E, and later in bar 1 70 into that of the harmony D - F# - A, he is likewise unable to explain . Instead he writes, out of both befuddlement and naive unawareness, as follows : The a presented at first only by second horn and second violins is to be understood as a general upbeat, and only with the beginning of the tremolo on the open fifth a-e in cellos and second violins (with the two first horns) are we relocated once again to the beginning; that is, we have once again a strong beat of the highest order. Since the concern here is not once again an introduction of the principal theme, naturally the sixteen bars of a 7 do not remain in place. Instead, Beethoven relocates after only eight bars into D major as dominant of the subdominant (G minor) so as to present the principal theme in the latter key. What good at this point is his "general upbeat," when what is so desperately needed is an explanation of the harmonic paths? Nothing but ignorance is behind his failure to provide any such explanation. This follows from the simple fact that ( i) he speaks of a D major already at bar 1 70 , where instead all that is present is a I of D minor with chromatic alteration of its third-the difference is a very big one!-, which functions as a Vin G minor, and (2) that he himself in turn nevertheless speaks at once of this D major as a "dominant of the subdominant" (G minor)! The actual G minor in bar 178 is, according to him, first of all only the subdominant (cf. his annotation on

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

lo l

p. 148 "first theme in the subdominant" 65 ); and only on p. 150 does he suddenly speak-the reference is as contradictory as it is surprising, to be sure-of a "G minor," which a few lines earlier still was no such key for him! The imitations in bars l g8ff. already signify "stretti" to him (p. 149), where in fact a strict distinction prevails between the two concepts [of imitation and stretto]. He speaks at first correctly enough on p. 149 of the first cadence, bar l 92ff., as a "four-bar group (Viertakter), whose first motif is borrowed from the first theme"; the second cadence, in C minor (bar 21 off.), is also described correctly on p. 150: "The confirmation of the cadence also corresponds exactly to the one written above, except that it is in C minor instead of G minor". But just before the third cadence his empathic capacity gives out, and instead of recognizing the synthetic power-so characteristic in this point-of Beethoven, who, as I said above, uses the motif of bar 3 of the principal theme as a consistently recurring refrain in all four subdivisions of the development, he interprets the third cadence in bar 253 in a neutral manner (p. 152ff.) merely as follows: "The development of the motif

ffl I .~ now reaches its culmination in the following A-minor passage" [a condensed quotation of bar 253ff. follows in Riemann's text]. (NB: Unfortunately Riemann, in reliance on his theory, which he obviously considers better than the instincts and insight of Beethoven, corrects the latter's own version of the third bar to the extent that instead of

J ). ffl

J- -~ ... he reads

J_.~, and this even in the situation of the cadences, which

show slurs/64 ) He erroneously derives the third cadence in this passage only from the counterpoint of the basses (which does include bar 3 as well, to be sure), 65 and further, accordingly, he obviously overlooks the higher compositional intent of the master, which invokes for cadential purposes even once again at the fourth cadence in bar 287ff. (in spite of the fact that here no such preparatory context exists) the motif of bar 3! All he has to say about this [fourth cadence] is the following (p. 154): "Returning once again to the motif

ffl I ! ,

but continuing in the horns at the same time the syncopes

JJJ'

of the preceding passage, the development now moves swiftly to its conclusion by returning with rapid intensification to the fortissimo entrance of the introduction motif in D major." It is clear, then, that he is unable to fuse the four cadences of the four subdivisions of the development into that charac[63. I. Theme und die Unterdominante by mistake in Schenker's text; Riemann's annotation reads "I Theme i. d. U. = Dom."] (64. That is, from first to second sixteenth note of the group in bars 1 9 2ff. , 2 1off. , and 259ff.] [65. That is, he derives the motif of first violins in bar 253ff. exclusively from the bass counterpoint in the preceding bars.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I 02

I

First Movement

teristic higher unity of an artistic design with which Beethoven, precisely by force of a unique creative power unfathomable to further intellectual scrutiny, has imbued them! Kretszchmar writes on p. I i 6: The development further unrolls the Faustian picture: seeking and not finding; rosy fantasies of future and past, and reality filled with a pain that suddenly makes its presence felt! The development section, comparatively, is but short. Thematically it is chiefly carried by images from the third and fourth bars of the principal theme. The element of gloom resurfaces in it, to explode with fullest force in the return of the principal section. Depictions of this kind, which could just as well be applied without scruple to countless other developments in randomly selected works, may doubtless pass judgment on themselves! Grove provides a rather detailed discussion (p. 31 2ff. ), which, however, does not fail to avoid the most byzantine errors: Perhaps in deference to the great demands posed by the Finale, Beethoven here abjures repetition of the first part of the movement, and rather crosses immediately with one of his direct modulations from m major to A minor [here the first error!], draws a double bar through the score, changes the signature from H to ~, and begins the development. The Prologue sounds first in a concise form [here the second error!], after which the energetic rhythm familiar to us from examples 25 and !26,66 emphasized still more by pungent sforzandi, gains the upper hand. Thereupon the tonal poet leads the way to G minor. [Third error: obviously he is unaware that G minor appeared already at bar 180, thus at the beginning of the first subdivision. The consequences of this error, too, are not avoided.] He has already given us a sense (see example !206 7) of how he intends to handle the principal theme; here he takes up the fragment of it mentioned earlier (No. I 7a68 ) and develops it into a fourbar phrase, which he assigns alternately to the oboes and clarinets. At the end he endows it with an expressive ritardando as well, which we will recall again later, near the end of the movement. At first, however, Beethoven turns back from this motif to the complete theme, as we know it from No. I 7. [Fourth error: he simply has not recognized the first subdivision as such, and has rather represented it merely as a "Prologue"!] And then we see his great art in its finest form. The theme descends through the steps of the triad from high to low, while the bass strides upward in the opposite direction with pizzicato notes, and almost seems to represent an inversion of this theme. How expressively the half-step from A~ to G grieves at the second occurrence of the melody [he refers here to the neighboring thirty-second note a~ 2 in violin I in bar [66. Grove's examples showing extracts of bars I 02-107 and 1 1 0-1 13 respec· tively.) [67. An example showing bars 55-56.) [68. Showing the principal theme; the fragment referred to is the third bar.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

i 03

20 i]. But the course of events that might want to announce its presence here is still not Beethoven's goal, and so just as he interrupted the Prologue, he soon interrupts this tonal shape as well with a few bars in C minor based on the rhythm of No. 25b. [Fifth error: he ascribes, as is clear, an excessive significance to the bars that lead in each case to the cadence (see bars i88ff. and 206ff.), since he fails to understand their true significance!] He now takes up the four sixteenths that he favors so highly from No. i 7a [sixth error: the very words "takes up" (aufgreifen) show that Grove too remains innocent of the construction of the cadences!], but soon turns his attention [seventh error: how grotesque to hail the third and most important subdivision with such vacuous words!] to the incorporation of the following bars [meaning bars 3 and 4] of the principal theme as well into the developmental process, and proceeds to construct thereupon a longer section of the movement, which he begins in this way: [a quotation of bars 218-223 follows]. Second violins and basses have the actual thematic task here, while first violins excitedly attack their lowest G and then again the G two octaves higher. This lasts six bars, and the passage is now repeated three more times with the artifices of double counterpoint-that is, such that a lower voice is taken over by a higher one and vice versa-, to leave aside certain other smaller divergences. [Eighth error: Grove has no sense at all of the two m-major entrances ("the passage is now repeated three more times")!] Beethoven has here linked, as we see in the above example, 69 three themes together-the one in sixteenths and the one in eighths, as well as the octave-theme. Each of them, however, is conceived for varied applications in different registers and thematic relationships. At the close of the section the basses have gained title to the sixteenth-note figure, while the violins take up the eighth-note figure, into which they transplant their intervallic leaps, now expanded to more than an octave. [Ninth error: the middle of the third subdivision is for him its closesuch hearing!] We might think that Beethoven had already exploited every expressive capability of the theme; and yet, he is able to say completely new things with it even after these forty bars. The expression has become calmer, and the sixteenth-note figure appears with the expression cantabile, which is used by the composer only with special intent. [Tenth error: at long last he discovers what he should have seen much earlier, at bars 192 and 21 o; true, the marking at those points is at first only espressivo!] A duet between violins I and II develops from this, the accompaniment to which is taken over by the 'celli with the eighthnote figure. [Here the quotation of bars 259-266.] But Beethoven now recalls other tonal ideas as well [such a tasteless form of expression! Eleventh error!], and intermingles for a short period the second part 70 of the second theme (No. 23) in F, by both presenting the theme in its original form and also assigning the melody to the basses and the arpeggiations to the treble in double counterpoint. But he [69. That is, of bars 218-223.] [70. Bar 8off.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1 04

I

First Movement

has grown too fond of that sixteenth-note figure not to return to it again. He presents it several times, and in inversion as well; and when the time comes to bid it farewell, he does so in a forte of the full orchestra. [Twelfth error: with the locution "that sixteenth-note figure" Grove expresses a comprehensive structural intent by Beethoven, one that elevates the whole Development to a state of utmost transparency!] ~ingartner makes the effort, which cannot be valued highly enough, to supplement the dynamic shadings on the basis of the sense of the composition also in those places where Beethoven considered such an exact specification to be superfluous, because probably all too self-evident. In bar 232, however, he overlooks the fact that the dynamic level is intentionally held in check by Beethoven himself, because only with the entrance of violin I in bar 236 are all registers of the reinforcing wind instruments to be opened. It is a shame that he fails to extend the nuancing that he applies in particular only to bar 249££. 71 to all preceding syncopations as well, since the same reason for the nuancing is indeed also to be assumed for them! (To bring out the "despairing beauty" of bars 249££. is another matter, and is moreover the particular duty of the conductor.) On p. 185 he writes perfectly correctly, even if without completely clear consciousness, about bar 196 as follows:

Strange to say, the a tempo in these bars is often overlooked and the short ritard. that precedes is carried in each case over the two bars following it. It should therefore be observed that the whole beauty of the execution depends on the a tempo coming in just where Beethoven has prescribed it, and on the careful avoidance of any sentimentality of expression. If the quavers are held on dotted, as they should be in spite of the return of the original time, we get a kind of portamento, 72 which might be given by the notation, Fig. 10~9-·~~~~~~~~~---

which is really only a continuation of the notation already prescribed for the three ritardando notes.

(71. Weingartner, p. 187.J [72. The correct word would be portato. See above, note 10.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Recapitulation (Bars 30 i-426) After the exhaustive treatment of the First Part offered above, it may now be appropriate to describe the Recapitulation merely by means of a sequential presentation. The Recapitulation begins with bar 30 i, since, as we know, Beethoven treats the Introduction as an organic component of the principal theme. 73

73. On a smaller scale, but perhaps for that very reason in a more ingenious manner, Haydn uses a similar technique in his D-major Symphony (No. 1 04) , Payn e No. g, last movement. Observe there too how two introductory bars:

Cello.77-77..._.77...._.....-77 Homs are brought into an organic interdependency with the them e; they return in the modulating section:

Fig.

III.

usw.

in the second theme: 105

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar

301

ff.

1

06

I

First Movement

In comparison to the introduction to the First Part, which was based on V, the head of the Recapitulation is distinguished first of all through the use of the tonic D itself. Its major third f#, however, is not a product of mixture, as it might appear at first glance, but rather of a chromaticization in favor of the IV that is to be expected (cf. Harmony, §139££.): D minor: Li - - - IV Effect: G . mmor: V~--- I The latter then actually appears in bar 312, only to be itself chromaticized in turn, as though the V were to be expected immediately afterward:

Fig.

II2.

"~VI.I.

p VI. II.

-

J

sf

Viola. -6-

...I

I.

-6-

Sf

I I j.i.... .1.. I 1t- ... - -

I

...I J

at the beginning of the Recapitulation (!):

and most imposingly, without doubt, at the close:

sfJ--..J

/-1

r-·--ff....._..........._..........._ This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

usw.

First Movement

I

107

D minor: #IV - - (V) Eff ect: Arna;/ min: VII - - - (I)

If we consider that in bars 301-314 Beethoven could also have simply placed the harmonies D - F# - A and D - F - A in direct succession in the sense of a mixture, so that intervention by the harmony D - F - Ab would thus have been completely superfluous, we recognize all the better that the harmony D - F# - A, as I have just affirmed, is by no means to be understood in the sense of a D-major key (which would later have had to yield to the D-minor key only through the device of mixture!), but only in the sense of a tonic, chromaticized at the third, of the immediately entering D-minor key itself. In reality, then, what is present here is the scale-degree progression 1# 3 - #IVb~ - (V) - I in D minor, in which the organic necessity of the harmony bb - d - f - ab (g#) is clearly revealed; the chromatic alteration in principle acquires a kind of causality that mixture entirely lacks. 74 From the compositional standpoint, one should finally observe also in bars 304, 308, 31 o the rhythmic organization of the kettledrums, which participate thematically:

m-

Fig. II6.

(!)

At bar 315 the principal theme itself begins. Its presentation in the Recapitulation is limited to only the antecedent section; but even

m

74. We arrive at the same result, incidentally, if we assume the bass tone in bar 313 to represent a VI. In keeping with the tonicization process, the chromatic alteration of the seventh (a~) would then, admittedly, have to point to a ~II: Fig.

115.

~ I

l> 7

~-(...-&a~-...,..,~-) VI- (l> II

V -

I)

The circumstance, however, that, as the continuation shows, the ~II that is expected and due fails to materialize, and that instead the tonic itself suddenly appears, co nstrains us ultimately to relinquish the seventh a~-as though it were a ca use without an effect!-in its identity as seventh of VI, and rather to reinterpret it as a g~ , by which, however, we produce once again (quod erat demonstrandum!) only the raised IV.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar 3 , 5ff.

1

08

I

First Movement

the latter does not proceed all the way to a full cadence, as it did in the First Part, but instead comes to its conclusion on the dominant (see bar 339), the scale degree that proves to be the one most uniquely suited to take up the modulation theme (see bar 74££.). For this attenuation of the principal theme, however, Beethoven offers an original substitute: he gives the leading role to imitations between strings and winds in the manner of a double choir, and thereby artificially extends the passage! First, successive pairs of bars in the strings are repeated by the winds. Observe how bars 315-316 ( = bars I 7-18 of the First Part) and bars 319-320 (= bars 19-20 of the same) are imitatively countered by bars 317-318 and 321-322 of the winds. Next-from bar 323 on-, however, the imitations even assume the character of actual stretti. As the following example shows: Fig, u7. Fl. I. II. I

~_Q

fvi. 1. 1·

in each of bars 324 and 326 the winds enter after only one bar-that is, before each respective pair of closely affiliated bars of the principal theme (e.g. bars 323-324 (=bars 21-22) and bars 325-326 (=bars 23-24)) has been completely traversed. From bar 327 on, however, the imitation in two-bar units is resumed. In bars 315-32 2 a new content is noticeable in the basses, one that has no past history in the work. To view it as perhaps a new ornament, an insignificant stroke of variety present merely out of deference to the Recapitulation, would be a mistake. It represents, rather, an organically necessary resultant of the double-choral technique described above. Specifically, it was not appropriate to have the basses of the string section join with the unisono of both choirs and thus utter twice the same two-bar content. That would have been not only aesthetically but also technically impermissible, since it would have completely obliterated the double-choral technique. Like it or not, Beethoven therefore had to make up his mind to give the doublebasses their own, new counterpoint. It has the appearance, as we

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

109

can observe, of a clamp running underneath , which binds the two choirs with their 2 x 2-bar organization :

Fig.

us. VI. I.

Dmi.: I

315

...... -

316 ~ Ob. Ji

317

+

,__ !) +

318

I

-

In comparison to bars i 7-24, which in the harmoni c aspect brought scale degrees I - IV only in simple diatonic form, bars 315325 show a chromaticization of the I in favor of the IV. It is precisely this chromaticization that casts its first shadow in a marvelous way already in bar 320. There we see in the cellos and doublebasses the sixteenth-note b before the seventh c, which, it is true, attains full illumination only through the chromaticized third f# in bar 322, and points toward a subdominant to be composed out in the sense of a G-major key. I mentioned already that from bar 327 on the play of the imitations again unfolds in units of two bars at a time. The motif in question here is that of bars 25-26, which is repeated no fewer than six times. This large number of repetitions , in which Beethoven seems to pay a final tribute to the Development, is, to be sure, enabled only by the scale-degree progression, which runs its course above a tonic organ point as follows:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar ?>27ff

1 1o

Fig. ug. VI.

First Movement

.-. .

Ob~ I • sf_. •

VII

I

Dmi. :

I

I

It

. . . . .

6£n1

f

Organ point on: I

IV

VI.

I v

7 -

v Now it becomes clear only through the imitations why Beethoven in bar 327 abandoned the syncopation as it appears in bars 24-25 and set in its place the sf accent: if the motif of the imitation were not equipped with such a free beginning, 75 how would the winds of bar 329 even have been able to enter at all? Noteworthy and instructive is the technique of composing out that emerges in the contrary-motion figures of the cellos in bars 329338. Compare, just for example, the two tones g# and gin bars 9 and i i of the preceding example, of which the first is to be understood as [75. That is, if had not been free to deviate from the model of bars 24- 25.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

111

the chromatically raised third of II, but the second as the diatonic seventh of the dominant! The many modifications in respect to instrumentation and scale-degree progression to which the Recapitulation lays claim as such are not to be discussed in detail here; only a few points may be singled out as especially important features. In order to preserve the major quality of the corresponding theme in the First Part, the second theme here begins likewise in major, thus in D major. Bars 349- 350 (the fifth and sixth bars of the theme), which are analogous to bars 84-85, also linger in major; but suddenly, and indeed only by dint of mixture, D minor enters already in the next bars (351 ff.). At the same moment-observe this feature of such great psychological interest!-the consequent that has just begun is expressly started over from the beginning, although two bars of it have already elapsed. How ingenious an expression of the tenacity of the D-major key, which gives the impression of not wanting to relinquish the floor until it is-at last-compelled to! Here in the Recapitulation as well, the closing theme in particular demands full attention. Even the first prototype of bars 407-408 shows two alterations in comparison to the corresponding bars 138-1 39: 1. the second syncope at the end of bar 407 is missing, since the exact replica would have had to go as follows: Fig,

F.R .1.. i-

. -i; .___ . --. - .ITI' ::c:::c ITI'il

--... ___:_::::=::::•

120. -

-

r~

:=P

::C:::C

I ~~~

~!

3 ~Ef3=

the second-step a 2 - g 2 , which appears in place of the omitted syncope, is retained only in oboe I, while the flute converts the second into a seventh, which, precisely for this reason, has no intrinsic thematic significance. The subsequent bars 409-41 o bring a II; the diminished fifth proper to that harmony causes a new difficulty. It is this fifth specifically which, because of the augmented fourth, on the one hand rules out from the beginning a version such as this (cf. bars 140- 141 ), for example: 2.

,..----.,

Fig.

121 •

~ ~

.IL~+-...

.IL . -

, rr~ rt£I1~rr-

usw.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar 3 4 5ff.

Bar 4 o 7 ff.

I I 2

I

First Movement

But since here too, as in bars 138-145, the governing necessity of reaching a sixth at the end of the motif: Fig. 122.

b. 407

~-

Ob.

~

demanded, on the other hand, a version whose last interval formed exactly the sixth, e (with g of the bass), equally excluded from the start therefore was a figure such as the following:

;p rrr Fig. 123.

~-

-

Fr Fr I jt F

usw.

But since this line would, because of the twofold encounter of the tone b~2 (especially in such quick succession), have made a poor effect (cf. Counterpoint i, p. 100), Beethoven invoked the device of imitation:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

First Movement

.......Fig.125. Ob -

&g~ ~

Fl. I. ~ i

ffl,-

1 13

.............

~

..

--..Z.

----

ttr-rrEF I~

t'I "1

s, ...

-

which is used here as a metaphorical safety valve against the effect of the poor line, while the new articulation in the flute at the same time imbues the motif with a more intensive expression. The version of the motif thus gained in bars 409-41 o then becomes prototypical also for the subsequent composing out of I# 3 in bars 411-412:

Imitation acts as an aid here as well, with the only difference in comparison with the model being that the inversion of the seventh, instead of occurring as in the latter at the boundary of bar 409, takes place here only between the third and fourth 76 sixteenths of bar 41 2. The composing out of the IV in bars 41 3-414, finally, is shaped as follows: Fig. 127. Ob.

In the imitation, which, as we see, this figure also shares with the two preceding ones, the only difference in comparison to the earlier versions is again in the ordering of the leaps: the oboe presents a seventh-leap (between the first and second sixteenths), while the flute makes a fifth-leap (between the second and third sixteenths) so as to continue by forming counterpoint in sixths and octaves against the oboe.

[76. Erroneously, zweiten und dritten in the original.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

64

First Movement

All accents and nuances of pressure must therefore be reduced to a minimum. And just as in harmonic terms only the one scale degree, the V, literally seems to lie in wait from bar I 20 on for the tonic (which, however, does not arrive until bar i 38), so too all melodic content, as a great, careening mass that gives the impression of being under a single slur encompassing eighteen bars, must likewise obey only the one driving force-the force that drives toward the future, embodied by the closing theme! Attention should be given, nevertheless, to the gentle conflict in bars 120-129 of gt. and g at the beginning of the violin figures. This involves, specifically, applying different coloration to the two tones so as to highlight their difference as well. Still more important, however, and despite the sempre pp, is to direct attention for the first time to the third-motif of the flute through the following mode of performance: Fl. ,.-Fig. 63.

®~

.,,

q

©£

Ob.

q

.,,

i

q

i

:::=-

:::=-

~

.,,

I

usw.

If such performance commends itself already on the basis of the rule mentioned several times above, according to which it would be completely wrong to play

....

,.--

Fig. 64.

~

!j_

~

Ff -=:::

~

i

~

~

i

..

~

-=:::

u

under any circumstances, another consideration provides a still stronger reason for the manner of playing shown in figure 63: the fact that the third-motif is the seed of the closing theme. And in the sequel as well, the conductor should devote greatest attention to the destiny described above of the third-motif, especially in bars 132ff., where the motif is found in the basses (doublebass, cellos, and bassoons I and II). Here he should suppress somewhat the oboes and also the violins and violas, in spite of the thematic significance of their motif and in spite of the f, and instead give the thirdmotif, which surfaces here in transformation to a tenth, that espressivo quality which alone is capable of preparing the closing theme! The suitable shading for this purpose is approximately the following:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

11

5

for reasons of principle related to orchestral style, as will be shown at other points in this work. What a distance between the musical instinct of a Beethoven and that of the modern musician! PERFORMANCE

Bar 301.ff. The principles already described above on pp. 42 and 44 77 are to be applied also to the performance of this ff condition, so broadly dimensioned dynamically and perhaps completely unique in the literature, which persists through bars 301-337. That is to say, only those tones that Beethoven has expressly marked either.IJ-e.g., in bars 301, 305, 309, 311, 312 (in the winds), 313, 315, etc.-orsfbars 315, 316, 317, 320, and 322 (in the cellos and basses), etc.-or simply f-e.g., bars 323, 324, 325-should be brought out with emphasis and· force. Such emphasis, however, demands-just to hone the appropriate technique anew at this opportunity-that the weight of force be moderated just before [each accent]. Bars 3 2 3-326. Here we observe that Beethoven in bar 324 discontinues in violin I and II and viola the f indication shown by bar 323, and proceeds similarly in bars 325-326 as well. What is this intended to mean? If it is recalled that in these bars the stretto that I have described above on p. l 08 takes place, the care with which Beethoven moderated the f of the strings as soon as the winds take their turn can only be viewed with astonishment! How else could the stretto be brought to expression here than by strict adherence to Beethoven's indication, which so expressly guarantees the effect? Bars 349-354. Only the most faithful execution of the-=::::: :::::=indicated in bars 349-350 will give expression to the abrupt breaking-off of the major mode, which has to give way to the minor in bar 351, and will thus at the same time secure the necessary vividness for the content of the subsequent bars 351-354. Bar 426. At this point, in order to suggest the beginning of the Coda, a modest ritardando should be combined with the marking

=====-. LITERATURE

Reserving the rights attendant on purely pianistic necessities, Liszt represents the closing theme with perfect accuracy:

77. Compare also my remarks in the elucidations to l S. Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue. [See the Appendix.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

1 16

Fig.

131 •

..!..rn;: . . ~-..l.-I ~ ~.i:!J

-

First Movement

- -. . 1

.fl-•€

~ ...

r

The remarks and emendations by Wagner in connection with the same passage, on the other hand, deserve to be most emphatically rejected. His ratiocinations show him to be completely devoid of any feeling for those reasons described above that Beethoven had for the seventh-leaps and the imitations, and thus he ends up wanting to bring out exactly that from which Beethoven himself, intentionally and with application of subtlest technique, urgently tries to distract attention! It would scarcely be possible simply to imagine a more profound opposition than that which emerges from the tendencies that guided Beethoven and Wagner in this passage! Wagner writes [pp. 248-251]:

It will be vastly more difficult, however, to make the melodic content

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

t t

7

equally comprehensible in the parallel passage in the second part of the movement, 78 where it returns in a different key and register. Here the flute, whose use is favored for the sake of the higher register now needed, dictates, because of its own limitations in the upward direction, alterations of the melodic course. These alterations immediately becloud its clarity, which is demanded by the meaning of the phrase as nevertheless made explicit at the same time. Ifwe compare the flute part from the score [here Wagner quotes the original version of the flute part of bars 407-414] to the melodic course that is very perceptible from the combination of the oboe and clarinet, and which also corresponds to the earlier configuration at the close of the First Part: Fig. 132.

4~-:e

....

;~ !1r itEi

I ~~±J

~-~

q r1

r rrf1q

we must make up our minds to acknowledge a dubious-because disruptive of correct assimilation of the melody-distortion of the musical thought. Here a thorough restoration of the latter appears very audacious, because in two cases an interval must even be altered-namely in the third bar of the flute: Fig. 133.

,,--..,

instead of Fig. 134·

'f.a:--

__r_c£] and in the fifth bar:

[78. Wagner's context here is a discussion of bars 1 38ff.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1

18

I

First Movement

Fig. 135.

,,,-

P+

...t:~ instead of

would have to be written; and thus even Liszt shied away from the noble effort this time, and allowed the passage to remain a melodic monster, as it appears to everybody who senses here in our orchestral performances of the symphony a melodic vacuum (because of complete lack of clarity) of eight bars. After having myself repeatedly suffered most painfully under the same impression , I would decide in the case at hand to have these eight bars played by flute and oboe in the following way:

~ "I

tqp1rffl

Here the second flute would have to remain absent in the fourth bar, but the second oboe would supplement in the seventh and eighth bars as follows:

iiH q Fig. 138.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

1 19

Beyond observance of the same nuances of the espressivo that have already been established as necessary for these phrases , this time, in order to do justice to the melos as it has been altered in every second bar, a more urgent -=:::: is to be applied, and a particularly emphatic molto crescendo added to the last of the eight bars, through which the disputed leap of the flute from G to high F# : Fig. i39 . .........-

-which I regard as in keeping with the true intention of the master here-would gain the decisive expression and be placed in the correct light.

Riemann (pp. 155-157) errs in respect to the harmonic roots in bar 327££. A comparison of the roots suggested by him and by me may serve to demonstrate his error: Fig. i40. Riemann Bar 327-328, 329-330, 331-332, 333-334,

~~ Fig.

335 -

336, 337 -

338

"La - I ~-I ~ I ~ I " I ~--I ~ Ir rI I ~ k4 a

i41.

Schenker

-

-

a

D mi.: VIl _ _l._ _ ___JV _ _ _ lfIV~3__JI _ _ _ _ V _ __ (V)

It can be inferred from this that Riemann has difficulty understanding composed-out larger complexes, and posits instead only smaller units , for the sake of which he then causes harmonic roots to dart about in a curiously irrational manner. Kretzschmar (p. 1 16) has for the whole passage only the following words: ... at that point where the kettledrum trills its d for all of thirty-eight bars; where the two parts of the orchestra have at each other wildly and vigorously-a passage in which the technical means of musical art appear barely able to satisfy Beethoven's demonic intentions.

Weingartner (p. 189££.), who, as I have already mentioned, very laudably concerns himself about shadings within the ff, devises especially for the performance of bars 301-336 a largely acceptable plan. It is a pity only that he erroneously believes himself here to stand in contradiction to Beethoven-"it is evident from the notation, " he says, "that Beethoven intended a continuous fortissimo of the utmost strength"-and therefore, curiously, instead of articulating a general, logically conscious law of performance, begs indulgence for ideas that are in themselves correct.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

120

I

First Movement

He was not justified, of course, in altering the trumpets in bar 31 o and asking for a "thematic progression" in a place where Beethoven, for reasons of the attenuation cited above on pp. 107-108, neither asked for nor could ask for one.79 In regard to the closing theme, he accepts Wagner's suggestions (p. 195). Small wonder, for he too lacks that subtle tonal instinct that prefers to have the melos, once it has successfully been thoroughly secured, repeat or continue in variants rather than always laying itself most monotonously bare at the feet of incompetent listeners for fear of misunderstanding. The laws that govern the joining of the registers prerequisite to the appearance of motifs at all are unknown to him as well , and therefore he recommends (p. 197) playing bar 416 as it stands in figure 130, taking no offense at the fact that the register ofbP as such is not at liberty to enter " out of the blue," so to speak, and must sound completely out of place after bars 412-413. While Beethoven expressly brings violin I down an octave in bar 413 so as to be able to pick up the melos in the same register in bar 416, Weingartner, on the contrary, clearly misunderstands all of this care and pursues merely a common conception of clarity. With all of his superfluous alterations, however, he basically fails to achieve more than Beethoven, with the most finely calibrated technique of registral connection and with identification of all artistic interests of high and low, has himself already achieved.

Bars 427-452

The Coda begins with bar 427. If we consider the content of bars 427-430 and the analogs in bars 431-434 and 435-438:

it is clear that the spirit of the Development still hovers above to a certain extent. This is indicated not only by the p character of the whole group of bars and the articulation of bar 429 in particular (whose origin is precisely the development-see bar 192), but alsocompare the construction in the first and second subdivisions of the Development, bars 180-187 and 198-205!-by the imitations,

[79. Weingartner had recommended (p. 193) a change of the last trumpet note in bar 31 o from written C to written G, so that the trumpets would sound the thematic fifth A-D.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

68

I

First Movement

really too far removed from the true concept-; but just as surely as it is impossible for our ear to connect from the last eighth note (b 1) of the clarinet in bar 5 to the e 2 of the oboe in bar 6 as a melodic continuation, all danger is to the same extent ruled out that the clarinet should sacrifice any of its leading role in the subsequent bars 37 as well just because of the entrance of the oboe and later of the flute. It would certainly have been a different matter, and more reproachable, if Beethoven had overpowered the clarinet by filler-voices already in bar 5; but with secure instinct, he avoided such an error, and thus it happens completely naturally that in bars 6 and 7 we continue to follow the clarinet, from which alone we have to await the further track of melos. Applied in such a way, Beethoven's technical device just described of leaving the clarinet still completely uncovered in bar 5 thus signifies precisely that securing of melos that was so dear to Wagner as well. (Incidentally, the continuity-voice of the oboe changes to reinforcement already at bar 7, so that from that point on any misunderstanding is nipped in the bud.) But it was precisely the Beethovenian manner of securing melos that Wagner considered altogether insufficient. True enough, he too was concerned with securing melos, but he obviously wanted still more radical guarantees of its security. In other words, both of them, Beethoven and Wagner, strove for the same thing-namely, to protect the principal narrative against misunderstanding at the point in question. The only difference between them was choice of methods and degree of insight into the psychology of the listener. Beethoven's more powerful and ingenious instinct had hit upon the necessary technical precaution, and then confidently left all else up to those laws that operate so dependably in the soul of the listener. Man-of-the-theater Wagner, on the other hand, who dispensed with security of instincts and technique, worried constantly about the receptive capacity of the listeners, and thus was driven to offer everything possible literally to compel them to allegiance. For Beethoven: security of means, secure confidence of technique and indifference to the personal relationship of the listener. For Wagner: underestimation of completely trustworthy technical means, and, as a consequence, brute force as a means of coercing an unnecessary degree of clarity. In contrast to the Beethovenian way, that of Wagner may well be designated rather as one related to the Italian character-how naively this truth is betrayed by the first quotation above!-; that is, clarity of melos, as Wagner sought it, is based on the radical operatic "up front," just as the Italians' superficial natural tendency has made it the law of their operatic style. Wagner approached the Ninth Symphony, then, from such perspectives as these, which, in the stricter sense, are to be called nothing but Italian; and the strongest counterevidences that Beethoven marshalled in his score were not able to free him from error. There are many passages in the symphony that Wagner wanted, for one reason or another and by one means or another, to make clearer than in the version left to us by Beethoven himself. Starting from the premise that hardly anything can be of such paramount importance for the future of musical art than insight into this (37. That is, subsequent to bar 5.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

122

I

First Movement

that by comparison to the first imitation in the horns, the second in the flute already exhibits an expanded upbeat. The reason for this change is not, however, as one might think, merely that of variety and contrast, but something far more profound, which is bound up in the most curious and intimate way with the very plan of the Coda itself. As I set out to portray this plan in its step-by-step unfolding, I point out to the reader that he here stands before one of the most brilliant technical achievements ever vouchsafed the master's genius. Beethoven's plan specifically was immediately to demolish once again the very four-bar unit within which he had finally, in the Coda, welded together bars 1-3 of the principal theme after the vicissitudes of their experience in the Development. To achieve this goal, he first has bassoon I accompany in the lower octave-at first as reinforcement-the melodically leading violin I, but in such a way that the bassoon enters two sixteenths earlier. Observe, however, that in such a case only the following articulation would be at all conceivable:

And it is in exactly this configuration that the same instrument in fact reinforces the melody of violin I later on, in bars 435-436 and 439440. Beyond this, however, the second imitation mentioned above in flute I (bars 433-434) also acquires the upbeat formation just described (figure 144), as the following illustration shows: Fig. 145 .....---

r€··:e

iJ I t

$~ q,,

#~·

"

q I ttk brd

- a formation that is then taken over by all further imitations. The ear of the listener now enters a state of vexatious confusion, since it is prevented by the common upbeat formations from being able to distinguish so easily between the imitations in the horns, flute I, clarinet I, and so forth, and the mere reinforcements in the bassoon-prevented, that is, from being so easily able to hear the former as precisely imitations, and the latter as mere reinforcements. Thus Beethoven fashions the first step on the path to the goal. The second step now follows.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

i

23

If we consider in particular the relationship of the imitations to the underlying four-bar unit (in violin I), we can say that in spite of the undoubtedly thematic character of bars 429-430 ( = bar i 9), the content of those bars is in a certain sense subordinated, by the intervention of the imitations with their expanded upbeat formations, to nothing more than a counterpoint against the latter. Beethoven was very well aware of this effect, and it was exactly the point of departure he took for his operations as he set about the destruction of the four-bar unit. All he needed to do-as he did in fact do for the first time at bar 440-was to sever bar 2 of the principal theme from bar 3 by means of a rest:

in order to subordinate more completely than heretofore the effect of the last two bars of the group as that of a mere counterpoint against the ever-intensifying thematic significance of the imitation. Thus the significance of the imitation in clarinet I waxes rapidly in bar 44off. and bar 444ff., so that bars 1-2 of the principal theme alone must increasingly stand-at the expense of the four-bar group-in the foreground of all attention! Under the weight of the imitations, bars 3-4, severed by the rest from bars 1-2 of the original unit, decrease in importance until they finally disappear completely. We notice their absence for the first time in bar 449, at which point the "hand-to-hand combat" that presses toward the final resolution begins:

usw.

No longer is any sign of the four-bar unit visible in any direction! But matters could never have come to this highly dramatic peripeteia

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

70

I

First Movement

winds, and at the same time rendered difficult for the thematic entrance by the violins the characteristic hallmark of this passage, precisely the crescendo that is but still to come. This defect, however, which here makes its presence felt only in a delicate way, would have been completely remediable by means of the discreet poco crescendo, which unfortunately is almost unknown to our orchestral players, but which necessarily precedes piu crescendo. It is for this reason that I wanted to recommend, through detailed discussion of the passage under consideration, this eminently correct dynamic performance nuance for special practice and assimilation. A critique of these ideas issues automatically from a clarification of those principles by which Beethoven was guided in this passage . In bars 9293 we see in violins I and II the motif, whose origin was shown above, presented in undisturbed clarity and moreover in a register that certainly attracts the ear just because of its high position. By thus abjuring everything that could have endangered the clarity of the motif here, where it first appears, Beethoven has done all that was necessary and possible for the purpose of securing melos. Under equally favorable circumstances, then, the melos is entrusted to clarinets I and II in the corresponding bars 96-97. By this twofold act of artistic precaution and ingenuity, the motif was secured to the extent that the master, obeying the principle of variety and contrast, could now venture with greatest confidence to camouflage the melos to some extent in the subsequent bars, and thereby to expose a state of tension, without having to fear that the listener would lose orientation and continuity! Thus in bars 98-99 he reinforces the motif in the clarinets by adding flute II in a higher register, while the rising motion of a countering voice in bar 99 enables violin I to achieve in bar 1 oo the register in which it gains the requisite affiliation with flute II, as shown below : ~

Fig. 68. r.

I

E.#t ~~~~~~~...~ --~

Fl. II.

VI. I.

Moreover, flute I sustains the tone g 3 in bars 98-99, whereby it contributes a filler-voice. Thus the situation here is exactly as in the example cited from the Eighth Symphony: since the tensions that Wagner sensed as altogether

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

i

25

(This chain of sixth-chords can, regardless of the contrapuntally conceived series of several suspensions- 5 - 6, 5 - 6, 5 - 6, etc.that it contains, be regarded as a single, broadly constructed passingtone motion.) In bar 489 the IV is finally reached, but instead of producing g, the tone that is due, Beethoven takes us by complete surprise by raising it at once-thus without mediation-to g# 2 : Fig. 149·

for:

~~ tTtQ t=Tt(r II

t_TQJ gSTltj

usw.

v _ _ __

Dm1.:

This obviously happens in a state of ecstasy: he overshoots the goal, so to speak, when he immediately lurches ahead tog# instead of g! (This is also the reason for the marking.ff exactly at the tone g#.) After overstepping the sought-after climax, however, Beethoven felt the need to have the tonal flow immediately recede again to the tone g; he effects this retreat of the line by first reinterpreting g# as ab, by which means he can then still more logically make the line descend to g. (In the oscillation of the tones ab and eb in bars 490 and 492, surely only neighbors of the tones g and d are to be espied; yet they can, if desired, also be regarded as independent scale degreesspecifically as VI\, 7 and bll- , in which case bar 493 would be of only passing character. 80) The V appears already in bar 494, at which point the tone g forms an appoggiatura to the sixth, f, which itself represents, naturally, the usual appoggiatura in the dominant, V6- 5 . The counterpoints in the winds of course adapt themselves to the harmony in each case, as it is expressed by the string orchestra. They manifest most delicate poetic quality and completely special sen sitivity regarding the adaptation in bars 490-494. Thus we find in bar 490 in the oboe the following variant: Fig. 150.

13i='"'.

•

• (!J

~

wrrrrf%ci4

Bo. The D of bar 493 is a passing tone from E~ to C# in any case.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

126

I

First Movement

in which the first sixteenth e 2 relates to the harmony g# - bh - d in D minor, but the penultimate sixteenth already takes into account the reinterpretation effected in the same bar of g# as ah and adheres to the harmony bh - d - ah (apparently in Eh major). For the sake of the harmony eh - g - bh , interpreted above as either a neighboring-note harmony or ah II in D minor, the clarinet in bar 492, like the oboe at the end of bar 490, employs the tone eh 2: Fig. 151.

CL in B'

trhtrttr=i piz't p

dim.

Similarly, one gathers from the figure of the following bar 493: Fig. 152. Flute

P¥1~i: ~i:$~

~p -!:::!: I t t;:±: I

J

N'

that the harmony g - bh - dis to be explained only with reference to the milieu of scale degree hII.81 Only bar 494, with the tone e in oboe I and bassoon I, clearly pays homage to diatony itself: Fig.

~1\@ti~·it:!:·===4:~~Q~

,

~'"--..-I'm;~, Bn. I '-

Bar 4 95ff.

·••

which admittedly-in spite of the lowering of II and the counterpoints provided for the elaboration thereof-has fundamentally not been suspended for the longest time. Curiously, the scene just described ends up in the same cadential formation that we heard shortly before at bar 453. The variant employed here falls far short, at least as I hear it, of suppressing the listener's awareness that the cadential formation from bar 495 on unfortunately begins once again with the tone a. 82 [81. The technical foundation for this is given in the preceding note.] 82 . How much more precisely Brahms proceeded in such cases, for example in his Fourth Symphony, where he does quote the modulation-motif of the first move ment:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

127

Beginning in bar 505 there appears in the service of the cadence that construction with which we are already familiar from the Development (cf. bars 192-197 and 210-217) and which, to be sure, appears here in a transposition to the main key. But attention should moreover be directed to the abbreviation that emerges in that construction by comparison with the two earlier ones: it involves the circumstance that while two scale degrees-the I and IV of G minor or C minor-were activated in each of the previous cases, here only one scale degree-the VII of the D minor key-is used. The repetition in bars 509-512 of bars 505-508 gives Beethoven an incentive for an audacious instrumentational variant, which takes place between oboe I and flute I: Fig. 157. Fl. I.'7•

£

Ob.I.

_

t:-

These broken octaves may justly be described as in essence a pianistic effect. The adaptation of such an effect to the orchestra is an unusual venture which, in its execution, is not always rewarded with the success hoped for by the composer. Now a basso ostinato with a sevenfold repetition stretches through bars 513-526:

Fig. 154. VI. I.!:

®i

#t:

t I i r rTr t 7

I I a======~~~~~·3sa B mi.: VI _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _! _ _ two more times in the Coda, but in the following varied tonal situations:

Fig. 155, +

J+

mLE ~"·#=a=)f=·=tr=f==f==t==i==t==:;=-EHE= E I r~FFr E mi. : IV _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _

f

usw.

Emi.: I

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

usw.

usw.

Bar 5 1:,ff.

1 28

I

First Movement

Fig. 158.

Above it unfolds a new cadential theme of march-like character tempered by a singular balladic mood: Fig. 159· Ob.I...-

Bar 52 7 ff.

-tr

The basso-ostinato figure is probably most appropriately to be derived from the descending tone-succession of the two preceding bars (see figure 157). It should not be overlooked, further, that in bars 513-520 horn and oboe stand in a type of imitational relationship (several characteristics requisite for a "stretto" are absent). The same components appear superimposed (without imitation) in bars 521-526. Bars 527-530 contain two cycles of the scale-degree progression I - VI - II - V and lead to the final organ point on I. The latter is challenged in bars 532-534by1# 3 - #IV - V and achieves repetition in bars 535-538. The entire string orchestra, including the doublebasses (!), here presents that variant of the motif of bar 4, with its ghostly leaps, that is already known to us from the Development (see violin I, flutes , and bassoons in bars 241-248 and, similarly, cellos in bars 287-296). The winds carry in the meantime a tone-succession that is in itself of strange appearance: Fig. 160. Ob. I . ! _

== nD mi.:

r·'.: :fT~ • I s I- r-·E t• I ,, ...-

a--~-=

Jlf3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

~-

1

1fJV~3

...-~·°1:.

I

--

t rL

ylf3

But by virtue of the scale-degree progression presented above, we easily recognize in it the third of I, f#; the root of raised IV, g#; and finally the root of V. Observe in the final bars, 539-54 7, how bars 1-4 of the principal theme are newly reunited; the fact that they appear one last time in exactly their original form is of more decisive import than the circumstance that between bars 1-2 and bars 3-4 of the theme a four-bar interpolation nevertheless occurs.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

1 29

PERFORMANCE

Bar 427.ff. Beethoven explicitly calls attention by means of an espressivo marking to the figure of bar 430, which, as we shall see below, is so thoroughly misunderstood. I have already explained its meaning above. To express that meaning effectively, only the following shading is appropriate:

It goes without saying that even within the crescendo as well as in the diminuendo, the particular articulation of the slurs must moreover be given expression. The new second entrance, however, must by all means be performed once again in p, and with the same sense of mystical entrancement as the first entrance. For it should not be overlooked that Beethoven-how perfectly his markings alone depict the course of action!-lets exactly the p prevail as the fundamental emotional state until bar 439, and notates the cresc. for the first time only where he sets about demolishing the four-bar unit (which has asserted itself three times thus far) under ever more excruciating upheavals. Only the job of demolition proceeds with a simultaneous swell of dynamic tension, then, while the thus far intact four-bar units still abide in a thoroughgoing p, regardless of individual shadings that only ruffle the surface of the p, so to speak. It is further the obligation of the conductor at this point to differentiate by means of specialized tone production the imitations of the flute and clarinet from the mere reinforcements of the bassoon. To this end, he must either have the bassoon play softer, or the flute/ clarinet play louder. Beginning in bar 441, incidentally, Beethoven has himself reinforced the imitating clarinet with the flute , by which means the imitations are assured of their dynamic prevalence over the still merely reinforcing bassoon. In the last bars [of this section], starting about bar 449, the cresc. should in my opinion be joined also by a stringendo, so that the several now simultaneously operative associations (e.g. , the everincreasing dynamic level together with the continuously progressing acceleration) may bring the work of demolition clearly to our consc10usness.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

130

First Movement

Bar 45 3ff. After demolition of everything that has preceded, let the first.ff catharsis finally occur here! It is of most eloquent effect if, in keeping with the principle enunciated above with respect to bar 24, the tone b in violin II, viola, and cello is attacked slightly ahead of time, as though precipitously, but is then sustained longer in compensation. For the rest, I refer the reader concerning performance of this passage to what was said on p. 62f. about bar 88££. Bar 46 3ff. One should bear in mind the principle formulated regarding bars 1 7ff. and 55££. and project the sf accents all the more forcefully, in spite of the basic dynamic of forte. Bar 469ff. Since the horn and the remaining counterpointing winds differ here in respect to articulation of the motif, that difference must be given suitable expression by means of the manner of performance that I have already described in regard to bar i 9. Bar 477ff. The fluctuation of dynamics in these bars, which runs as follows: bar

477 sempre p -

481 cresc. -

489 -

f -

489 -

ff -

490 dim. -

492 piu p -

493 pp

needs to be expressed not only by the strings alone. It is still more important that the winds make the climb to ff and the descent to pp in a parallel manner. This would in any case be requisite , incidentally, even if Beethoven himself had not thus explicitly asked for it. And the principle to be established here as the guiding precept is that to the same extent that only the process of composing out gives expression to the chord as such (cf. Harmony, p. i33ff.), the detailing of all dynamic shadings also serves the same purpose. It follows from this that if Beethoven took such care, as shown above , to express the changing harmonies by means of the counterpoints of the winds at the same time, then it is altogether necessary not only to apply the dynamics to the arpeggiations of the strings (which, even though doubtless of thematic significance, produce relatively little content for the projection of the diatony itself), but to realize them equally, if not even more, in the so tellingly composed out counterpoints. The succession of counterpoints appears as follows: Fig.

162.

b. 479

Ob. I.~• •·

&~

q

4i

sempre p

tff t I j rt f tFf t ......._

•

cresc.

• •

1

.

.

~ill if"fr

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

74

I

First Movement

new motif in bars 138-139 is purely and clearly shaped at the outset, as follows: ~ Fig. 70.

pespr. Fl I

Oboe-~

...~ ·~~ I tt I I f

~pl'

ITTI

~ ~=.L _+~ --- ~.i

c I bF : 6i

p espres sivo

Bars 1 4 0-1 4 1

If we consider the prototype established here only in the horizontal direction, we find the motif implanted threefold within a major triad on m, where it descends through a full octave from bh 2 to bh 1 _ The next version of figure 70, in bars 140-141, takes the following form: Fig. 71.

Ob~~-...:.1~·----------..

Within the minor triad on C (whether in the sense of a II or only in that of a harmony passing through in the form of a sixth-chord), an exact replica of the first prototype of figure 70 would, indeed, now have had to assume the following shape: Fig. 72.

1:

( ~)

jl ; hFi'film'-,IL-F-'- - ~~r-~·-.-+--

The reasons this was ruled out, however, are the following: I. the law of variety-thus that law which belongs among the strongest laws of composition-by itself demands a variant of the prototype; 2. at the first sixteenth of the second eighth an octave would have resulted with the bass, which, however, together with the first octave in the corresponding sixteenth of the preceding bar I 38, would produce the effect of parallel octaves; 3. the replica (figure 72) would lack the harmonic advantage of a ~ chord, whose appearance is so welcome in the variant of figure 71. Only the last point needs clarification. Figure 71, since it begins with the fifth g 2 , appears in spite of the c3 as a dispersion of the triad

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

132

bar 492 bar 493 bar 494 -

I

First Movement

clarinet I: piu p-dim. flute I: pp oboe I: } ( ) bassoon I: pp- cresc.

Nothing is simpler than to proceed according to Beethoven's express marking. The conductor should first rehearse the winds alone, in order to exercise them in the pedormance of a continually growing cresc. and, vice versa, a continually declining dim. until the effect produced is that of a strictly closed crescendo or diminuendo line apparently pedormed by a single wind instrument. Each successive wind instrument should take up exactly the degree of loudness reached by its predecessor at the end of the bar [just preceding] so as to intensify or moderate during the course of the bar, and then pass on the same assignment to its successor in tum. Bar 5 2 7ff. Only full, ever-present perception of the bar grouping, as I have portrayed it above, can produce that effect which is attainable here in the milieu of the final cadences. The following shading is optimal here:

At the end of the cresc. one should prepare for the catharsis ofjf at the first quarter of each strong bar (bars 527, 529 , 531 , and 535), but then immediately tone down the forte so as to gain new elbowroom for a similar procedure in the next bar-group; since it is as though only the crescendo-bursts point to the strong bars, the monotony of a sustained (and, incidentally, never truly realizable) ff condition is most fittingly avoided. That Beethoven strove for a vivid quality in this bar-group can be inferred from his own markings: observe the firstff in bar 531 , and the next one not until bar 535 (that is, at the beginning of the next four-bar group). LITERATURE

To our greatest surprise we learn from Nottebohm (p. 159) that that passage of the Coda, bar 469, in which the first D horn intones the motif of bars 3-4

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

133

of the principal theme in D major, was conceived by Beethoven in a visionary way already at a time when not even the principal theme itself was securely established in his mind. Here a sketch that stems from the year 181 7 or 1818 (!!): Fie. 164. "Como I"

Such a marvelous quid pro quo in the creative powers of a genius: they still lack what is closest to hand, and yet already they glimpse what is most distant! Less astounding, however, is the fact that Beethoven sketched in 1822 (cf. Nottebohm, p. 165), when his mind was already occupied more intensively with the Ninth Symphony, as follows:

Here the seed of the grandiose intensification of bar 483££. can easily be recognized. Riemann unfortunately completely bypasses the brilliant construction of the Coda, since he has only the following to say about it (p. 15?): " ... together with rapid reduction of dynamic level to piano, there begins a long Coda, a small additional development, so to speak, which is at first a construction from the two motifs worked out chiefly in the Development:

Connective motif

Nothing could be clearer at the outset, however, than the fact that he misinterprets the content of bar 430, and fails to recognize that it is exactly like that of bar 429. Small wonder, then, that all subsequent events-which, as we know, hark back precisely to the curious structure of bar 430-remain a complete mystery to him as far as their ultimate cause is concerned. He merely continues quite simply, then (p. 158): "The linkage-motif connects several times to the new harmony; initially, the further course of events (imitations of this half-phrase):

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

l

34 I

First Movement

a 7 (2d-4th bar) d 7 (5th bar, link.-mot.) d 7 (also in link.-mot.) d7 - g7 (4th bar) c 7 (5th bar) c 7 - a 7 (4th bar) a 7 (5th bar) a 7 (twice two bars) a7 (twice two bars)

Chain of half-phrases with continual re-valuation of 8 as 4, until finally the continuation begins with a 4a

is [exactly like that of the second theme, but harmonically redirected ... ]" 83 The motif of the basses in bars 513-514, incidentally, he derives from the basses of bars 318-320. Kretzschmar stands on the plane of a superficial listener when he states the following on p. l 16 about the Coda: At the close of the Coda, into whose center the horn casts a most friendly and reassuring light, the movement's basic emotional state of cheerlessness reaches a point of complete collapse. We seem to hear intoned in the melody of the oboe a funeral march, until the sounds of the other instruments grow louder and louder and once again, briefly but tersely, pain and defiance stand side by side.

Grove writes (p. 316££.): A Coda now ensues of such extent and inner magnitude as to want to blot out from us everything that we have so far lived through in this movement. It is opened by the principal theme {No. l 7) accompanied by the basses rising in contrary motion, and, moreover, spun out in far more breadth and variety than heretofore; this is followed immediately by entrance into the foreground of that tempestuously agitated theme No. 24. Such haste in description! Hone didn't know that the exceptional brevity of his account here signified only perplexity concerning the events of the coda, one would truly have to assume that he was saving his pen for more important revelations. Naturally, the two bars elevated to such great importance in the Development (No. 31) do not fail to appear here as well [how naive these words!], assigned to horn and oboe against a sustained A in the strings. They are immediately taken over by the strings, with the A now sounding in the horns. The agitated phrase (No. 24) then returns, and the violins simultaneously bound upward in contrary motion. Drawing upon an earlier period of the movement, Beethoven now introduces the twicestated ritardando referred to on p. 312, and prepares for the conclusion. But he is still burdened by something as yet unexpressed, a word thus far locked in his bosom-a confession beyond all that he has thus far revealed to us. His unrestrictedly free spirit, oblivious to all constraint, which sought outlet in an almost morbidly overwrought form exactly in that year of 182 3, had made itself known thus far-one thinks of the [83. The bracketed portion of the text, as well as an example that is part of the display, is omitted by Schenker.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

135

brief passages, not completely successful in Beethoven's powerfully definite manner-, and his noble, pithy core spoke from all of it; but his vulnerable, profoundly sensitive inner nature also revealed itself. He now unveils before us an otherwise meticulously concealed facet of that nature, turns us into confidants of the tortures of his soul, lets us look into his pain-wracked heart. And from it, only tones that now touch our soul are allowed to escape. How exuberant and verbose he suddenly becomes, as he espies a portrayal of mood that can rescue him from predicaments! The strings begin with a two-bar, continually self-repeating figure [here a quotation of the bass figures of bars 513-514] to which the first movement of the Seventh Symphony offers a counterpart, and which we can designate as an organ point on D; its demonic effect lies concealed in the fluctuation of the root. It begins pianissimo and swells constantly through the course of sixteen bars to fortissimo, while above it, bathed in the poignant timbre of oboes, clarinets, and flutes, an ardent sound resonates [here the quotation of bars 514-521]. Can woe and misery ever find more direct and moving sounds of lamentation than these? All that obstructed and oppressed the tonal poet in the last years of his earthly turbulence-his deafness and troublesome relationships, his susceptibility to pain and physical suffering, moreover the worry about his nephew, disappointments by friends and neglect by the outside world; all of the care that he internalized, and expressed only briefly in one or two letters-here clamors for expression in tones. And here, if ever, he achieved what he wanted: il proprio e proposto effetto. It is as though we saw the tears run down his cheeks. But only for moments does a Beethoven bow to the inner storm; and, pulling himself again to his full height, he powerfully closes the movement, like the first of the Eighth Symphony as well, with the principal theme.

fteingartner (p. 197ff.), thankfully, concerns himself with most exact completion of the nuancing of bars 427ff. In particular, he nuances violin I in bars 429-430 as follows: Fig. 167.

,, J

JJJJIJJD d1r-

-~..

_.

~

-==

Compare with this the shading I give above in figure 161, and consider the fact that bar 2 of our example after all represents the resolution of a suspension, which is always to be played softer than the suspension itself. In any case, -==:::: at the second quarter of the second bar in No. 167 can, if it is not taken cum grano salis, cause a great distortion. He takes a curious, inexplicable point of view (p. 201 ), however, with respect to bar 490: "I do not think any bad effect is produced here if the woodwind figures at the ff are swallowed up by the strings and only become audible again at the diminuendo; in fact, I have generally found that just this

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

136 I

First Movement

reappearance on the scene produces quite a magic effect on me." Fiat fortissimo, pereat melodia? By no means! So long as the crescendo is systematically groomed and shaped also by the winds from bar 481 on in the manner I have suggested above, the ear cannot fail automatically to hear through the greatest fortissirrw thicket, and there discover the motif in the oboe in bar 490.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Malta vivace

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement

--------------~

Main Division (b. 1-425)

Trio (b. 1-1 i 7)

•

Repetition of the Main Division, and Coda (b. 1-424)

Main Division (b. 1-425)

-------------r--------_

First Part (b. 1-142)

First Theme

~A ~ [5-

Ant.

Cons.

Second Theme ~

Second Part (b. 151-271)

Third Theme (Closing)

Third Part (b. 272-425)

Coda

0

@: ~

p-,

0

I:!

I:!

'? '? .... = .

J. I J. I J. I J. I

C ma1 .: I

------F maj. : I I I - - 1 ---D mi. : I I I - - 1

A mi .: I I l --1

Since the triads in these modulations present only the Ur-motif, however, and not the type of content that provides clear orientation about the diatony, and since they accordingly pass by as though merely empty vessels , they unfortunately carry little authority; their effect instead approaches that of harmonic successions in the old a-cappella style, which were gained only through the devices of voice leading. In spite of such prominent progressions by falling thirds (as were certainly unknown to the vocal epoch, however), the succession of four triads here is nevertheless unable to produce at the same time the desired effect of a rotation of four keys; this is how completely and how appropriately composing out of a triad alone has become decisive for the triad's significance ever since the supersession of the principle of voice leading as the only definitive one for the succession of harmonies (cf. Harmony, p. 163[ff.])!

PERFORMANCE

Of all movements of the symphony, the Scherzo probably poses the fewest difficulties for performance. It is necessary here, nevertheless, to speak explicitly of several passages whose true execution still lies remote from the common perception. Beethoven's metronomic marking reads: Molto vivace J. = 1 16. Bar 68. The change of harmony at the third quarter must be given expression as an anticipation. Bar 72. Here too, as in bar 68 , the change of harmony should be illuminated as an anticipation. Bar 77.ff. Here it is very difficult to execute the dynamic shading according to Beethoven's own instruction. It is advisable to combine with the cresc. at the same time an acceleration that lasts precisely to its end-that is, to the arrival at the tonic in bar 82 ; the dim. should, on the contrary, express itself in a retardation of the tempo; but both

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

I

83

ingflevels, and for that reason it is incorrect to perform the four-bar group in uniformf or ff Bar I 50.ff. Only at bar 150 does a sustained ff state set in; yet those tones to which Beethoven has added sf(bars 150, 151, 152) or has repeated a simplef(bars 154-157 50 ) are to be specially emphasized even here, which again, however, is possible only if the tones that precede in each case are played as weaker. With the foreshortening or telescoping of the motifs from bar 154 on an acceleration of the tempo should begin, which should reflect in the medium of time that quality of compactness that has built up in the medium of the motivic. LITERATURE

In Nottebohm we find no published sketch material relative to the closing theme. The attitude of Wagner concerning bars i 38ff. confirms anew that fateful opposition to Beethoven in regard to opinions about the nature of German instrumental music that we have already encountered above. Out of ignorance of the thematic reason that induced Beethoven to use the interval of the seventh in flute I in bar i43, 51 he writes as follows [p. 246]: Who can claim ever to have heard this passage with clear consciousness of its melodic content in our orchestral performances? Liszt, with his uniquely brilliant insights, was the first to place it in the true light of its melodic significance through a marvelous piano arrangement of the Ninth Symphony. His remedy was to disregard the primarily distorting admixture of the flute where it took over the continuation of the oboe theme in the higher register and to restore that continuation to the lower register of the melodically leading instrument. He thus protected the original intention of the master from any possible misunderstanding. What manner of misjudgment isn't implicit already in the words "distorting admixture of the flute"! Instead of recognizing in such a techniquewhich is, after all, abundantly in evidence in Beethoven's works-an exalted instrumentational principle of the master, Wagner perceives in it, exactly to the contrary, a distortion of clarity-but, to be sure, clarity only as understood by Wagner himself. The quotation continues: "in Liszt's arrangement the melodic passages go as follows:" Fig. 88.

i~ ti 1

rr1 rTr rf j

P espressivo

[50. Bars 155-157 in the original, apparently by mistake.] [51. Bar

i41

in the original, by mistake.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

i

49

is required here is to reckon with an external circumstance that had no status as a component of the content at the time of its inception. So how shall we satisfy this demand of late origin? The best solution, admittedly, would be simply to do away with it, since the best possible enrichment of the portrayal of content would certainly attain its goal only with the small orchestra. (It is likewise almost self-evident that a return to smaller concert halls and a reduction of gate receipts would follow as a further consequence.) It is not to be assumed, however, that exactly this ideal path will be followed, for the more time passes, the more the masses become intoxicated with newly gained power, and-by their allegedly just demand for large orchestral forcesblithely sacrifice beautiful effects of content of which they surely know nothing, and which they can certainly never attain along the paths they tread. Unfortunately it is absolutely necessary, therefore, that the solution to our question be attempted exactly from the standpoint of the current faulty relationship alone. And in my opinion, if the wind part is to be able to penetrate against the weight of the whole string orchestra, it is advisable to organize the dynamic shading-while preserving the original instrumentation, to be sure, including that of the homs!-as follows:

Str. unis.

mf

crtsc.

11lf

cresc.

Such a shading is suited not only to introduce light and shadow into the.ffin general, but, as is most to the point here, to enable the winds to achieve greater clarity, by having the strings still restrain their force at those points where the winds execute the strong bars 93, 97,

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

150

I

Second Movement

1o1, and 105 that are so characteristically decisive for the content, and intensify it only in the subsequent bars, where clarity of melody in the winds is no longer threatened. Bar l 17.ff. In keeping with the true significance of these bars as portrayed above, they must be performed in a state of constant tension, whose correlate expression, indeed, entails the marking -=:::: in bars 119-1 28. One should, therefore , avoid lingering on this content as presumably only a beautiful touch of lyricism, and instead vigorously join forces in the latent battle between the tonic and the subdominant-that battle which is the presager of a soon-lobe-expected final cadence. Embark upon bar 117, then, with inner glance already directed toward that cadence; drive ahead ardently to the IV (see the cresc. marking); and accelerate the tempo finally at the cresc. of bars 12 3-1 26, until the double goal of both the cadence and the forte (in bars l 27ff.), once achieved, puts an end to all struggle. Bar 127.ff. Here one should enjoy the actuality of the cadence, and apply oneself to the f accents Beethoven has so carefully placed at the beginning of each bar. The very emphasis required by the f accents as such, however, makes the tempo more brisk, even apart from the psychic element just discussed in connection with bar l l 7. LITERATURE

According to Nottebohm (p. 157), the theme of the Scherzo originated already in the year 1815 (thus eight years before the definitive work began):

"Ende langsam"

In 181 7, however, the theme of the projected fugal movement (cf. Nottebohm, p. 158) had yet a different form, to wit: Fig.

~

190.

~ . .-E

In the same year, or at the beginning of 181 8, Beethoven formulates the comes according to this newer, second version of the theme (see Nottebohm, p. 161):

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

151

In the same sketchbook, however, he also retains the first theme from 181 5, from which it can be inferred that at this time the two themes were competing for priority in the composer's imagination. In the year 1817 (or 1818) the master notates a new motif for the Scherzo:

*

...

Fig. 192. "3tes Stiick"

"oder"

J. : J I J r r I r J r 1 rrr r r 1 r 1

.... 1

rr

... 1

1

"oder"

; r r r 1 F'

usw.

bt t r t 1

r r 1 r r r1e- 1

usw.

"oder"

'1 t r r 1r t r1r r r 1E' Ir J rTr J rTr J r I ~=iJ J JI - I~J J J II which (see bars 5-7 of the example) he fashioned in the final version (bars 127ff.) as a cadential motif! In the summer or autumn of 1822 Beethoven vacillates (see Nottebohm, pp. 164-167) about the placement of the Scherzo altogether. Sometimes he plans it as a fourth, and therefore final, movement of the symphony (with the comment "very fugal" at the second theme), and sometimes he designates it a "second piece" (zweites Stilck) and writes as follows (Nottebohm, p. 167): Fig. 193.

9:

r· ; JI r r r I r r r I rj j r r l

"2tes Stiick"

As late as the months of May to July of 1823, he struggles with the two themes. Here is Nottebohm's account (p. 170): A pocket sketchbook to be dated from the months May to July of 1823 contains, in addition to the final version of the first movement of the Ninth Symphony, drafts that approximate it very closely, as well as drafts of the second and third movements. It is interesting to see how Beethoven here involves the two fugal themes from the years 1815 and 181 7; how by extending them he produces something approaching the definitive theme; and how, in the process, he arrives elsewhere at the three-bar rhythm, and so forth. We reproduce a portion of the sketches, but are unable to vouch for the ordering, since the sketchbook, having been intended for use outside the house, is one of those that begin both here and there and thus has no beginning. From this very sketchbook we learn (N ottebohm, pp. 17 1-1 73) that the

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

152

I

Second Movement

subject's counterpoint (see figure 172) was differently fashioned in an earlier stage, sometimes thus: Fig. 194.

r(~)H

rIr r r

but also sometimes as follows:

Wagner concerns himself extensively with the performance of bars 93££. The ideas that he sets forth here show, more than all the others he publishes in the same essay, the errors that made it possible for him to suggest, especially in relation to the horns, such far-reaching, disastrous modifications. Virtually sentence after sentence, thought after thought, reveals a fartoo-cavalier misunderstanding of the true situation, one that should be all the more fateful in its consequences the less one can expect such lack of orientation from an artist of Wagner's rank . It is high time to refute Wagner's errors if one is to avoid falling into the sentimental mistake of offending against a still greater artist-Beethoven-just to prop up Wagner's infallibility. If, as people imagine, it is a matter of urgent national interest to promote Wagner as an infallible authority, then I fail to see why it should be less in the national interest to regard a Beethoven and his compositions as at least equally infallible! Is Wagner seriously to be attributed better knowledge about Beethoven's concerns than Beethoven himself? But now to the refutation. Wagner states [p. 235££.]: "It is unmistakable that in Beethoven's case, after the onset of deafness the vibrant aural image of the orchestra paled to such an extent that the dynamic relationships in the orchestra no longer remained in his consciousness with the clarity that should have been indispensable to him now, as his conceptions demanded an ever evolving treatment of the orchestra." Such a pernicious oratio pro domo! Such a grotesque idea, to cite Beethoven's deafness as the cause of allegedly inadequate or poor instrumentation, just because the latter failed to conform to Wagner's conceptions! Just consider: everything played by the strings, by the flutes , oboes, clarinets, and bassoons, with the exception of a few minutiae hardly to be taken seriously, are acknowledged even by Wagner himself as marvels of the art of instrumentation; but no sooner do the horns and trumpets come into his view than he immediately misjudges the reason behind their treatment, just because he himself, by dint of his own temperament and for his own dramatic ends, associated with them in his imagination a different treatment. Unfortunately it never occurred to him that purely stylistic reasons alone compelled Beethoven to use the horns in exactly the way that he actually did use them. And since he was unable to perceive the unique truth of those reasons, he substituted for them an aggregate of errors whose basis was the almost laugh-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

153

able assumption of a deafness that obviously could only be described as partial! But let us read on: "ff Mozart and Haydn, with their complete security in the formal treatment of the orchestra, never used the delicate woodwind instruments in such as way as to demand of them an effect comparable to that of the heavily staffed quintet of the stringed instruments, Beethoven on the contrary found himself constrained often to leave this natural loudness relationship out of consideration." Even error seeks its justification! And thus we see Wagner zealously at pains to show the basis so arbitrarily assumed by him in its full trappings. Innocent of any notion that error can lead only to error, he ventures-just to mandate only conclusions that are thoroughly convenient-two erroneous allegations in one sentence! Thus he speaks first of all of a "heavily staffed quintet" of string instruments in Mozart and Haydn, which these masters supposedly took into account from the outset; but the truth of the matter is rather that the body of strings was not yet so heavily staffed, so that Mozart and Haydn could without danger risk a competition of strings and winds, as they often enough did. 9 It is equally incorrect, however, when he alleges Beethoven to have left the natural loudness relationship "out of consideration"; for the assumption of an as yet not terribly heavily staffed string quintet still held just as good for Beethoven as for Mozart and Haydn-an assumption that automatically justified Beethoven's use of exactly that manner of instrumentation to which Wagner objects. We read further in Wagner's discussion: He has the wind and string instruments alternate with each other or appear in combination as two equally strong tonal complexes-something that we, to be sure, can cany off in a very effective way thanks to the multifaceted enlargement of the newer orchestra, but which could be put into practice in the Beethovenian orchestra only under assumptions that proved to be illusory. Beethoven was sometimes successful, it is true, in giving the woodwinds the appropriate incisiveness through assistance from the brass instruments; but in this endeavor he was so lamentably restricted by the characteristics of the natural horns and trumpets-the only ones known in his time-that his very use of these instruments to reinforce the woodwinds brought about the kinds of confusions that we now perceive as seemingly irremediable hindrances to the clear projection of the melody. I need not reveal to the present-day musician the deficiencies of Beethovenian orchestral instrumentation touched upon here, for they are easily avoided by him through use of the chromatic brass instruments now generally accessible to us; it is enough to confirm that Beethoven considered it necessary to discontinue the wind instruments abruptly in remote keys, or to have them participate only in blatant, individual tones, as dictated by the nature of the instruments alone, completely disruptively and to the detriment both of melody and of harmony. 9. Just consider the Jupiter Symphony, first movement, and especially in the finale, eighth bar after the beginning of the Recapitulation [bar 2 33 of the movement]!

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

154

I

Second Movement

To this it must be answered that it was Beethoven 's perfect right under certain circumstances to exploit the normal relationships of his orchestra in such a way that strings and winds would be played off against each other as factors of equal rank. But the application of the horns, as I have already suggested, was governed only by the perspective of the symphonic style; it did not depend, as Wagner claims, on nothing but the characteristics of the instrument alone. Granted that in comparison to the natural horns our valve horns exhibit a somewhat expanded content; but what does this minimal difference signify in a matter that was purely one of style and not one of tonal range? Granted further that tone production on the natural horns-herewith a comparison of the two types: 10 Fig. 196. Root

Natural horn in F

ee>OeC> 5 :; :; 6 6

~ J iJ~JpJ ~ J iJ J 1J ~Jvr~ 1r¥tt=rr1 O

eC>O

C>O

C>O

C>O

C>Cl

0

ClC>OOO

6

7

8

9

10 10

II 12

12

13 14 14 15 16

7

7

8

g

Valve horn in F

I

(~)

~ J ¥df±JlAr r t

r tr

~~

usw.

-was far more difficult and less balanced than that of the modern horn; what has this, either, to do with the question of its usage, in which , as I have said, style alone had to be decisive? Were all the deficiencies, finally, not equally well known to Beethoven? And what is easier to believe than that all of them were already taken into account by Beethoven in the very selection of instrumentation? Most decisive in this matter were the purely stylistic reasons. One need only compare Beethoven's (and indeed Mozart's and Haydn 's as well) horn writing in his symphonic works or in the opera on the one hand with that in the smaller chamber music works (Quintet, Op. 16! Sonata, Op. 17') on the other to notice immediately that he uses less of the available tonal content in the former than in the latter, and uses it differently. Less virtuosic in the former than in the latter-that is how one might summarize the difference most concisely! This meticulously differentiated instrumentational practice 1 o.

Cf. "Artur Niloffs lnstrumentationstabelle" [see the Appendix].

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

155

of our classicists can be traced back to their common instinct which may be defined as follows: it is altogether inadmissible to expect and to demand exactly the same of the several as of the few; and therefore it is equally improper to require the same thing of several players (or listeners) as is required of fewer! 1 1 If this consideration alone clears up the horn problem to a considerable extent, it is joined by the effect of yet another law that was no less well founded in the instinct of the masters and which runs as follows: contrast and variety in each and every thing, and thus also in tone quality! Exactly this is the reason the classicists avoid any perpetuation of the tone of the horns, be it in cantilena passages or even just as filling. They rather are at great pains to aerate the horn sound, so to speak, as often as possible, not only to achieve the healthy effect of contrast, but also to avoid doing injustice to the true nature of the horn, which, whenever it dominates at length (as is unfortunately so common today!), enfeebles the melody only too drastically as to both sense and sound, and thus is little suited to carry any melody chosen at random. (And similarly, as in the case of the horn, but even with stricter resolution, the classicists resisted allowing the sound of the trumpet as well to go unrelieved, or even to be forced into the service of melody.) Wagner infers from his thoughts the following consequences: I consider it superfluous to expose through the quotation of numerous examples the deficiency just identified, and immediately indicate instead the remedies I have sought in individual cases where the distortions it has caused of the master's intentions have at last become intolerable to me. I found a completely obvious remedy in simply recommending to the second hornist, as to the second trumpeter, that in passages such as this: Fig. 197,

~J r J J -

+

r r

or this: Fig. 198.

I +

1 1. Thus Mozart, for example, who in our art is to be regarded as truth incarnate, eschewed in his operas the application of all those deeper and stronger arts that he otherwise placed always at the disposal of symphony and chamber music; and it is accordingly to be viewed as certainly a stylistic offense against that indisputably valid law when Beethoven, for example, in Fidelio, composes nothing less than a canon or variations, while sharing for the most part the differentiated practice of Mozart.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

88

I

First Movement

stood; and thus, since integrity of the melos has been seen to with complete adequacy by Beethoven himself (if only the fact be recognized), the performance will undoubtedly find its way to the listener's heart even without troublesome revisions. The only particular in which one may join Wagner is thus just the performance itself-that is, his indication of the several occurrences of -=::::::::: as shown in figure 95. The continuation of the passage quoted there adds the following: "in the seventh and eighth bars, on the other hand, a beautifully drawn and at the end quite penetrating crescendo would help to achieve the expression with which we now plunge ahead to the vehement accents of the coming cadential passage"-an instruction that doubtless goes too far, and should by all means be reduced simply to the one I recommended above, with justification, concerning bars i44- 1 45. Riemann's error in connection with the closing theme was discussed earlier, on p. 72. All that remains to be mentioned here is that he too (like Wagner, but without giving reasons) unfortunately reads bars i 42-143 as follows:

=====- ,

Fig. 96.

~

~~ 6 r if stJ/~ l5Kretzschmar has the following to say about the closing theme (p.

i 1

5):

The woodwinds try to assuage; they plead for a more congenial tone:

And they succeed, in that the first part of the movement is concluded with a certain potent joyfulness. Great heavens, what intellectual sloth! Such a way to write about music! Grove's ineptitude regarding the closing theme was portrayed above on pp. 72-73; the reader is referred to that discussion. vr.i?ingartner (p. i82) allies himself completely with Wagner in the matter of bar i 38ff. "It would be puritanical," he writes, "to deny that his alterations, both here and in the similar passage which occurs later on, without doing detriment to the style in any way, conduce to a clearness which cannot be obtained by means of a merely literal rendering."

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

15 7

mance of the piano reduction. In our usual orchestral performances it seems that not even the most obvious remedy of considerably moderating the ff of the string instruments has yet been applied; for every time I joined together with musicians to perform this symphony, everybody set upon this passage with the most furious vigor. But I myself long ago discovered this remedy, and believed that I could hope for a sufficient measure of success from it, so long as I could depend on the effect of the effort of doubled woodwinds. But experience provided no confirmation, or at most very inadequate confirmation, of my assumption, because the woodwind instruments were always called upon for a spirited energy of tone that will remain contrary to their nature, at least in the combination present here. If I were to perform this symphony again today, I would know of no other recourse against the indisputable regression of this uncommonly energetic dance motif into unclarity (if not inaudibility) than the assignment of a completely definite thematic collaboration at least to the four horns. This could perhaps be accomplished in the following way: Fig.

201.

Oboes and clarinets

I

1~

I

Ir 1

Horns in D

t

I

r

Horns in Eb

~:

Bassoons

iB ~ 11th----.~I,._._~!-*- +-{n-+-. .+-~_ _ , ,_ . _.f-1I ~~ I

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

158 I

Second Movement

It should then be investigated whether the reinforcement suggested here of the notes of the theme would strengthen it enough to justify having the quintet of string instruments execute the accompanying figure at the ff level specified by the master; this too is a matter of primary importance, since Beethoven's idea here is unmistakably the same ecstatically vented one that leads at the return of the movement's principal theme in D minor to the kind of incomparably impetuous excess that could find expression only in the most original inventions of this unique marvel. Just for that reason, it seemed to me a very deficient remedy to foster the projection of the wind instruments by restraining the strings, since this would necessarily obliterate the impetuous character of the passage to the point of unrecognizability. My final advice, accordingly, is to reinforce the theme of the wind instruments , even with trumpets if necessary, to the point where it clearly emerges and predominates in the correct, penetrating manner even against the most energetic fortissimo in the stringed instruments. Here one sees how necessary it is above all to understand the content oneself before one sets out to communicate it to others. What a crude and fundamentally inexcusable mistake it is when Wagner assumes , as is evident from the foregoing, that the second theme of the First Part is to be dynamically maintained already at the level of the first bars of the Recapitulation; comparison of the instrumentation of the second theme of the First Part together with the first and second themes of the Recapitulation establishes, on the contrary, that Beethoven, deliberately and with genuinely artistic consciousness, wanted to confer the maximum endowment of dynamic level upon the first theme of the Recapitulation alone. In relation to this apex, the two other passages-the second theme in both the First Part and the Recapitulation-were to represent states of a more moderate dynamic level. These reasons alone, then, should have deterred Wagner at the outset from any overly drastic admixture of the horns in bar 93ff.! Add to this, however, that truly nothing would have been easier for Beethoven than to serve up to the horns the tones recommended by Wagner: these very tones were, after all, among the most often employed ones in the entire range! If Beethoven now refrained, here in the second theme, from writing notes that he was otherwise accustomed to write without hesitation in all orchestral works, how can anybody seriously claim the reason for this to have been only the so lamentably "limited" character of the natural horns?! And even if all of this is disregarded, the question finally arises: How, from a stylistic standpoint, could Beethoven suddenly introduce the horns "thematically," in order moreover to retain them in the thematic role for such an unusually long duration? Is it so very difficult to develop a feeling for the creative principle that urgently recommends mixture of various characters (i.e., sometimes an obbligato-thematic, sometimes merely a continuity-voice

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

159

character) for instruments of the nature of the horn, whose characteristic tone color alone poses a threat to sustained conditions of an unvaried quality?! Kretzschmarwrites (p. 116): The second movement approaches the state of joy still more closely. It begins on the following theme [here the content of figure 170 is quoted], which is used later also in an abbreviation to three bars-a fugato first intimate and soft, but ending in the merriest and loudest tumult of instruments romping about. Only for a brief moment is this happy frolic displaced by elements of weary longing [here a quotation of the melody of bars 77-84, i.e., the modulation-theme]; the latter are immediately stifled by the rowdily jovial dance melody of the winds [quotation: figure 174], cheered on by the strings in forceful strokes of the initial motif of the preceding theme. Kretzschmar would undoubtedly have fared better if, instead of the plethora of words-"brief moment,'' "happy frolic,'' "elements of weary longing," "stifled," "cheered on,'' "forceful strokes"-, he had, while maintaining the same brevity, provided concepts of truly orientational value, such as "modulatory theme," "second theme,'' and so forth. But, what can one expect.... Grove remarks as follows concerning the comes (p. 321 ): "After four bars the viola answers a fifth lower...." This is, at least, carelessly expressed; for in fact the key of the comes, A minor, lies a fifth higher! About the modulation theme (bars 77-92), which Grove calls the "second theme" (!), he has only this to say: "From piano it intensifies to fornssimo and exhibits particularly exquisite harmonic turns at the points marked*." He then quotes the melody of bars 77 to 92, in which he marks the harmonies of bars 81 and 83 with *. It follows from this that he is especially impressed here by VIP 7 and V"~; what a shame that he was denied the ability to identify Beethoven's truly "exquisite harmonic turns"! Most amusing of all, though, is when he speaks of the second theme itself, bar 93££., as an "additional theme," and accordingly defines the concluding series of bars 117-126 in the following way: "this theme, however, is followed by yet a fourth, extensively spun-out one, of which the initial bars may be indicated here,'' at which point he quotes as No. 41-it would not seem possible if it did not stand before us in black and white!-the melody simply of bars 123-129! Just consider: the seventh bar of a unit is perceived as its first ("initial bars"!), and the clearly contrasting group of definitively cadential bars 127££. is put forward as bars 5-8££. of that allegedly selfcontained and independent "fourth" (?!) theme! And in conclusion he writes, "At this point the tonal current ebbs once again to pp, and after a rest of three bars we come to the end of this First Part that is now destined for repetition." How little all of this says, and how falsely besides! Weingartner (p. 203££.) joins Wagner: "For this passage I give the alterations suggested by Wagner; we learn from what both he and Porges 12 have [ 1 !2.

Heinrich Porges, Die Auffiihrung von Beethovens 9. Symphonie unter

Richard Wagner in Bayreuth (Leipzig, 1872).]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

160 I Second Movement written, that these alterations were never actually tried. They are designed to render the theme with its peculiar characteristics audible in the winds without having to mute the strings, a procedure which Wagner had already recognized to be a very inadequate makeshift."

Second Part of the Main Division (Bars i51-271) Development Bars

151-1 76

At bar 151 the Development begins. At first, to be sure, we see from bar 151 to bar 158 a series of three falling thirds similar to the one that provided the remodulation at the conclusion of the First Part. Departing from D minor, Beethoven thus arrives in four bars at E~ major: D - B~ - G - E~. Another similarity between the last bar group of the First Part (bars 143-150) and the first one of the Development (bars 151-158) is that in both cases the last three bars form a general rest. From this alone we conclude that the modulatory thrust that emerged in the remodulation is not yet extinguished. And in fact it surges ahead from bar 159 without pause, third-leap by third-leap: E~ - c -A~ - F II D~ -m - G~ - E~ II c~ -A~ - E - c# and finally to A, so that the totality of bars 151-1 76 must be regarded less as the actual Development than as first of all continuation of the modulation. In three times four bars, twelve third-leaps or-which comes to the same thing here-twelve keys are thus negotiated. The modulations rest, as we see, invariably on the reinterpretation:

I III--1. Only once, in bars 168-169, does Beethoven find it necessary to employ enharmonic means, by reinterpreting A~ minor as G# minor in order to gain from the latter the key of E, which subsequently leads to C# minor and then (in bar i 71) to A major. After the hesitant beginnings of the falling third-successions in the two preceding groups of bars 143-150 and 151-158-the role of the two three-bar general rests thereby becomes clearer now!-it goes without saying that the twelvefold unfurling of third-leaps as it is carried out in bars I 59-1 71 had, with its relentless character, to be organically bound at the same time to a crescendo. In bars 171-176 the modulation to E minor is executed. The general plan of the subsequent events of the actual Develop-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

161

ment can be specified as follows with respect to bar-articulation: 13 Three times three bars-Beethoven writes expressly Ritmo di tre battute-form the first bar-group, bars 177-185. The same principle of 3 x 3 bars produces the second bar-group of bars 186-194 as well. Now, if the two groups stand in this way under the sign of the number 3-and not only in relation to the foundational unit (the tre battute) but, as an original feature, further in relation to the construction of the whole group (3 x 3) as well-, the construction of the third bargroup, bars 195-iw6, shows a progression in that it-still approximating the norm-presents 4 X 3 bars. The structure undergoes its greatest enhancement (Steigerung), however, in that an inner organization of 6 x 3 yields the fourth, most expanded, group of bars 207224. It is a fifth group of 3 X 3 bars (bars 225-233), however, which, smaller in scope than the preceding one, serves in a most suitable and smooth way as a transition back to the full normality of a four-bar division. The latter returns finally at bar 2 34 as the sixth bar-groupsee the indication Ritmo di quattro battute at that point-, henceforth to govern the Development up to its end. It remains to be pointed out that beginning exactly at bar 234, first of all three groups of four bars each (bars 234-237, 238-241, 242-245) are to be heard; that further, the next two bars (246-247) signify only a reinforcement of the last-named four-bar entity; and that finally, from bar 248 on each segment of four bars can without difficulty be collected together into a unit. After the conclusion of these last six four-bar units, the Recapitulation begins at bar 272. Now to special consideration of the Development in the thematic and harmonic aspect. At the beginning of the Ritmo di tre battute group (see bar 177), bars 1-3 of the Scherzo-theme appear. The key is E minor, and the subsequent entrances (no longer lingering in the fugato style, it should be noted) are perhaps best read as in bassoon I in bars i 77179, clarinet I and oboe I in bars 180-182, and again bassoon I in bars 183-188. The next group stands in A minor. The three entrances occur in the following order: flute I, then clarinet I and bassoon I, and finally once again flute I (bars 186-188, 189-191, 192-194). It is therefore notable that in both of the groups just mentioned Beethoven brings

[ 13. Taktgliederung, meaning in this case the articulation of the continuity into groups of bars.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars 177-185

Bars 186-1 94

162

Bars i95-206

I

Second Movement

each first and third entrance purely soloistically, but each middle one with an octave-reinforcement. Now at bar 195 the kettledrum, in a stroke of originality, enters at the outset of each tre battute unit and brings with it, by virtue of its tuning alone, the key ofF major. But the first three-bar entrance here is no longer repeated twice (therefore occurring a total of three times), as in the two preceding bar-groups, but instead the melodic line continues, ever rising, through two three-bar groups, as the following illustration shows:

so that only after six bars does a higher entity find completion. This circumstance alone thus counts as the true reason that from bar 195 on, as I said before, the earlier segmentation of 3 x 3 bars gives way to a new one of 2 X 3 or 4 x 3! Ifin the preceding bars it was just the strict repetition of the still slenderish three-bar entrance that provided an opportunity to present it three times, here , by contrast, the amalgamation of no fewer than six bars into a higher unit leaves as the only remaining possibility that of stating the broadened six-bar formation just two times. The compositional principle is clear: the smaller the unit, the more maneuverable it is; the larger, on the other hand, the less suited it is to numerous repetitions in succession! Thus the next bar group, 201-206, does in fact present a repetition (in kettledrum and oboe) of bars 195-200, as the second and final statement. The following group begins at bar 207 with a new three-bar motif:

This group draws from the now shrunken motivic unit the advantage of correspondingly more numerous repetitions. I said above that the bar-group 207-224 exhibits six of these; meanwhile, a remodulation to the main key (reached already at bar 21 3) is also carried out. It

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

163

remains to be noted, however, that by this time the Ur-motif has forfeited its thus far traditional first position in the succession of three bars (tre battute), and thus is consigned only to each second bar-see bars 208, 211, 214, 217, 220, and 223. This displacement is a logical corollary of the fact that the new motivic formation has basically rendered the Ur-motif superfluous, so that the latter, if it is not instead to be abandoned altogether at this point, had for the time being to move to a more "neutral" position. At bar 225, however, the Ur-motif already returns to the head of the tre battute groups, and with it return on this occasion not only the principal theme (for all that it appears initially in the tre battute rhythm) but also the earlier ordering of bars l 77-185. Concerning this ordering, however, one should note the difference that here, as distinct from (and therefore opposite to) the earlier passage, it is the two outer entrances that appear with doubling (see oboe I and clarinet I in bars 225-227, flute I and oboe I in bars 231-233), while the middle entrance in bars 228-230 appears soloistically with bassoon I. Such astonishing precision of instrumentation! Now to the final phase of the Development. At bar 234 the theme of the Scherzo at last appears in the totality of all of its four bars! To understand the course of the action in this passage, one must follow the theme in bars 234-237 in the doublebass, in bars 238-241 in violin n, and in bars 242-245 again in the doublebass. In all candor it must be admitted, however, that here Beethoven makes it incomparably more difficult for the listener than for the reader to grasp clearly the true state of affairs. For as can be seen in bars 234-245, imitations and stretti weigh so heavily on the theme that it can itself often scarcely be discerned. (See in this connection the cello in bar 235; viola in bar 236; horn in bar 237; moreover, clarinet in bar 239, violin I in bar 240; bassoon I-and also clarinet I-in bar 241; and finally, horn in bar 243; viola in bar 244; and once again horn in bar 245.) Granted, if one but knows the purpose those imitations have to serve, one also understands why Beethoven decided (perhaps even had to decide) to accept them into the bargain. He wanted by this means-as though thematically!-to prepare those dispersions1 4 that appear later in bars 248-251, 256259, and 260-263: [14. Zerlegungen, an evocative metaphor for arpeggiations. The "dispersion" in figure !204 is the series f - b~ - dt - ft.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars 225-2 33

Bars 2 34-2 7 1

i

64

I

Second Movement

Fig. 204. (b. 248-251; concert pitch)

(~·

~ =-I

.

Kettledr.

:

C j

EHom7(Dl=~

~ms PPJ. '§ I J'JEJ•~29-~ Homs (m)

P'j"

(m)

-

---

These-recall the first dispersion of the tonic chord in the Introduction! !-stand merely in the service of harmony and its associated scale-degree-progression tendencies. But how unsuspectingly we would have been accosted by such a situation had we not earlier been alerted in some way to anticipate such a construction! Also not to be overlooked is that along with the increasing intensification in bars 260-267, finally violin I (reinforced by flute I and oboe I) as well educes a dispersion-indeed, one involving enlargement-from V~:

As in bar 31 3ff. of the first movement, Beethoven here places just before v~ = ~ in bar 260££. the harmony m• 1 , which-after reinterpretation of the A~ as G#, it is true-appears as #IV" 7 and then is obviously intended as such by him. (Thus the path from Din bar 237 through the falling fifths G and C in bars 238-241 to Bb and min bars 242-245.) It is interesting to see, though, how Beethoven, in what might be called the final moment of the cadence, lets himself be inspired by the apparently nondiatonic harmonies Bb and E~ (which are in fact VI and ~II in D minor) to a new, touchingly beautiful formation:

In bar 260 the dominant enters, and with the suspensions ~' which, to be sure, do not find resolution, since the I follows directly at bar 268:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I Fig.

165

207.

6 4

Jt t 1

~= f

6 4

Ip;uf J t t I IJ. i''JI J. iJI J. i'JI J. "B

Dmi.: V_ _ _ __

ff I

PERFORMANCE

Bar 177ff. In order to perform the Development correctly, it is not sufficient merely to have become aware of the Ritmo di tre battute. To a far greater extent it is necessary instead to keep constantly in view the structure revealed above of the entire Development; for only in this way will one be able to hit upon the disposition of inflections and accents, which are of one kind if one hears only in groups of at most three bars, but are entirely different if one's view, virtually unlimited, takes in the most distant regions on the horizon of synthesis as well. Therefore, let the following stand as the plan the conductor should follow: three times three bars: bars 177-185 three times three bars: bars 186-194 four times three bars: bars 195-206 six times three bars: bars 207-224 Let him be aware, that is, that he is faced initially with a type of higher-order triplet of bars, 15 in which the individual "bar" of course again includes a triplet (precisely the tre battute). Next, he should again follow the more normal triple ordering (4 X 3), by conducting 2 X 3 : 2 x 3. Finally, he should conjoin 6 x 3 in the sense of 3 x 3 : 3 x 3, and [thereby] enhance all that has preceded.16 Bar 234. Above all those parts should be made to predominate which are bearers of the four-bar thematic occurrence; thus: Doublebass in bars 234-237, Violin II in bars 2 38-241, and once again Doublebass in bars 242-245.

Bar 26off. Violin I must interpret, with full artistic consciousness,

[ 15. By this Schenker means not just a triplet of bars, but a triplet of triples, as becomes clear in the continuation.] [16 . . . . und steigere alles Vorausgegangene. The final, 6 x 6 group, if properly expressed, operates retroactively to enhance the purposefulness of the three preceding groups as reaching a culmination in it.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

166

I

Second Movement

the dispersion of the minor triad as such, and therefore carry out the cresc. not only on the long-bowed tones in bars 260-263, but also over and above the rests in the subsequent bars 264-267. LITERATURE

In the sketchbook already mentioned on p. 151 from the months of May to July of 1823-cf. Nottebohm, p. 170££.-, the idea of the Ritmo di tre battute is found expressed as follows : Fig.

:108.

; J. ;r 1J J JI J J J I r· 1 ; I J J JI J J Fl

4

The path to the Recapitulation (cf. bar 264££.) is also established in the sketch: Fig.

209.

It will be shown later how Beethoven now, only in the storm of the Recapitulation, finally came upon the true form of the principal theme . Kretzschmar says nothing at all about the Development. Grove writes (pp. 323-324): "Here [meaning bar 177] the bassoons lead off the dance with humorous effect. Beethoven now writes Ritmo di tre battute, three-bar rhythm, so that each group of three bars belongs together. Against this, however, the kettledrum maintains its old rhythm [what can this possibly mean?] and intervenes with it not until the end of every three bars, except the fifth time only after four bars ." Such bad hearing, observation, and description! How reproachably self-serving to dare, in such a

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement

I

167

mental state, to interpret for others a work one does not oneself know at all! But granted, Grove knew all anecdotes pertaining to the Ninth Symphony, and given the tendency to purvey art gossip, how easily such is confused with an analysis! Let us read on: This, as well as the incorporation of the bassoon, appears to have aroused particular enthusiasm on the part of the listeners at the first performance. The three-bar rhythm gives way once again to a four-bar, and both horns and trumpets lend vibrant swatches of light to the tonal picture. It is marvelous the consistency with which Beethoven has adhered to the theme, how he has made it serve his purposes as leading melody, as accompanying voice, or to fill out the fabric. Each examination reveals new beauties. Beethoven has indicated the performance nuances with extraordinary care; in the first printed score in folio, and probably even more in the manuscript, they are, characteristically, thickly sown among the notational symbols . Therefore it is certainly not his fault if his intentions are not understood. These precise specifications belong among the special characteristics of Beethoven manuscripts, and this time they have, to a certain extent, also found their way into the printed score. How boldly he denounces those-always "others"-who have not understood Beethoven's intentions! Who will blame me if I expose the all-tooexaggerated farce?

Third Part of the Main Division (Bars 272-425) Recapitulation and Coda The Recapitulation, signaled by the kettledrum in a thoroughly special manner: Fig.

210.

3

~=

cr r

3

3

enters in bar 272. The first theme is severely abbreviated, in that just the consequent section (see bar 57££. of the First Part) is employed at once. Immediately thereafter-as in the First Part of the Scherzo (but differently from the Recapitulation of the First Movement!)-a modulation 1 7 (bar 288££.) is introduced, which leads tom major. In this 17. The various techniques of modulation in a sonata movement will be discussed in volume 3 of my Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien. [No specific chapter was ultimately devoted to this topic in Free Composition, however.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i

68

I

Second Movement

key, then, the modulation theme (bar 296££.) appears as well, and only an additional, second modulation (see bars 304-305) based on the following reinterpretation: mmaj:I D min: VI - - - I Bar 304ff.

finally brings back the main key. At first it is the modulation-theme that makes use of the main key. While this repetition of the modulation-theme in itself on the one hand corresponds exactly to Beethoven's procedure in the First Part, where he likewise set it twice in succession (bars 77-84 and 8592 ), here the master on the other hand exceeds the limits of that procedure in that he sets the modulation-theme two additional times, so that it appears a total offour times (instead of twice)! It is characteristic that Beethoven, at the points of repetition, adheres to the main key as well, even if in doing so he admittedly avails himself of mixture of major and minor, as the following plan shows: Fig.

211.

Bars 306-313 in D maj.: Fl. I. cresc.

dim.

Ob:l-_.J.r,.J~- 1-- I

r~· ~~ ·~~,~~s: ~ob.u.I jf ~ $ ~i=sf!±H p

Fig.

213.

cresc.

Bars 322-329 in D maj.:

Fl. II

_.-------------

1- 1

~ -'2. -.9-.

Bar 33 off.

11 ~'61-. + -.9-l=-·.........:it~,__-~

.a.

Let these variants motivate the reader to seek out on his own the additional modifications to which the composer has subjected the modulation-theme in respect to scale degrees and instrumentation. The second theme (bar 330££.) appears at first in D major, but by

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement

I

1 69

bar 338 (the repetition of the eight bars just heard) D minor takes over, to reign until the conclusion of the third part. The close of the second theme (bars 354-364) avows the scale degrees more clearly than the corresponding close in the First Part (see bar 117££.): what there remained only latent and appeared to be suppressed appears here openly in the light of day-observe the scale-degree progression: I# (bar 354) - IV (bar 355) - ~II (bars 356357) - qrr (bar 358) - V (bar 359). In bars 380-387 the modulating, descending third-leaps of bars 143-150 are, of course, appropriately replaced by diatonic arpeggiation of the tonic harmony. Since the second part is also to be repeated, in the following bars 388-399 the way is paved to the connecting harmony on E~ (see bar 159), so that this bar-group may be described as a transition to the repetition of the Development. Only after the completed repetition do we proceed in bars 400407 to the dominant and the fermata, after which finally the Coda follows. The Coda, begun in effect already at bar 380, has as its content in bar 408 first of all the contest between scale degrees I and IV (bars 408-409 and 41 0-41 i ). Indeed, the principal theme-here reduced to only bars 1-2-appears now on the basis of I, now on that of IV, where for purposes of this discussion I take into consideration only the horizontal sum of the theme, since the following identity holds between content and harmonic sum: Fig.

214.

and the harmonic sum:

µ

Dmi.:

I

And, likewise, the following are identical:

1

and the harmonic sum:

~

Dmi.:

IV

[ 18. Schenker's numbering of bars includes the twelve bars of the first ending; his bar 400 (the first bar of the second ending) is bar 388b according to the more usual numbering system. For the remainder of the discussion of the Main Division, references to bar numbers greater than 399 may be translated into the more conventional number by subtracting 12.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar 354ff.

Bar 3 8off.

Bars 388- 399

Bar 4 ooff.1s

Bar 4 o8ff.

1 70

I

Second Movement

From bar 416 on the center of attention is held by the theme in the version of scale degree I only. Nevertheless, one must recognize just here, with respect to scale-degree progression, the entrance of the V itself-this is effected by the bass as soon as it takes over the theme in its lower region-, with the qualification only that the suspension of the fourth (Vt) lasts until bar 424, and its resolution CV=~) takes place in the second half of bar 425 . The final bars of the first main division (bars 424-425), although they alone provide the ultimate closure, already show an altered meter, specifically 4. It would however be very shortsighted and wrong to view the fact that this latter meter is at the same time also that of the following Trio as implying that Beethoven might have had the intention to fashion the link to the Trio-the attacca connection notwithstanding-in a purely superficial manner. For if we consider that the melodic gist of the preceding bars 416-42 3 is none other than: Fig.

216.

Stringendo ii tempo.

b~ t t tJID (t_t_tl~rxi 1 ·i t t 1WifiiifffJf cresc.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

•

-

•

then the composer could seek the same modest content in the context of another meter as well: Fig.

217.

Presto.

Therefore one need only alternate the tones a and d at a particular rate of speed; and when, in keeping with Beethoven's wish (see the indication stringendo il tempo in bar 416), this rate of speed is to increase so that a presto is achieved by bar 424, one should not forget that for the motivic reason portrayed above a full bar of the earlier 3/ 4 meter obviously must be identical to the half note of the new 4 meter (d. = J). Thus the apparently only superficial connection from the Main Division to the Trio reveals itself, under the aegis of motivic identity, as instead an organic one! PERFORMANCE

Bar 416.ff. To execute the transition to the presto 4correctly according to Beethoven's direction stringendo il tempo it is necessary always to keep in view as the kernel of the content only the succession of tones

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement

I

i

71

a - d (see above, p. 170). If one has , accordingly, within the fourfold repetition of the tone-succession just mentioned (bars 416-423), carried out the acceleration requested by the master, then one automatically arrives also at the correct tempo of the presto, where the half-noted is equal to the full-bard. of the preceding part. The metronomic marking at the presto reads d = i i 6. Regardingthe question of whether o= 116 19 should be assumed here, as is given in the scores published by Schott or Breitkopf and Hartel, or whether d = 116 is more suitable, the decision must be made in favor of the latter marking. For it is found explicit in Beethoven's presentation copy to King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia, as well as in Beethoven's letter (mentioned earlier) to Moscheles. According to Nottebohm (Beethoveniana, p. 132), the master sent the metronome markings to the publisher only "after the score had already been published, on October 13, 1826," so that for this very reason the markings were able to be incorporated into the edition only later. This alone would not have accounted for the incorrect marking but for the fact that, as Grove reports (p. 308, fn.), in the Schott score the notehead (d = i i 6) "at the top of the page has lost its stem, so that it appears to represent a whole note. At the foot of the page," Grove continues, "the note in question has retained its stem, in accord with Beethoven's intent." LITERATURE

The sketches from the year i 823- see Nottebohm, p. i 7off.-reveal that the fugue theme, the principal theme of the Scherzo, was forged in its definitive shape only at the appearance of the Recapitulation :

Bassi.

It goes without saying that this accomplishment exerted a retroactive influence, and that only now did Beethoven renounce the two earlier ver-

[ 19. Schenker's original text shows a half note in this equation by mi stake .)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

l

I

72

Second Movement

sions of the fugue theme that had accompanied him since the years 181 5 and 181 7 respectively (see above, p. 150 ). Bar 6£f. of figure 218 obviously relates to the continuation of the theme in the Recapitulation; other sketches, moreover, bear witness to a persistent struggle with the same problem: Fig. 219.

r· t Jtr r r1r r r r r r r t;ti r r r 1

I

1

~

I

J.

H=H ¥LU I f" c i I FUIE r r I r r r l r r r I r r r1¥ r r I J J JI J. ~ I J J J I 1

~ ~

usw.

The remaining bars cited here, however, do not come in the least into consideration for the definitive version of the theme. Whether the intensification shown in the following sketch (figure 220) relates to that in the modulation, bar 288ff., is difficult to decide: Fig.

220.

r I It is obvious , however, that Beethoven completely discarded the planned intensification from bar to bar that we find in another sketch:

Finally, the original model for bar 416££. is also found in the sketches:

The following draft of the close (Nottebohm, pp. 161-162) stems from the year 1817 or 1818:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

98

I

First Movement

Bar r9off.60 The mode of expression implicit in the tie of the first and second sixteenths of the second quarter cannot be achieved otherwise than with the following shading: j~'

-===

' ' ', 61 which, inci:>-

dentally, is so obvious that Beethoven may well have considered its expression in notation to be superfluous. It has already been remarked that the nuance just mentioned requires a retardation of tempo. But such retardation is so minute that the conductor scarcely needs to indicate it expressly. (This too, incidentally, is doubtless part of the reason there has by convention been general, standing agreement since earliest times about the rule given on p. 61 !) In comparison to the melodically leading oboe and flute, clarinet and bassoon-let this too be mentioned here-must obviously be kept in the background. Bars 195-197. The reason for Beethoven's a tempo indication at bar l g6 (after the rit. at the end of bar l g5) is that bars l g6-197 themselves already represent a composed-out ritenuto, which, if complicated by a second [conducted] one, would lead onto the precipitous course of a self-perpetuating ritenuto. Bar 198ff. Exactly the same applies to the performance of the second subdivision as to that of the first. Bar 218ff. And in the third subdivision as well, in spite of its greater scope, the essential thing is again to attain that view into the distance that allows us to see already at the first entrances of the fugal section (but only as an application of fugal procedure 62 ) the syncopes of bar 236ff., the modulations, and finally the broadly relaxing cadence in A minor (bar 25g[ff.])! From this perspective, then, one will avoid from the outset exaggerating the J at the first, second , and third entrances. One has ample reason, indeed, to conserve all energy and passion for bars 241 ff., since one has yet to negotiate the narrow ravine of the syncopes! Bar 24rff. Here an intensification is obviously appropriate by reason of the situation and would by no means amount to a contradiction of Beethoven, who again found it superfluous to mark an explicit cresc. or even an ff For in fact, a true ff condition is something still very different from the intensification that is supposed to emerge

[60. The discussion that follows actually pertains to bar 192ff.] [61. Through an artwork error, the slur in the original encompassed three sixteenth notes instead of two.] [62. That is, the section is only fugato and not a real fugue.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

174

Second Movement

I assume further that the first flutes are able, without anxiety about their instrument, to produce Fig. 226.

~f

t l==E==

Fig. 227.

t

-• ._________._t:_t instead of

~

~

I

t

.... t

:t::

If it were not for the particular amount of space Wagner himself devotes to his erroneous opinion, the motivation that compels me to rebut Wagner at this point as well would almost have to be considered too slight. If we consider in particular that the instinct and style of the master as represented above manifests itself also in his writing for stringed instruments to the effect that he used them in a far less virtuosic manner in the opera and the symphonies than in chamber music, and adjusted his practice even in the latter according to the milieu (that is, most virtuosic in the string quartets, but less so in chamber music with winds, where the technique of the latter instruments influenced the style of the work as a whole)-if we take all of this into consideration, then we marvel at Wagner's presumption in finding the reason for these phenomena, all differentiated with such immeasurable beauty by instinct and style, only in "the master's having gradually grown completely unaccustomed to listening to orchestral performances" ! How petty his judgment, and from what a low perspective, when h e accuses Beethoven of having used a "childishly timorous device" exactly at the point where Beethoven cultivates style in the most exalted sense of the word! What a shame Wagner did not investigate more carefully th e writing in Beethoven's other works. How well he would have had to learn just from the following passage in Op. 1 06 that it was nothing resembling fear of a bb '> that caused Beethoven to avoid it in bars 3-4 of the example:

He did, after all, write immediately afterward as follows:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

l

75

Something similar is found also in figure 36b (p. 52) from the Adagio of the same sonata. How very far from the truth to speak in reference to such an example of some sort of fear of bP, which is encountered repeatedly in the Scherzo! These and other, similar, passages would have provided ample proof, if Wagner had evaluated them in terms of style, that in music it is not merely a pitch-succession (Tonreihe) that can become what may be called a unifying motif, but also-and this has completely escaped musicians up to now-specific octave placement (Tonhohe) as such! "We touch nothing in vain," says Goethe. This saying applies not only to the touching of things by humans, however: even octaves cannot be touched capriciously' It is always of consequence (or at least should be) that the composer places his motif in this or that register; he then has an obligation to the very register itselr. To understand what I mean by this, one need only recall the poor effect of the revision applied to bar 416ff. of the first movement (see pp. 1 16-1 19 [and figure 130 ]). And for further confirmation still another example may be added here, from Beethoven's Piano Sonata, Op. 11 o. After having written as follows in bar 25ff.:

sf

j~

the master considers it his duty to respond to the newly achieved register as such (f3 - bP) in the next theme as well:

That this amounts to nothing more than a response to the previous octave, however, follows simply from the fact that in bar 30 (and indeed without any greater impairment of the melody) he could certainly have remained in the two-line octave! Wagner returns 20 to the second theme of the Recapitulation with the following words [p. 24of.]: "The trumpets are indeed introduced in their own right at the repetition of the passage in D, but, unfortunately, again in such a way that they only obscure the theme of the woodwinds; thus I again found it necessary to enjoin upon the trumpets as well as the strings a characterless restraint." As short as this passage is, unfortunately it too nevertheless gives rise to observations and remonstrations that provide many a moral lesson. One infers from it in the first place that the musical hearing of even a Wagner still fell short of a completely correct hearing. Thus he clearly saw the trumpets in (20. The quotation that follows is actually a digression within Wagner's commentary on the second theme in the exposition; see above, p. 158.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1 76

I

Second Movement

the Recapitulation, but still was not able to interpret their meaning. He failed to gain awareness of why the trumpets remained absent in the First Part, but entered in the Recapitulation. Yet only the answer that he would have had to discover to this question could have led him to the truth-that is, to an understanding of what Beethoven owed the climactic point per se; of how, in keeping with the law of synthesis, he gave "lower-lying" points a dynamic shading that was likewise weaker; and of why, in deference to the Recapitulation, he differentiated to a scarcely noticeable extent, by the varied participation of the trumpets, between two passages that otherwiseexcepting only the difference of key-sound almost the same; and so forth. Wagner contented himself simply to see the trumpets; and just this inadequate act of seeing sufficed for him to attribute to Beethoven shortcomings of which he is actually innocent. It is clear to see: all of Wagner's transgressions against Beethoven stem from the fact that his intellect is not fully capable of grasping Beethoven's art of construction. But until precisely this understanding of construction serves those who would retrace the creative process, portrayal of content remains out of the question! H we substitute for the words "characterless restraint,'' which Wagner uses above in reference to the reduced.ff of the trumpets, a different expression-specifically, "shading within fortissimo"-, then we obtain, instead of a term disagreeably applied only to the individual case and therefore liable to cause disorientation, a truly productive suggestion, which extends far beyond the one passage here under consideration, and moreover sanctions that which Wagner derides with the adjective "characterless." Here it is only proper for the brass instruments to moderate their ff, for, as I have said, even fortissimo requires its shading, just as much as for p (see above, pp. 42, 82, etc.). Weingartner is in agreement with Wagner concerning bar 276ff. With regard to the second theme (bar 33off.), he says the following (p. 205):

In the original the trumpets are brought in here in such a way that, as Wagner rightly remarks, "unfortunately ... they only obscure the theme of the woodwinds." 21 He found that, at a performance of this symphony, he was obliged to recommend "a characterless restraint" to these instruments. In accordance with the view already stated, that if any remedy of an evil be attempted, a thorough cure should be aimed at, I resolved to follow Wagner's instigation and let the trumpets strengthen the theme. The players need now no longer play with characterless restraint, but with characteristic strength. His recommendations are presented in notation on pp. 206-208. Thus, as we see, Weingartner too lacks insight into the three different instrumentational nuances that Beethoven has applied to the two appearances of the second theme and to the beginning of the Recapitulation.

[ 21. Translations of Wagner's language in the Crosland text have been modified for consistency with our present usage.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement

I

i

77

Trio (Bars 1-117) The plan that underlies the Trio is to work out and present realistically an obviously Russian dance melody in all of its idiosyncratic national character. This plan basically imposes few demands, however; all that is required is that the melody simply be repeated time after time: it is the innumerable repetitions , then, that of themselves whip up the nerves to a state of ecstasy and frenzy, so as finally to exhaust them completely. The composer reaps in return (albeit unconsciously) from such an endless series of repetitions the picture of one of the earliest musical epochs, in which humans were at first able to generate length in a tonal formation only in the most primitive way, purely through uninterrupted repetitions, thus to be able to draw precisely from them satiation of their musical "hunger." If the following melody be designated the theme of the Trio:

then we would have to say that, assuming observance of the repeat signs, Beethoven repeats it no fewer than twenty-three times in the course of the Trio! But how magnificently Beethoven achieved realism in the simulation of a primitive musical state, even using only techniques of most advanced artistry! 22 He binds the planned multiple repetitions into a solid form and moreover uses the propitious resources of the orchestral apparatus to present them with variety of color as well.

22. Compare the quite related technique in the trio of the Scherzo from the string quartet Op. 59 No. 2; by contrast, however, [consider] the excessively brutal technique, which shows only marginally artistic perspectives , ofTchaikowsky in his Symphony in F Minor, Finale, in relation to the following motif:

Fig. 234.

;;;;

't.~

+-:i= tEf __ , , +:

mJ'

... ..,.. '7"'"r

w

~

.....

v= ...I ~t

... ...... .. . . . . . -+=+=- . __ +-+- ~ --- ...

t:.~~t:.

-¥£ , I

w

8

I

4$4A

ttt:."t. ~---· ! I I I [ I I -g

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

usw.

1 78

Bars 1-9

I

Second Movement

As far as form is concerned, it is advisable to read here a threepart song form with coda: a 1 - b - a 2. The First Part a 1 lasts from bar 1 to bar g-by bar 1 I mean here that bar (otherwise bar 42623 ) which opens the Trio in such a radical way with the ff trombone-blast: Fig. 233. Bass trombone .a.-~

Bars 9-24

(For the purely external matter of assignment of bar numbers, the repetition marked in the score is not included in the count.24 ) It alone, however, already contains four statements of the melody, if the repetition is taken into consideration. Here, in the First Part, it is only the woodwinds that perform the melody: theme in oboe I and clarinet I, counterpoint in bassoons I and II. The Middle Part, b, lasts from bar g to bar 24 and is of independent thematic character, with the possible exception of the beginning of the motif, whose origin may, after all, have been influenced by the primary melody: Fig. 235.

~V,.!Jci-L:_--"--------~---------~-----.~--..;o'--...___,..___-+t--.--+-,a.==t-..a.

W'i r r r r r r 1

p

Bars 25- 78

1

~ ~

r

1

1

:e:

89

usw.

cresc.

It is bipartite: bars 9-16 and bars 1 7-24. All the more richly developed is the Third Part of the song form, a 2. One might even go so far as to regard it as in turn an independent three-part song form in itself, of which bars 25-40 would be considered al> bars 41-61 b, and finally bars 62-78 a 2. From this rich structure Beethoven derives the great advantage of causing the melody, which returns here, to be played four times in a 1 by the horn, once in b by the bassoon, and, again, four times in a 2 by violins I and II-thus nine times in all. When, as often happens in a three-part song form, parts band a 2 are repeated, however, the end result is a grand total of eighteen repetitions of the melody in all three subdivisions of the Third Part. [23. Bar 414 in the more usual numbering system-see note 18 above.] [24. That is, the two bars of the first ending are not included; this is in contrast, then, to the numbering system used for the previous first and second endings (see note 18).] -

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement

I

1 79

Coda In the Coda (bars 78-1 17) it is ultimately the lower strings, viola and cello (with reinforcement in the clarinet) that present the melody once again-indeed, for the last time. Concerning the matter of key, it is to be noted that D major is maintained throughout the whole Trio, with the First Part ending in a half-cadence (bar g), but the Middle and Last Parts in authentic cadences (bars 24-25 and bar 78). This precisely is what enables the melody to begin in each case, with the single exception of bars 4145, on d (leaving specific register out of consideration), so that it is only through this obstinate insistence not only on the key but on the tonic as point of departure that the impression of a truly national (Russian) particularity is generated. The exception referred to concerns bar 41: the melody begins here in bassoon I with the dominant tone! And immediately afterward, at bar 45, a further exception is added: while the melody is elsewhere presented only in simple repetition, and thus obviously devoid of any kind of thematic manipulation, at this point, as the following illustration shows, the first modest attempt is made at such manipulation: Fig. 236. Bn. I _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.+

p: r

--

~

?§

fp

"9-"

1

1

•

... +-

~

.(I..

1

1

!:: !:: 1J!Ett---1d

.(I..

In the Coda this feature is answered-but, admittedly, beginning with the tonic!-as follows: Fig. 237.

Ve.

- - - -- -----

~\±+t--r JP

I rt

Horn

9=1#FbJ IJ

u It r r I~ I7==Rttd cresc.

Cl.I

; IJ

Ob. I

JlJ Jf_J-_-L...1_~19=_-~i£2_l 3

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

p cresc.

Ba r 7 sff.

180

I

Second Movement

What artistic taste it bespeaks on the one hand to abstain, in the scope of the little genre-miniature, from any more extensive form of thematic manipulation (of which Beethoven was certainly capable!), and how high a value must be placed, on the other hand, on the purposefulness with which, in the practice of such abstemiousness, Beethoven nevertheless effects the parallelism-so inherently modest-of bars 78-102 and bars 41-53! So much for the plan in general. In particular, only a few details need to be mentioned. The rhythm of the counterpoint, which appears first of all in the bassoons: Fig. 238:,a_ .;_

ii. . . .

. .;_ (.,&

~=·~B2====1:::t=I==r==r::::::!::r:t:'.:::Ir::::j::t+f~~~~Ig~@': : : ):f: : : !: r: :t: Ir==1==1==usw. D maj.: ! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_;

i.v_ L _ V

suggests that obviously the melody too should begin with the second half of the bar, which, incidentally, is confirmed in bars 5 and g: Fig. 239.

~ E r Ir Fusw.11 r

r r r r 1 rTr £J usw. 1

In conformity with this is the scale-degree progression indicated above [in figure 238] under the counterpoint,25 which clearly aims for a half-cadence at the first half of bar 5, and seeks the same effect still more clearly at the first half of bar g: Fig. 240.

~J

(!) D maj.: IV_ _ _ ...__ _ _ V -

usw. II

(25. The second I (bar 3 of example 238) supports a passing tone and is thus subordinate to the surrounding IV and V.J

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I 02

I

First Movement

teristic higher unity of an artistic design with which Beethoven, precisely by force of a unique creative power unfathomable to further intellectual scrutiny, has imbued them! Kretszchmar writes on p. I i 6: The development further unrolls the Faustian picture: seeking and not finding; rosy fantasies of future and past, and reality filled with a pain that suddenly makes its presence felt! The development section, comparatively, is but short. Thematically it is chiefly carried by images from the third and fourth bars of the principal theme. The element of gloom resurfaces in it, to explode with fullest force in the return of the principal section. Depictions of this kind, which could just as well be applied without scruple to countless other developments in randomly selected works, may doubtless pass judgment on themselves! Grove provides a rather detailed discussion (p. 31 2ff. ), which, however, does not fail to avoid the most byzantine errors: Perhaps in deference to the great demands posed by the Finale, Beethoven here abjures repetition of the first part of the movement, and rather crosses immediately with one of his direct modulations from m major to A minor [here the first error!], draws a double bar through the score, changes the signature from H to ~, and begins the development. The Prologue sounds first in a concise form [here the second error!], after which the energetic rhythm familiar to us from examples 25 and !26,66 emphasized still more by pungent sforzandi, gains the upper hand. Thereupon the tonal poet leads the way to G minor. [Third error: obviously he is unaware that G minor appeared already at bar 180, thus at the beginning of the first subdivision. The consequences of this error, too, are not avoided.] He has already given us a sense (see example !206 7) of how he intends to handle the principal theme; here he takes up the fragment of it mentioned earlier (No. I 7a68 ) and develops it into a fourbar phrase, which he assigns alternately to the oboes and clarinets. At the end he endows it with an expressive ritardando as well, which we will recall again later, near the end of the movement. At first, however, Beethoven turns back from this motif to the complete theme, as we know it from No. I 7. [Fourth error: he simply has not recognized the first subdivision as such, and has rather represented it merely as a "Prologue"!] And then we see his great art in its finest form. The theme descends through the steps of the triad from high to low, while the bass strides upward in the opposite direction with pizzicato notes, and almost seems to represent an inversion of this theme. How expressively the half-step from A~ to G grieves at the second occurrence of the melody [he refers here to the neighboring thirty-second note a~ 2 in violin I in bar [66. Grove's examples showing extracts of bars I 02-107 and 1 1 0-1 13 respec· tively.) [67. An example showing bars 55-56.) [68. Showing the principal theme; the fragment referred to is the third bar.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

182 I

Second Movement

From this we learn that Beethoven originally notated the Trio in twoquarters meter. The original manuscript (in the Royal Library in Berlin26), incidentally, also shows the same notation; but Beethoven himself later erased every other bar line, and the above-mentioned dedication copy27 presented to King Friedrich Wilhelm III acquired the definitive four-quarters notation. Lastly, for the sake of completeness, it may be appropriate here to quote Nottebohm's report (p. 170) that "the second movement was almost complete in draft form in August 1823." Kretzschmar writes on p. 117: "The middle section, which represents the Trio, has as its principal theme the following melody, an unmistakable product of Beethoven's studies of Russian music" (a quotation of the melody given in figure 232 follows). The continuation sounds chimerical: "He strikes a pastoral tone and alludes with his simple shepherd-melodies to rustic pleasures, but also, in powerfully mystical violin-sonorities, to sunrises and the exalted joys of magnificent nature"(?!). Grove (p. 324ff.) presents carefully assembled historical data, but, as would necessarily be expected from the preceding examples, provides with respect to the content itself only information that is either inaccurate or false. To the first-so characteristic-step in the thematic manipulation in bars 41-45 he most naively devotes remarks from which the truth of the matter cannot in the least be gathered: "As the bassoon now takes up the theme, the accompaniment (see No. 42) is transferred to the oboe in a charming variation, and the horn assumes the role of harmonic filler-voice .... How gripping the preparation of the subsequent modulation to F major (bar 7) 28 •••• The beauty of this section has its basis specifically in the melody of the oboe; and Berlioz is not so far wrong29 .•. [etc.]." The anecdotes that he provides, however, in no way substitute for a good analysis-all the less so considering that they are not fully authenticated. Let it finally be understood that a good portrayal of content possesses a greater appeal than all the anecdotal rubbish, which in the final analysis is unable to still the hunger for understanding. What is of most piquant effect in such cases is not the anecdote itself, but the relation of the author, so poorly informed about the content of the work, to the anecdote: instead of examining it in terms of objective content and accuracy and perhaps dismissing it as apocryphal, the author-incapable of true criticism for lack of the requisite substantive knowledge-simply relates the anecdote. And then it is amusing to see how the ignorance of the one (the author) invokes the aid of the ignorance of the other (the father of the anecdote), while both parties imagine themselves to be in possession of the purest truth! "Weingartner gives accurate guidance for the performance of the oboe solo in bar 41ff. He provides several corrections of Wagner's and Billow's whimsies; they are to be considered perfectly appropriate. [26. Now Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin.] [27. In the hand of the copyist Peter Glaser; likewise in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek.] [28. Bar 7 of an example in Grove's text; bar 60 of the Trio.] [29. Grove's allusion (truncated by Schenker) is to H. Berlioz, Voyage musical en Allemagne et ltalie. Etudes sur Beethoven, Gluck, et ffl!ber (Paris, 1844), vol. 1, p. 346.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Adagio molto e cantabile

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

~

(b. 121-157)

0

u

£'

-el ,...

.:

]

-~

0

-~ !!,Cl

J5

~ 3,

u

~ Q)

s ~

Free transition to the Second Variation (Adagio, E~,c) Repetition of the Intermediate Theme (Andante moderato, G, 3/ 4)

(b. 83-98) (b. 65-82)

0::

~

.: i:8_

""O

E5

(b. 99-120)

.... ~

0

......~

i:8. .s

.g .9

E -~ .§°

(b. 43-64)

~~3,

Intermediate Theme-------

(b. 25-42)

0::

~

.:

.g

Q)

.9

-~ E_go

;:>

(b. 3- 2 4)

-£ 3,

Introduction----------

(b. l-2)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Adagio molto e cantabile The third movement is a variation movement, albeit one of special structure. A two-bar tonal configuration serves as prelude to the variation theme: Fig. 244.

,,

,,

:::::=-I.I _.. I

Bn. I

~~~--=!~d Ve.

tt§if'£I ~

i~l~i

To designate this configuration simply as "Introduction" is surely not incorrect, but it is equally certain that this designation alone by no means provides a full explanation of it. Since the two bars in question precede the theme, it would seem only proper to offer the solution to the puzzle at the very outset. I prefer, however, to follow the chronology of Beethoven's inventive process, by explaining the content of the Introduction only after having given an account of its sourcenamely, the theme. For it would be no more possible for the reader to grasp the sense of the first two bars without knowing the theme than it would have been for Beethoven himself to have invented the former before arriving at the definitive shape of the latter. Permit me, therefore, first of all to present the theme itself. We find the theme, considered from the purely external perspective, to be founded on a choric principle-specifically, in the sense that its content is distributed in certain segments between strings and winds. If we penetrate deeper into the structure of the idea, however, we immediately find that the winds are not exactly organically in volved in the construction of the content, and in fact, we must at

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars :;-2 4

i

86 I Third Movement

first mentally omit them-an experiment whose appropriateness will only be confirmed by examination of the sketches provided below [in figure 245]-if we are to assimilate the true gist of the theme. When the wind parts are omitted, then, the theme takes the following shape:

;v r r r rIr~UI r t!9 ltJ LJ 1~r r- SJ I

From this we learn that in bars 1-4 of the theme (bars 3-6 of the score) first of all the path from tonic to dominant (as half-cadence) is traversed, after which the following four bars then obviously attempt to bring about the cadence. But the content, as bar 8 of figure 245 shows, progresses only as far as an "imperfect authentic cadence," and thus the approach to a perfect cadence must now be sought anew. Beethoven uses for this purpose the familiar means of simply repeating the preceding four bars, except that in bars i i , 12, 13 he applies the perfect cadence instead of the imperfect. Thus the theme manifests, purely from the standpoint of construction and leaving aesthetic impression aside, a completely ordinary appearance. It is transported into the realm of the extraordinary only by the manner in which the winds participate. Specifically, when the latter instruments repeat bar 4 of figure 245:

usw.

and, subsequently, likewise repeat bar 8:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1

06

I

First Movement

In comparison to the introduction to the First Part, which was based on V, the head of the Recapitulation is distinguished first of all through the use of the tonic D itself. Its major third f#, however, is not a product of mixture, as it might appear at first glance, but rather of a chromaticization in favor of the IV that is to be expected (cf. Harmony, §139££.): D minor: Li - - - IV Effect: G . mmor: V~--- I The latter then actually appears in bar 312, only to be itself chromaticized in turn, as though the V were to be expected immediately afterward:

Fig.

II2.

"~VI.I.

p VI. II.

-

J

sf

Viola. -6-

...I

I.

-6-

Sf

I I j.i.... .1.. I 1t- ... - -

I

...I J

at the beginning of the Recapitulation (!):

and most imposingly, without doubt, at the close:

sfJ--..J

/-1

r-·--ff....._..........._..........._ This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

usw.

i

88 I

Third Movement

a way at this point in view of the fact that the content is already known to us, and thus admits a variant in its treatment: what would still have been compositionally questionable in the preceding four bars becomes here, in the repetition, an admissible means of expanding the content. If to this first response by the winds 1 we now add the second one, after the cadence of the third phrase (see figure 249), then by contrast to the first and second phrases, the third phrase shows a twofold involvement of the winds. From a stylistic standpoint, this provides at the same time the transition to that act of participation by the winds which-because, as previously mentioned, it subjects the entire third phrase (bars 14-17 as shown in figure 250) to repetition-is the most comprehensive of all. The involvement of the winds therefore contains within itself a measured intensification: they participate only once in each of the first and second phrases, twice already in the third phrase, fmally to traverse nothing less than a four-bar group entirely on their own after the conclusion of the third phrase. That this plan was undoubtedly thought out by Beethoven, however, is shown best of all by the way he applies the dynamic markings in the course of the theme. Observe, specifically, how he calls for -=:::::::::: :::=- in the theme only at bar 4, and in the second phrase likewise only at the fmal, fourth bar-an arrangement by means of which he communicates the two four-bar phrases to the perception of the reader or player all the more clearly as units. In the third phrase, however, we find the same marking after only two bars, so that the interruption of content is indicated in the clearest possible way. It is obvious that the above-described involvement of the winds in the theme lengthens it first of all only in the purely external sense-that is, quantitatively. Undoubtedly, just the tendency toward lengthening was the most decisive element in the selection of this construction. Yet that lengthening by itself produces at the same time a beneficial retroactive effect on the content of the theme: the latter is also qualitatively deepened by the imitations of the winds. In particular, the imitation enhances the second bar of the third phrase (bar i o of figure 245): it amplifies the expression here in such a way that we understand why Beethoven had the content of exactly these bars in mind as he shaped the introduction (see above, figure 244):

[ 1. That is, the first response in the third phrase, therefore the one shown in figure 248. J

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I

1 89

and likewise, again, as he set about bringing the entire movement to a conclusion (see bars 144, 145, 146, 147). 2 Finally it should not be overlooked that with the final four-bar imitation in the winds, Beethoven also gains the great advantage of an unforced transition to the next idea: Fig. 252.

J~~===~~pp====:E~

l~~I.~~~j~~ V _ _ __,

mmaj.:

(IIIl!3)

D maj.: I _ _ _ _ __

--

What an abundance of beneficial effects he thus reaps from his artistic consistency! Just consider: he invokes the winds for what at first undoubtedly appears a merely superficial effect; yet watch how

2. As an example of a similarly invented introduction , for purposes of comparison the introduction to the third movement, Andante cantabile, of Schumann's Piano Quartet, Op. 47 may be cited:

Fig. 253.

VI. I.

p-==:: ==--

dim.

-a motif that later recurs constantly as refrain of the theme in the violoncello, in the violin, in the piano, and so forth , in, for example, the following form :

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

190

I Third Movement

-====

which-observe the position of the markings :::::=- in violin II and viola-awakens an impression as though, to put it in visual terms, human arms were to reach longingly toward an object of such close proximity. And likewise, with the same figure at the third and fourth quarters of bar 7:

usw .

Bn.

,,

I

f'~

'-J

T -

I

I

--=:::::: =-

clarinet II and bassoon I seem on the other hand to reach out to the string orchestra, which is to bring the continuation of the theme . Do we not have every reason to marvel at such an extraordinarily beautiful technical move? Just observe the accompanying dynamic marking: isn't that alone, considered just in itself, perhaps a thing equal in value to the invention of the content itself? One need but superficially follow the indication, without understanding its ultimate bases, and the goal of an intimate connection of the two choirs is-even despite the performer's lack of awareness-nevertheless achieved! What a

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I

191

triumph of the artist, to fortify his idea so thoroughly against any possible peril! (Whether the figure last mentioned may perhaps also support a secret relationship to the Introduction can be left open. I personally tend to oppose such an interpretation and to see in the first gestures [of the Introduction] by bassoon II, bassoon I, and clarinet I-see figure 244-instead only a preparatory motivic reference to the first gesture of clarinet I.) The situation is simpler in bars 1 1 and 12 of the score (here figure 247): the wind choir here finds a propitious opportunity to take over the content that was played by violin I from the fourth quarter of bar 1o on. This obviates any further special expenditure of effort toward shaping a connection. The situation is so uncomplicated that once the strings have finished with the content at the third quarter of bar 1 1, the winds can enter unimpeded at the fourth quarter. The transition from winds to strings in bar 15 (here figure 248) had to be shaped all the more artfully. To let violin I merely rest through bar 15 and then enter at once in bar 16 with g 2 had to be avoided: Fig. 257.

1}!J I Cicff I Strings

usw.

Strings

which explains why, for the sake of a better connection, we see at this point the version given in figure 248. In bar 18 the matter is uncomplicated, just as in bar 11 (see figure 249). About the scale-degree progression there is scarcely anything special to report, except the anticipation in bar 18 (cf. Counterpoint 1, p. 88 and note 29): Fig. oSB.

I

VI~~

~" i: VI. II.

l

~: ~~ola. J.---.... ~ Cello.

..,

~ ~

tj ;

I

v _______1

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

192

I

Third Movement

which finds an original type of copy immediately following, in the kettledrum in bar 19: Fig. 259.

Cl. I

I~~~ l~~E.E. Kettledr. in F , m

usw.

p

and which-marvel ofmarvels!-represents the cradle of the sensational kettledrum fifth (probably unique in the literature) at the close of the movement! (More about that later, in the commentary on bar 153.) The movement was intended to be a variation-movement. How such a thing generally proceeds is known to everybody: one variation follows upon another, while only seldom is a stricter technicalmechanical connective established between variations . This time , however, Beethoven did not make matters quite so easy for himself. Once before, in the finale of the Eroica Symphony, he had given the variation form a thoroughly original stamp by working it out according to the following plan, unfortunately so little understood up to now. There, three variations follow the theme designated~: Fig.

260.

Theme ~:

The last of them presents, as counterpoint to the bass, the following melody:

From this point on the succession of variations is formed in such a way that sometimes the head of the theme ~-that is, merely bars 14 of it-and sometimes the melody of the theme!?_ [see figure 261], either in whole or in part, is subjected to elaboration. Here follows an outline of the whole structure:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I Theme~

Var. 1 Var. 2 Var. 3 Theme b Theme; Theme b Theme a Theme b Theme a Theme b

193

.... E~ maj. • • . . E~ maj. . . . . E~ maj. .... E~ maj. .... E~ maj. .... C min., etc. {bars 1-4, Fugato) .... D maj. (complete) .... G maj. (bars 1-4) .... C maj. (only bars 1-8!) .... m maj. (bars 1-4, Fugato) .... E~ maj. (poco andante)

and finally a Coda employing parts of theme £. In the Variations for Piano, Op. 35, which, as is well known, are based on the same sujet, Beethoven had, to be sure, explicitly designated the first-mentioned theme~ at the outset merely as "Basso del thema," and only the melody in theme£ as the actual "Thema" of the variations. In that opus, indeed, the variations follow the latter exclusively, even where the bass figure, theme ~, is also quoted with complete clarity, as for example in Variation g. Matters are different in the Eroica Symphony, however, where any such orientation is altogether lacking. This lack is not to be ascribed to Beethoven's simply having perhaps forgotten it, though, but rather to the fact that here it would have conflicted with the changed thrust of the variations. If we consider, in particular, that in the Eroica Finale the theme £ is subsequently (after its first appearance) varied three times, of which, note well, two times involve its full length (in D major and E major) and only a single one merely its first half (in C major, bars 18), while theme ~ (the original "Basso del thema") is subsequently never used otherwise than in a form limited to its bars 1-4, then we tend toward the assumption that here, as in Op. 35, it was again only theme£ that represented to the master the actual variation theme. 3 As a further consequence of such a view, however, the assumption would arise that Beethoven perhaps merely wanted to inhibit the unrelieved iteration of variations of the theme £, to which end he employed nothing else but intervening passages (Zwischenspiele), and those in the form of sundry variations on bars 1-4 of the "Basso del thema." Thus understood, the variation technique applied by [3. The same view is expressed by Schenker in "Beethovens dritte Sinfonie." See Meisterwerk III, p. 75.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

194 I

Third Movement

Beethoven in the Eroica would be a purely superficial solution to the problem of simply avoiding a mechanically direct succession of variations. It appears to me, nevertheless, that the plan of the Eroica variations would admit of a still more profound interpretation. To the extent, specifically, that the theme ~ ("Basso del thema") obviously was conceived from the start as only preparatory and foundational for the theme ~. it seems to want to retain the same preparatory (preludizing) role in the continuation. This, in my view, is the reason for the ever recurring restriction of theme ~ to only four bars (for which, granted, the thematic working-out provides a substitute!), and also for the manner of connection found between the first Fugato and theme ~ in D major, or between theme ~ in E major and theme~ in E major (poco andante), and so forth. So conceived, then, each (abbreviated) preludizing bass theme and its respective subsequent variation of theme ~-thus only the two parts together-are required to form one full-fledged variation; the plan displayed above, then, may in this light be subjected to the following correction4: Theme a Var. I Var. 2 Var. 3 Var. 4 Theme a in C minor, etc. Theme ~ in D major Var. 5 Theme a in G minor Theme ~ in C major Var. 6 Theme ~ in E~ major Theme ~in m major 4. How faulty Kretzschmar's judgment concerning the Finale (p. 88): "The Finale of the Eroica is in its first half a variation-cycle, based on the following simple theme: [score-quotation]-the same one that Beethoven used earlier in the Piano Variations (Op. 35) and also in the music for the ballet Die Geschopfe des Prometheus. From the third variation on the composer builds above this theme a tender songmelody [quotation] that functions as a second theme in the movement. After it is developed, the variation-form is abandoned, and the theme appears remodeled into a fugue; in other groups only a few of its notes are used, and for brief periods it disappears completely. With the G-minor strain, which enters with marchlike power, the variation-form returns; the individual variations have free cadences; for the rest, the whole process of the first half is repeated. The Finale of the Eroica, with all of the beautiful elements it contains, has long appeared somewhat too light in comparison to the other movements. At the end, however, with the docile variation in which the second theme appears as andante, it redeems itself and closes-rather abruptly, to be sure, but with dithyrambic vigor."

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I

195

Here in the third movement of the Ninth Symphony Beethoven takes a similarly original path. It is again his intent to avert a direct succession of the actual variations. He uses expressly for this purpose a melody-the circumstance that he invented it even earlier than the theme itself (see below) certainly in no way militates against the purpose that was ultimately associated with it-which is interpolated between the variations. Artistic consistency then demanded that in a similar manner the theme itself already be separated from the first variation. In both cases the master uses the same melody of binary construction (that is, consisting of antecedent and consequent), which occurs for the first time-between theme and first variationin bars 25-40, and for the second time-between first and second variations-in G major, bars 65-80. For all of the similarity mentioned above in the thrust relative to the variation form, preference must doubtless be accorded that disposition which Beethoven hit upon in the Eroica. For what there appears between the individual variations of the second theme is, after all, treatment at least of the foundational bass theme, which bears from the outset an organic relation to the second theme (the latter having originated as counterpoint to the bass theme). It is this organic togetherness of the two themes which in the Eroica stamps the variations with a cohesive character, despite the fact that, as mentioned, the individual variations of the second theme are segregated from one another by various treatments of the first one. It is not possible for a similar cohesiveness to blossom in the variation movement of the Ninth Symphony, however, where no form of organic relationship prevails between the theme and its variations on the one hand and the melody used as interlude component on the other. The lack of cohesiveness even brings with it a certain murkiness, for as the melody sounds, our perception begins to doubt whether perhaps a variant of the rondo form does not come close to fruition here. This doubt alone, however, justifies us in saying that the Beethovenian venture of giving the variation form a new profile in such a way may be imitated by other composers only if the sacrifice of purity and precision of form can similarly be paid for at least by the beauty of the interlude.5 5. In the Andante from Schumann's Op. 47-at least to the extent that that movement can be considered a variation movement-a similar technique of interpolation between the variations is found. The plan of the movement, stripped to the bare bone, consists in having the theme originate in the cello, pass among the other instruments, and finally return again to the cello. The order is as follows: cello, violin, piano, viola, and cello; but beyond this-merely the need for a contrast to them-ma-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i

96 I

Third Movement

The aforementioned interlude theme goes as follows: Fig. 262. ~ espressivo

~

---

fl I

J

; JJJJI -tJ 1 JJlJ I lj ~­ cresc.

--

~---- 15791;

J

fV I

usw.

It demands no special commentary. Everything in it-scaledegree progression as well as instrumentation-is no doubt selfexplanatory. Of utmost simplicity too is the modulation by which the transition to the first variation is accomplished: Fig. 263.

piu p

maj. 0-.mm. Bars 45-64

v __ r____ v __ vr ~

m maj.:

..___ _ _v ____

The first variation stands once again in B~ major and is expressed in sixteenth-note figurations, which are performed by first violins. But truly, how artful and eloquent they are, with a strength of expression paralleled only by (at most) those figurations Beethoven wrote in the Adagio of the Piano Sonata, Op. i 06, the Arietta of Op. i i i, in the Adagio variations of the String Quartet, Op. i 2 7, or the Lento of the String Quartet, Op. I 35 ! Deserving of special study is the unusual bow articulation of the violin figures, since it is precisely that which promotes the expression so intensively. Observe in this connection, for example, bars 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, etc. 6

jor key demands it!-two interpolations also occur, the first of them (in G~ major) inserted between the thematic presentations of the piano and the viola, and the second between the presentation by the latter instrument and that of the concluding cello. 6. Who knows whether this type of articulation does not stem from Haydn, who often enough associated with it a similar rhetorical-pathetic character in his symphonies and quartets; see, for example, the Symphony in C Major, Universal Edition No. 98, four-hand edition (No. 7) [Hob. I, 97, second movement]:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I

197

It should be noted further that here, just as in the theme , the dynamic shadings aim exclusively for a clear underscoring of the construction (recall the -=:::: in bars 46, 51, 54, etc.). Concerning instrumentation, it should be remarked that in this variation both flutes and oboes are lacking, and the doublebass joins only in the final bars. The reason for this is that the first-named instruments are reserved for the leading role in the interlude that follows immediately. But it is a thoroughly striking art that Beethoven applies in solving the problem of how the participation of the winds should be handled here. First we must appreciate the significance of the fact that although the repeated entrances of the winds are fundamentally to be viewed as actually inorganic, he nevertheless respects them as an organic component of the theme at least enough to include them in the variations as well. A further consideration is that

===-

or the Symphony in

m major, Payne No. 38 [Hob. I, I 02] , Adagio:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I I 2

I

First Movement

But since here too, as in bars 138-145, the governing necessity of reaching a sixth at the end of the motif: Fig. 122.

b. 407

~-

Ob.

~

demanded, on the other hand, a version whose last interval formed exactly the sixth, e (with g of the bass), equally excluded from the start therefore was a figure such as the following:

;p rrr Fig. 123.

~-

-

Fr Fr I jt F

usw.

But since this line would, because of the twofold encounter of the tone b~2 (especially in such quick succession), have made a poor effect (cf. Counterpoint i, p. 100), Beethoven invoked the device of imitation:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I

199

second variation, which is in 12/8 meter! It is truly marvelous to observe the means by which he addresses this task, which is in appearance a purely mechanical one. Two transitional bars, which-apart from a minor nuancerepresent a transposition of the modulation shown by bar 41 (see figure 263), lead to the key of E~ major. Now both the C meter and the Adagio tempo return, and moreover, we even get the impression at the onset of bar 83 that we actually stand on the threshold of the second variation (which, indeed, fully accords with our expectation!)-but, admittedly, one in E~ major. Yet what we experience in bars 83-98 is not the variation itself, but first only a free fantasy on bars l and 2 of the theme (in bars 83-91) for the purpose of creating the triplet motion , with a freelyformed cadence adjoined (bars 92-96). 7 Thus first of all clarinet I states bars 1-2 of the theme; thereupon the second E~ hornB enters with a repetition of the same material in the lower register (bars 85-86), and continues by presenting it a third time yet another octave lower: Fig. 269. (concert pitch)

Horn in Eb

~FA--:r r J::lniL. I_,..,_;- !- 2- L-=1r--+r---+r--YIr~·z:q-=- - - -' ..J---1.J

~

Cl.I

~-----

-'

~------

From here on, however, Beethoven uses only the first bar of the theme, and in the way highlighted by the following illustration: Fig. 270. (concert pitch)

~~

- ---,

[,~---,

r-11ltlcz ¥ I T -6'-

~

Cl. I

tr·

p§

Fl. I.

Horn in Eb

-first in the second E~ horn (bar 89), then in clarinet I in bar go, and finally in flute I in bar 91. At that point the imitations have come to an end, and in the subsequent bars the free cadence mentioned above is adjoined. 7. The use of a similarly free fantasy is found, for example, in the variations of the Arietta of Op. 1 1 1 . Distantly related also is the technique in the Adagio of the great Eb Trio [Op. 97]-see the last variation. 8. It is noteworthy that in the following bars Beethoven gave the large assignment to the fourth horn player. Perhaps this inclination on the master's part has to do with the low register of the horn part.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars 85-98

200

I

Third Movement

From bar 83 on we stand on the territory of the Eb-major key. The law of mixture (cf. Harmony, §38ff.), however, transforms Eb major into Eb minor in bar 89, and in bar go we move from this key through Gb major to arrive at Cb major in bar 91: Eb major I Cb major III - - V - - I

In this latter key, then, the cadence also takes place. Only in bar 98 does that decisive modulation occur which returns us to Bb major as the key of the second variation:

Gmaj .: V m maj .: ?v1v7_y or {~IVP3)

Of special appeal in the technical aspect is the counterpoint in clarinet I in bar 85ff.:

-

,_

m ..............__,,,.,..-----

Horn in

Its line shows in bar 89 a return to the original situation of bar 85, so that we have at this point the impression that a redrawing of bars 8588 would have to follow. But now the counterpoint migrates to the second Eb horn: Fig. 273. (concert pitch)

CII,.j

Fil

iJ.

~

J.

~fp L ./,_oJ spI-1%7ifil'~ ~'. ~ I _, I

--

'---

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

,.-:

. --

•

• • •

~

Third Movement I

201

finally to merge in bar 93 into the motif of the cadence. (From bar 92 on, flute I joins the horn.) The following motif may be designated the actual cadential

motif

usw.

(concert pitch)--=::: ::::=....._.....-

'-...: -=::

"t

::::=-

It appears first in bar 93 in flute I and horn, and is then repeated in bar 94 by clarinet I and finally in bar 96 once again by the horn. The last time, to be sure, it occurs in a free variation:

which, however, manifests clearly enough the decisive fourth,

G~

-

C~!

Finally, however, the most important matter: in bar 85 the strings introduce the tone b~ in pizzicato, initially in the following rhythm: Fig. 276.

Cello.

The rhythmicization is altered, however, as early as bar 8r Fig. 277.

I--usw.

An at first apparently altogether insignificant occurrence, these very triplets must be regarded as the origin of that triplet movement which governs the second variation! This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

202

Bars 99-1 20

I

Third Movement

The second variation (Lo stesso tempo) begins at bar 99. It is again a figuration, which violin I carries out with-if such is possible-still more enhanced art. The increased movement in sextolets in 12/ 8 meter reflects the fact that in this variation, unlike the first, the whole orchestra participates in the presentation of content. It should be observed in particular that the figuration of violin I is accompanied at the same time by flute I, oboe I, and bassoon I, which present the theme in its original form: Fig. 278.

FL I_J.

Bn. I

The clarinets, on the other hand, are reserved exclusively for those passages (see bars 102-102, 107-108, 110-111 , and finally 114££.) in which the "official" echo-like participation on the winds is demanded from the outset. These places in particular, moreover, also offer the opportunity to marvel at the art with which Beethoven links the respective connections from string choir to wind choir even more tightly than in the first variation. If bars 51-52 in the first variation already presented the example of an intimate linkage, Beethoven found it possible with the sextolets of the second variation to attain a still more intimate one, as is shown by the following picture of bars 102-103 (the same holds of bars 107-108): Fig. 279, CL I (concert pitch)

usw.

cresc.

JJJJJl J dim.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I

In bar

I I I

Fig. 280. Horn in

203

the rich horn part is notable:

m

(concert pitch)

,_. :.ti til3

JJ J JJJJ UJJJ)= JJ I1 i Jjw >- cresc.

and analogously in bar

I I

cresc.

7:

It is a horn part which, having been wisely reserved expressly for the two final echo interpolations, has become their most memorable hallmark! At the end of the second variation, in bar I i g, that situation awaits us with which we are already familiar from bars 23-24 of the theme and bars 63-64 of the first variation. But here, to our surprise, it suddenly finds a different solution than before, since the cadential motion from V to I, which was previously left as though suspended in mid-air, is not actually completed. It is also this cadence which in fact gives the signal for the Coda as well! Yet a second cadence V - I follows in bar 120; but, since the second of these scale degrees incorporates the chromatic alteration of the seventh, A~, and thus a longer path comes into view, precisely this cadence might be said to open the portal of the Coda! The beginning of the Coda in bar 121 therefore signifies nothing beyond the turn toward the subdominant that is usual in cadences: I~ in bar i 05 and later in bar I 09), which are supposed to help regulate performance of the much broader tonal flow; 11 but these markings of detail, which have become necessary for a different reason, must never make one forget that large-scale marking Beethoven has given, which, as the winds show, still remains the predominant one! The performance should render the markings of detail their due, then, only to an extent that remains compatible with the still more convoluted articulations-I refer, for example, to

rrr jfi

in bar 106 and ~i

g a i~ in bar

I 07-which emphatically must appear simultaneously as such. In a case such as the one presented by the variation under discussion here, it is of the greatest advantage to ensure most ample support of the nuancing in the doublebasses as well. For the primary shading (e.g., in bar 107, 110, 111-113) is of infinitely more convincing effect when it is carried out not only by winds and the other strings, but also by cellos and doublebasses (seep. 41). The principle that all nuancing should be executed by the doublebasses too cannot be repeated often enough as one of paramount importance! For it is a sign of the persistence of very low culture when the nerves of performers suffice only to accommodate and [I I. Actually it is only the accents that are new and particular to violin I; the other markings conform to the primary shading as shown by the winds.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

214

I

Third Movement

carry the melody (which is usually located in the high register that attracts attention anyway, and is found only seldom in the low register). Such a primitive nerve-condition literally reminds us of the mental scope of a child sitting at the piano; drawing on all powers of imagination, the child is able to devote attention only to the right hand alone. But if artists already learned a rather long time ago to add to the melody still other voices in the same conceptual entity, the individual who merely performs must finally learn by the artists' example to conduct at least two lines simultaneously (i.e., the melody and the bass) with the greatest vitality. Achieving this, he reaches the point of development of the child who has learned-to continue the analogy-to make the left hand independent of the right and to think of several different elements at the same time. But it can hardly be imagined how insufficiently practiced even the most famous conductors and pianists are in shaping the bass and attending to its nuancing! Bar l 2 5.ff. Here one should be guided by the structure portrayed above-i.e., bars 125-130 as a unit, wherein bars 125 and 126 may be regarded as identical. Bars 129-130. These two bars, as the conclusion of what has preceded, will no doubt admit a slight broadening of tempo, which reiterates as though by association the relaxation of a cadence. Bar 141.ff. As earlier in bar l 25ff., the structure should be the guide here: bars 141-142 = bars 143-144, and bar 145 = 146 = 147 = 148!1 2 LITERATURE

Nottebohm (p. 173) reports as follows: "The Adagio was almost finished in draft in October 1823. The melody of the middle section came first. It was written before the first movement was ready in the sketches. In its original form: Fig. 305. "Thema"

[12.

The bar numbers in this line are each off by

1

in the original.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement I

i 2 i

which can be seen here in bars 429-430, 433-434, and 436-437 in the horns, in flute I, and finally also in clarinet I. How the variant represented by the four bars in question (figure 142) goes beyond the related variants of the Development and expresses the particular character of the Coda, however, is to be seen first of all in the circumstance that here bars 1-3 of the principal theme occur again in direct succession for the first time since bars 17-19 of the First Part. After the separation of bars 1-2 from the third bar, as is found in the Development and Recapitulation, bars 427-429 provide the first composite statement. The bars just mentioned, having been newly reunited by the coda, moreover take on as a new member a fourth bar, standing as the last of the group; this added bar therefore needs special explanation. Precisely this bar is the one that has so long resisted decipherment. It contains nothing other than the repetition of the motif of the preceding bar 429, which should essentially have read as follows: Fig. 143.

~

J

#tm l

~

The detachment of the final sixteenth and its reduction to a thirtysecond (after a thirty-second rest, to be sure), however, occurs only so that after completion of a four-bar unit, a second, similar unit can enter again with a thirty-second note, by analogy with the procedure at the end of bar 426. In fact, the bar-group of bars 427-430 is followed by two more units of a similar type: bars 431-434 and 435-438. And it goes without saying that, in the process, the harmony does not remain stationary; but it is essentially the changes of harmony that form the basis for that succession of units rather than the reverse: D minor: I in bars 427-430, V in bars 430-434, and I# in bar 434ff. It is of vital importance to observe, moreover, that here, as at the beginning of the Development, the harmonic change again takes place at the weak beat-that is, at the second quarter of bars 430 and 434 respectively. With respect to the above-mentioned imitations, which likewise stem from the Development, the Coda, while otherwise maintaining close correspondence, adds to their technique a new feature, in

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

216

I

Third Movement

.....

ttt

---• r . ~

...._..-

~

{I

:---

~

~I~

~

•

J

violas clarinets

I

~

(Here follows a further presentation of the sketches, which shows the second melody of the first sketch with several modifications and transposed to A major.) "Here [Nottebohm continues on p. 176] a different beginning is attempted: Fig. 307.

-PTs r #fl r1Ir 1sr tr rjfr 1t rEf¢q

Without doubt, this is the melody referred to in a conversation-book from autumn of 1823, where Beethoven's nephew writes: 'I am just happy that you have brought home the beautiful Andante.' " So far as the principal theme is concerned, according to Nottebohm (p. 177) one of the first drafts goes as follows: Fig. 308. l

2

~PrJ}Jlfflj

3

4

5

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

6

Third Movement I

21 7

"Vi

8

9

IO

12

13

II

de" .fL•

14

Of this draft, Nottebohm writes that "it originated, we assume, between May and July of 1823." As we see here, Beethoven surrenders to the first temptation of a perfect authentic cadence already in bars 7 and 8! (Think of it! The experience of so many works could not protect even a Beethoven from such an error: how dangerous the realm of tones!) That seals the fate of the draft once and for all: the overly strong closure nullifies the virility of the tones, so to speak, and it is no longer possible for any continuation to flourish. But Beethoven at first rails against the consequences of the error, and attempts all the more urgently to achieve greater thematic length beyond the perfect authentic cadence by means of a cadential confirmation; all effort, however, is in vain. Next he tries for a half-cadence as the presumptive agent of rescue in this situation. Nottebohm continues: A somewhat later sketch, to be dated July 1823, presents this version: Fig. 309. I

3

2

4

r rlr Slrrr;rlrl; 7

8

9

---U- u r· t s Ir d er y. 1..-. I I

1

r·

-IL 14

I

IO

1

1

15

i

s

16

1

II

12

I

r lJl r s J

11 rj et I L:: UtJfo 1 s 1 I

r !2.

usw.

From this we infer that Beethoven gains the imperfect authentic cadence in bar 8, and thereby at the same time the possibility of the most suitable continuation. Now there was nothing more natural than simply to repeat the content, beginning in bar 5. Amidst the good fortune of the new remedy, however, he is suddenly struck, as the sketch shows, by the idea of the choric principle, which, understandably, he at fust embraces completely uncritically. Thus bars l l and 12, specifically, and also bar 15, obviously represent the answering chorus of the winds. (In this latter point I differ with

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

218

I Third Movement

Nottebohm, whose judgment is as follows: "Beethoven did not yet conceive here of having the wind instruments repeat the last bar of each phrase, as happens in the score . At most[!], one could regard bar 15 of the last sketch as such a repetition.") The improvement of the second sketch in comparison to the first is, thus, unmistakable, and not only with regard to the most important point-the achievement of the imperfect authentic cadence-but also in other, less important, aspects. Among the latter I would include the choric arrangement; but further, also the addition of the very expressive portamenti (anticipations) in bars 5 (f2) and 11 . In the face of new accomplishments of such consequence, it is surely of only slight importance that Beethoven temporarily overlooks the possibility of more extensive use of portamenti, and even significantly worsens the content of bars 1-2 in comparison to the first sketch. (Specifically, because b~ 1 appears already at the second bar of the first sketch, the triad b~ - d - f, which is here developed in the horizontal line-i.e., composed out-, is immediately perceived in the clearest way. The hesitation of that tone-the root of the triad, after all-in the second sketch, where it appears only in the third bar, causes the disadvantage of reduced clarity.) The following sketch brings fulfilment of almost every wish: Fig. 310.

I

r~'' ~j0 ~If r::

2

3

4

I r J. ;I J J r·

s I r· U r r sIT r r r I r· wr §H 7

18

I~

8

~

&~ J. l JJJJI J_/:J? .h I The choric principle, at least as far as it goes, is followed through consistently here-see bars 5, 9-10, 13-14, and finally 17-; the fourfold entrance of the winds elongates the content to the extent that it now could be presented in c meter, and the portamento finally makes its way into bars 8-g as well. But the sketch still shows a last repository of inconsistency: the winds in bars 5 and 1 o respond only to the closing formula in each case, while in bars 13-14 they repeat the total content of the preceding bars 1 1-12. This inconsistency is all the more noticeable in effect because the subsequent fourth and final contribution of the winds in bar l 7 again finds expression only in the echo-like response to a single bar, specifically bar 16.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement

I

219

Even with this last sketch, however, which already brings the draft into the closest proximity to the finished product, Beethoven 's creative pangs were not yet over. Yet another sketch follows, which, however,-what an irony!-signifies a very severe regression:

Fig. 3n.

p

1 "Blasinstr"

JI

Jn fJ j

6 4

[~ El I:· , S4Y ~ #1 J ~

l='f J Bi J tr I1 . , ' I

I

How awkward on the part of the master to apply mere repetition to such broad eight-bar groups! And how disastrous the melodic line already in bars 1-4! The following sketch, quoted by Nottebohm on p. 179, obviously relates to the conclusion of the Adagio.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1124 I First Movement

Bar 453 ££.

Bars 469- 476

Bars 477-494

without the forging in bar 430, at the sixteenth-notes in violin I, of that unusual upbeat formation in the bassoon (figure 144), which was then called upon to shape the head of the new motif. After demolition of the four-bar unit, those cadence formations begin which we already know from bars 359-368 ( = bars 92-1o1 ). One should not fail to notice, however, that this time, to the advantage of the present situation, the violins begin their figure with a 2 and not (as previously) with d2. After these cadences there reoccurs here in the Coda as well, by analogy with bar 102 of the First Part and bar 369 of the Recapitulation, that motif gleaned from the rhythm of none other than bar 102. The scale-degree progression in bars 463469 is as follows: IV - bil - V - ill - VI - IV~ 3 - VII - V (cf. Counterpoint I , p. 72). Above the dominant, which is reached in bar 469, the horn intones bars 3-4 of the first theme, and , indeed, up to bar 4 72 in exactly the version that appeared in the Development at bar 2 18ff. It goes without saying, however, that the situation established there is brought back in the principal key here in the Coda. Concerning the counterpoint provided for this thematic element by the woodwinds, the following should be noted. First, in bars 4 704 76, the version initially employed is that earlier one (see bars 192ff. , 21 off., 259ff.) which includes the slur of the first and second sixteenths in the second quarter, and only from bar 4 77 on do the counterpoints return in exactly the form in which they confronted the motif in bar 218ff. (The oboe shows in bars 4 70-473 an ascending line c# 2 - f# 2, which is then imitated by the flute in the subsequent bars 474-476.) In bar 4 77 the horn is relieved by the string orchestra, which redraws the content of the previously mentioned bars 2 18ff. still more exactly than the horn and moreover restores D minor once again in place of D major. The counterpoints keep their place, as before, in the woodwinds. Beginning in bar 484 Beethoven seeks out the path to the subdominant. To that end he employs the eighth-note motif by leading it upwards in sixth-chord formations, and, further, even with application of chromatic alteration of the third, f# , in bar 488 as the following figure shows:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Third Movement I

221

first, but the second variation (not even this was clear to him at the moment he spoke of the very "clear" disposition!); second, the sudden signal is more than a mere signal, since it has thematic significance; and third, as "bleak daybreak" must be understood the magnificent Coda, which surely is bleak only to those who can neither read nor hear it. All that remains as true, then, is the one fact that the "trumpets and horns herald"-but who needs a "guide" to hear this?! Grove, like Kretzschmar, regards the Adagio as "variations on two themes completely different in character and key"! All he is able to say of the introduction is that "in its marvellous crescendo the master seems to pour out all of the passion of his grief-stricken heart." In the light of this we can doubtless form a notion of how inadequately he then heard bars 7 and 14-15 of the theme, as well as the whole conclusion of the Adagio! The principal theme has, according to Grove, no fewer than four phrases; he is obviously led to this error by the fact that the winds present a repetition of the complete third phrase. I remarked earlier, however, that this repetition, for all that it includes four bars, does not cease to be merely a repetition, and that far from representing a fourth, independent phrase, it remains altogether of the rank of the preceding wind-interpolations. Grove speaks of the adagio transition to the second variation as an "apex" -as though a transition could ever be an apex! But admittedly, he knows not what the content of bar 83ff. signifies. Just listen to what he writes: "clarinets and bassoons carry the melody, which is in E~; a low horn in provides the bass, and pizzicato notes are distributed among the strings." What a sorry state of affairs, to see only clarinets, bassoons, E~ major, the melody, merely a low horn, bass strings and pizzicato notes at a point where one should recognize and cherish a plan consistently carried out by the master (as I have portrayed it above). And what manner of errors are not to be found in the continuation of his discussion as well! No sooner does he see the tone g!. in bar 89 than he asks, completely out of context, that we not "forget to notice the elegaic note g!. as well" ("elegaic" stands here for the mixture E~ mai/ min). In bar 85ff. he sees merely the "imitation by the horn of the clarinet's two introductory bars"; thus the variant of the cadence-motif in the fourth horn in bar 96 is likewise nothing more to him than a "beautiful, but tricky, 13 point in the outline of a rising and falling c~ -major scale." The second variation he calls "the second variation proper." About the Coda, which-to his credit, let it be noted-he recognizes as such, he is able to tell us only that

m

the notes a~ and g!. specifically are of profound effect here, 14 as is the manner in which the flute twice takes up the melody of the first violins, first in half notes and then in eighths. 15 Also worthy of mention is a [ 13. Of execution.] [ 14. Grove's reference is to a quotation of bars 1 19-126; the a~ and g!. are in bars 12 3 and 124 respectively.] [15. The German translation quoted by Schenker is here grossly at odds with the original English, which reads " ... the resumption of the florid figures by the Violin,first in quavers and then in semiquavers,-with the response of the Flute .... "]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

222

I Third Movement

wonderful dirge melody that enters shortly after the passage quoted above, a phrase of four bars in D~ major, which is among the greatest beauties this movement has disclosed to us. Vanitas vanitatum is the heading we feel inclined to add to these sounds, which seem to call out from a distant beyond. What is the point of all of these words if Grove is unable even to provide the simplest information that we are confronted here merely with a situation from the principal theme? And when he ignorantly characterizes the enlargement of the first bar of the principal theme as nothing less than a "phrase of four bars in D~ major," and-having thus shown his incompetence already in discussing such a minor detail-finds not a single word of explanation for the larger structural problems of the Coda, we may join his cry (but admittedly with a different meaning): vanitatum vanitas! Weingartner concerns himself (p. 209ff.) mainly with dynamic nuancings, which either more fully explicate Beethoven's own indications or provide a substitute where such are (for good reason) lacking.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Presto

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

~~ s(.) ~f'-5 ~ :§:s:: -s 00~ Q

0

~

s::

-~

"' :~

o...

'"O

~

l

Third Bar-Group Second Bar-Group First Bar-Group

·~

~::i::

s~]~j l -s fl

Third Bar-Group Second Bar-Group

• -~ '"O

e~s::

ct!

First Bar-Group

(b. (b. (b. (b.

70-90) 53-70) 26-52) 1-25)

(b. (b. (b. (b.

81-88) 52-80) 21-51) 1-20)

(b. 76-108)

(b. 1-75)

l

Third Bar-Group-----Second Bar-Group-----First Bar-Group-------

(b. 33-60) (b. 17-32) (b. 1-16)

(b. 543-594)

Retransition - - - -

§: ~ "'"' - - - - Transition to m major Continuation

of the

~

Variations

(b. (b. (b. (b. (b. (b.

431-542) 331-430) 325-330) 297-324) 269-296) 241-268)

Recitative---------Coda & Modulation to A major - -

Variations

l~

I

~8~----­

Theme (D, -) - - - - - - - Recitative----------

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

(b. 188-207)

(b. (b. (b. (b. (b.

164-187) 140-163) 116-139) 92-115) 1-91)

General Considerations The instinct for purely musical laws did not desert Beethoven even when he wrote "program" music or vocal music. An offense against musical logic-logic in the absolute sense, understood as completely separate from program or text-was by nature simply impossible for him; and so in this case too, as he set about composition of the Schiller text, he again let himself be guided-in spite of text-only by the laws of absolute musical organization. In essence and in its broad outlines his compositional plan had the goal of first varying the Joy theme (see below, figure 322) independently in a Division of its own, then composing through the stanza "Seid umschlungen, Millionen" in a second, likewise independent, Division, and finally working out in a third Division the first motifs of the preceding ones in a double fugue, so as to provide initial closure for the first two divisions. But since the closure had to be commensurate in all respects to the dimensions of those Divisions, he follows the third one with a fourth, precisely a concluding Division, which even includes cadenzas such as usually occur otherwise only near the end in pure instrumental works (e.g., concertos, symphonies, and also sonatas1), until finally, as a fifth Division, a true stretta affords ultimate closure to the whole finale. In view of the fact that the fourth and fifth divisions now manifest only cadential character, however, one might go so far as to simply append them to the third Division as its extensive chain of closing members. From this perspective, then, it would be necessary to posit only three Divisions, of which the last would comprise the double fugue together with the concluding sections. Therefore, although in the analysis I speak for the sake of convenience of five Divisions, in the formal outline I have designated the third, fourth, and fifth Divisions as Illa, Illb, and Ille Haydn, Sonata in G major [Hob. 39], Adagio; Beethoven, Sonata in C major, No. 3, first movement; etc.

1.

Op.

!2

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

226

I Fourth Movement

respectively, in order to emphasize there the unity by optical means as well. This plan thus by its very nature bespeaks its orientation toward purely musical principles: we are, after all, familiar enough from instrumental music (e.g., the double fugue) with the art of treating two themes independently at first and then working them out in combination; and from the same domain we know very well not only the so-called "cadenza" but also the stretta. From the perspective of this colossally dimensioned plan, one is not at all bound to take literally the partitioning of the finale as Beethoven himself has laid it out in the score; rather, one must gain insight into the reasons he satisfied himself with a purely external partitioning of the content and project upon the finale the following partitioning, the only one that corresponds to the true content. To the first Division belong not only the first two large parts, which are headed with the Presto indication, but also that part marked Allegro assai vivace, alla Marcia, which, by external appearances, seems-albeit misleadingly-to be independent. The second Division bears as tempo indication Andante maestoso, the third Allegro energico, the fourth Allegro ma non tanto, and the last Prestissimo. Thus it follows from a comparison of the two partitionings-the one given by Beethoven in the score and the one I have offered here-that I gather into the first Division as a unit no fewer than the first three parts [discernible in] the score. The reason that impels me to do so is an extraordinarily important one, and illuminates Beethoven's compositional standpoint in the clearest possible way: even here at the level of the particular-where, as explained, the first task was only to vary the Joy theme by itself-the master wanted to remain completely true to the absolute laws; and when to this end he set out to repeat the purely instrumentally scored recitative and variations on the Joy theme (with expansions and other alterations, to be sure) through the medium of the voice, one must see precisely in this repetition a relationship of the two parts to each other that is similar to the relationship of antecedent and consequent, assuming that these form-categories can be posited in such vastly expanded dimensions! The inner relation of the two parts under consideration is so strong that the difference in quantity and type of variations does not at all come significantly into consideration as a counterforce. Against the fact that the two parts present nothing but variations on the same

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

227

theme, what can it signify that the first part, scored purely instrumentally, shows three variations (apart from the recitatives and the theme itself), while the second, vocal, part shows as many as five (again ignoring the recitative)? And if, moreover, in the first part all variations are in D major and follow directly upon one another, while in the second part one of the variations (the fourth) is in m major, and at the same point the direct succession is broken-what is the importance of all of this in comparison to the commonness of thrust of the two parts? These parts, then, are governed by the law of parallelism (i.e., of repetition), which is the primordial law of all absolute music (cf. Harmony, p. 4ff. ). (The description of further technical aspects, which amplify the facts of the matter still more emphatically, will follow later.) The cadenzas mentioned earlier, incidentally, are also founded only on purely musical parallelism, since the fourth Division (Allegro ma non tanto) shows two of them (not just one)! Thus one must be fully conscious of this principle if one is to grasp correctly the first large Division of the finale. Just as it is also only from this standpoint that one can combat the misunderstandings (see below) that have so disastrously clung precisely to the finale.

First Division Presto (Bars 1-594) First Part (Bars 1-207) The first Part of the first Division contains, as already mentioned, a. the recitative section (bars 1-91); also b. the theme with three variations (all in D major; bars 92-187); and finally c. the Coda (bars 188-207), which brings at the same time a transition to the second Part of the Division, as though a consequent section for the first Part. Ad a. The tendency of the Recitative is to portray what might be called the spiritual quest for a new theme. Insofar as Beethoven conjures up in imagination the themes of the first, second, and third movements once again, as though to protest with the several recitatives against the sentiments expressed by them, he reveals his longing for a new idea that would suit him better than the earlier ones. At

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

228

Bars

1-16

Fourth Movement

last he settles on the theme quoted in figure 322, which, with joyful decisiveness, he ultimately promotes to the status of principal theme. According to the general consensus, individual phases of the recitative section are interpreted as follows. In bars 1-8 a fearsome outburst of the aggressively figurated D-minor triad (bars 5-7 lead to the half-cadence):

The (first) recitative in bars 9-16 (harmonic progression: V - I) seeks relief from this frame of mind:

9=p r11 1111111 f

~p

J

Fi? dim.

WI

r· s r=-r 1

1

p

At the same time, the initial entrance, just by virtue of its structure, produces a staggering effect: the tonic triad appears straightaway in inversion as a sixth-chord, with a screaming, totally unprepared suspension of a fourth at the very outset-one whose tone of resolution, moreover, is already present in the inner voice:

Bars

17-2 9

Now, over the tonic with a chromatically raised third, a second outburst (bars 1 7-24), similar to the first. It is defiantly repulsed,

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

229

however, by the (second) recitative in bars 24-29 (seemingly in Bh major, but actually only the VI of D minor): Fig. 316. Second recit.

t

9:p ,

r t It

J

f

...

........

In bars 30-37 the Ur-motif of the first movement suddenly passes by above the sixth-chord of the dominant(!). the (third) recitative, in bars 38-4 7, visibly rebuffs it (as the way is paved to the key of A minor):

Bars 30-47

Fig. 317. Third recit.

r~-t:'Pft:+

~--j~ f I (D

-

-

I [ f It Ff Irrrfj f I r· JJ;E 1

I

!

...

-

-

-

•

-

-

-

•

-

-

Roots:

9;p

rU ~ .

~;

~rrrr· r ~ -t ~ I I lk B .(L

1

dim. rit.

Poco adagio.

Gt

A

Then, in bars 48-55, the motif of the Scherzo appears (moving from A minor to F major); rebuff of this motif as well by the (fourth) recitative, in bars 56-62 (moving from F major to Bh major): Fig. 318. Fourth recit. .(L

2£1; I

t !tLi ~· 1-L!

f

tr ., rrr

.fL•••+.fL 1

1

1

1

1

r

1

1·

Bars 48-62

r-RE rrr J

Pt:

p=l=§

dim.

Next appears the motif of the Adagio (bars 63-64); but the (fifth) recitative inveighs against this as well, in bars 65-76:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars 63-76

230

I

Fourth Movement

p

m -

c1·esc.

rn

(C#) - -

F#

-

Roots:

Bars 77- 9 1

Finally bars 77-80 bring the suggestion of the new theme on the dominant in D major: Fig. 320.

with which the (sixth) recitative, in bars 80-91 , then finally finds reconciliation: Fig. 321. Sixth recit.

~

r1 f

f

f& r r c?1t·fff1fii~ ?Ji qtg rTt iJ I J J 1 I II w

sf

This interpretation of the individual situations described above is far too natural to be circumvented, but, since it relates to a piece of purely instrumental music, it must under all circumstances be regarded from the outset as only a subjective and arbitrary interpretation. And the interpretation remains subjective regardless of the fact

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

130

First Movement

Bar 45 3ff. After demolition of everything that has preceded, let the first.ff catharsis finally occur here! It is of most eloquent effect if, in keeping with the principle enunciated above with respect to bar 24, the tone b in violin II, viola, and cello is attacked slightly ahead of time, as though precipitously, but is then sustained longer in compensation. For the rest, I refer the reader concerning performance of this passage to what was said on p. 62f. about bar 88££. Bar 46 3ff. One should bear in mind the principle formulated regarding bars 1 7ff. and 55££. and project the sf accents all the more forcefully, in spite of the basic dynamic of forte. Bar 469ff. Since the horn and the remaining counterpointing winds differ here in respect to articulation of the motif, that difference must be given suitable expression by means of the manner of performance that I have already described in regard to bar i 9. Bar 477ff. The fluctuation of dynamics in these bars, which runs as follows: bar

477 sempre p -

481 cresc. -

489 -

f -

489 -

ff -

490 dim. -

492 piu p -

493 pp

needs to be expressed not only by the strings alone. It is still more important that the winds make the climb to ff and the descent to pp in a parallel manner. This would in any case be requisite , incidentally, even if Beethoven himself had not thus explicitly asked for it. And the principle to be established here as the guiding precept is that to the same extent that only the process of composing out gives expression to the chord as such (cf. Harmony, p. i33ff.), the detailing of all dynamic shadings also serves the same purpose. It follows from this that if Beethoven took such care, as shown above , to express the changing harmonies by means of the counterpoints of the winds at the same time, then it is altogether necessary not only to apply the dynamics to the arpeggiations of the strings (which, even though doubtless of thematic significance, produce relatively little content for the projection of the diatony itself), but to realize them equally, if not even more, in the so tellingly composed out counterpoints. The succession of counterpoints appears as follows: Fig.

162.

b. 479

Ob. I.~• •·

&~

q

4i

sempre p

tff t I j rt f tFf t ......._

•

cresc.

• •

1

.

.

~ill if"fr

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

!23!2 I

Fourth Movement

neously. Therefore he felt himself obliged to present an express rationale for the entrance of the singing voices. It did not occur to him that perhaps no justification in the world could be sufficient to motivate adequately the sudden clash of two elements so different by nature!2 Thus Beethoven saw himself faced with a task which-he felt this keenly-music was not at all able to carry out! To clarify more fully the situation in which he found himself as a musician, allow me to draw the following parallel from poetry. Shakespeare, for example, often enough confronted assumptions that were, to be sure, intrinsically impossible and unbelievable, but which, since they formed the point of departure of the drama or appeared somehow necessary on other grounds, he wanted nevertheless to have accepted by the viewer as possible and probable. He made it his business in such cases to validate the dubious assumptions for the viewer in some way, and to make them digestible. Thus he lends credibility to the "ghost" in Hamlet, for example, simply by establishing at the very outset, even before we ourselves and Hamlet have seen it, that the ghost has already been seen by Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo, and thus certified as real precisely by this fact! What objection can the viewer possibly raise against such proof emanating from the stage? H the viewer's very skepticism has been dramatized by none other than the poet, and refuted by expressly theatrical means-and therein lies the brilliance of the technique in this case!-, he is left no choice but to believe, like it or not, in the "ghost"! A similar technique is shown by the following example from Cymbeline (act i, scene i):

Second Gentleman ... But, pray you, tell me, Is she sole child to the king? First Gentleman His only child. He had two sons: if this be worth your hearing, Mark it: the eldest of them at three years old, I' the swathing-clothes the other, from their nursery Were stol'n, and to this hour no guess in knowledge Which way they went. Second Gentleman How long is this ago? 2. Unfortunately the listener's psyche today has been ravished to such an extent that it no longer takes offense if voices suddenly, in the middle of a symphony, introduce words, the composer simply neglecting to demonstrate on purely musical grounds whence they came.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

First Movement

1 31

Ob.-...

........

cresc.

cresc.

Bn.

cresc. FL

. ....

cresc. •

.... ....... tDJ Jlftjj Ob.

~· tftf

~

ltr f

cresc.

cresc.

Fl -... • •

~nm 1frrf dim.

.

cr esc.

dim.

~

cresc.

CL~ 1

mrrt

piu p

dim.

Hn.

pp

cresc.

Does not the organization of the dynamics alone tell the whole story? After the sempre p of oboe I in bar 479, how the cresc., notated for the first time in the bassoon in bar 481, wends its way through every change of instrument: bar 483 bar 484 bar 485 bar 486 bar 487 bar 488 bar 489 -

oboe I: cresc. flute I: cresc. bassoon I cresc. oboe I cresc. clarinet I cresc. flute I cresc. bassoon I cresc.

until finally in bar 490-cf. at this point the ff of the strings, and immediately afterward the beginning of the descent (dim.)-it is for the first time broken off in the oboe. Exactly here Beethoven writes in the oboe a cresc. at the beginning of the bar and a dim. already at its end-such care in the markings! From here on, every change of instrument stands on the contrary under the sign of the dim.: bar 491 -

flute I: dim.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

234 I

Fourth Movement

This device notifies the viewer in advance from the stage above that Malvolio, contrary to the usual custom of reading letters privately in silence, will in this case, by exception, read aloud the letter he has just received in Olivia's garden! Thus the remedies applied by a Shakespeare when confronted with impossibilities or improbabilities in his dramas. Unfortunately the musician can by no means expect an equal degree of success in his own domain in countering, for example, such an intrinsically impossible situation, as would be represented by the direct juxtaposi · tion of instrumental and vocal writing in a symphony. The persuasive power of music has force only in its own realm! Here precisely, and only here, music explains itself, explains the motifs as such-that is precisely the proud and majestic glory of its absolute nature (cf. Harmony, p. 4) and also its superiority in comparison to the other, merely imitative, arts!-; but it is impossible for music to reach outside of its own domain and provide substantiation of external things! In this light, Beethoven's project was thus an unrealizable one, and to give it up completely would have been only proper. Among the great masters, however, Beethoven alone was certainly the most stubborn, and the one who liked to dare everything-even the impossible, and, moreover, often even at the cost of defeat. Just as we already saw him explode the variation form in the Ninth Symphonyeven though the variation idea necessarily suffered considerably as a result of the loss of precision he thereby visited on it-, we now see him in the finale as well determined once again to attempt the impossible! One could almost apply in this situation Beethoven's own words-with only a modification of the original meaning, surelyfrom the last string quartet, Op. 135: "Must it be? It must be!" Yes, it must be-because Beethoven wanted it to be! But how, then, was the impossible to be made nevertheless possible here? IT we stop to consider that any vocal strain entering after an instrumental one, to the extent that it carries its own thematic material, would under all circumstances have to appear out of place not only, on the one hand, because of the entrance of the singing voice per se, but also, on the other hand, because of the newness of the thematic aspect, then only one route was left to the master if the impossible was nevertheless to be dared: to divest the vocal strain at least of the crass novelty of its motifs and themes! For if the vocal strain presents a thematic material that is already known to us from what precedes it, there is at least in this thematic relationship a

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

235

halfway acceptable, independent, and also-note well-musically absolute justification for its appearance! It is, then, the consequentlike quality, so to speak, in this construction-what a great triumph of the absolute-musical law!-which is able to make a fundamentally unfulfillable assignment possible nevertheless to fulfil up to a certain point! Precisely this route of an antecedent-consequent construction is the one Beethoven has in fact taken! The point of view expounded here gives me personally, however, the welcome grounds to refute those errors, here already frequently intimated, of which especially Wagner (see below) has been guilty with respect to the finale. Ad b. Now to the principal theme: For all of its modesty in length, the theme nevertheless manifests most definite internal articulation and, moreover, even a rich internal treatment:

o:' r----r r I r--...... r r rI rII

Tempo I.

:ell. . I

ttrtff 1tttttr 1 wttt 1irrfuw

Cb. and Ve.

It is not difficult to recognize in it the principal theme itself-strictly speaking, the last four bars of it. Nevertheless, it is more artistically true to say that, far beyond this narrowest relationship·, these bars represent what might be called the epitome of the whole-note well,

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar 43 , ff.

256 I

Fourth Movement

the whole-principal theme; in them the total content of the a 1 - b a 2 coagulates, so to speak, and therefore they are for us as much motto, as much inscription, as very essence of the matter! It makes a great psychic difference whether, in a case like the one at hand , the fugato theme expresses the whole variation theme or only a part of it. To understand this precisely, one need only consider the similar relationship in which, for example, the closing passacaglia from Brahms's Haydn Variations [Op. 56]: Fig. 347.

J j Bar 431ff.

stands to the variation theme itself. Now let us consider the thematic entrances individually, in order. First entrance: m major; theme in the basses (and bassoons); counterpoint in violin II (with horns and clarinets) : Fig. 348. VI. II.

m maj .:

Bar 435 ff.

I _ _ _ _ __ V _ _ __ _

... I._VI~3__.lLV__I)

Both lines are obviously founded on the harmonic progression I - V I - VI [~] - II - V - I; thus even in the fugato theme itself the chromatic step occasioned by the progression VI [~] - II. Second entrance: F major; theme in violin I; counterpoint in the bass (and bassoons). The chromatic progression, which now can no longer have any harmonic purpose, is dropped from the theme. After the conclusion of the entrance, the following harmonic progression leads in bars 439-440 to G major: Fig. 349·

,1.

°'r Bar 44 , ff

Third entrance: G major; violin II takes over the theme; the counterpoint in violas (and oboes) crosses it in bars 443-444. Both

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement

I

257

this situation and the nature of the figuration in violin I-observe also the flute part, which moves first in a third-reinforcement (as though the counterpoint were one of [consistent] tenths) but then immediately in a sixth-reinforcement: Fig. 350. Flutes .,

;11~

"1

~11.

' ' s r·

Oboes

a2

8f

., ., l ~~

., ., .JJ. 1'

.,

s r·

1

,,~s~r

~~~#~ ~

sir'

~r 28

-are reasons for the alteration to the theme seen in bar 443 in violin II. The transition to the fourth entrance extends from bar 445 to bar 448. Observe there that while the transition from the second to the third entrance encompasses only two bars, that from the third to the fourth now lasts a total of four bars. Fourth entrance: C minor; the theme again in the lower instruments (cellos and violas) ; the first counterpoint in violin I (with oboes and flutes). Here the theme appears transposed to a minor key for the first time! The chromatic progression is ruled out here (see the fourth eighth note in bar 451) just by dint of the harmonic situation, since the interval of a minor sixth admits no further chromaticization. The fifth entrance appears after two transitory bars, which drive the motif of bars 451-452 upward by a second:

Fifth entrance: Eb major; the theme again in the basses (and bassoons); counterpoint in violin I (with clarinets and oboes). But already in the last bar of the theme, bar 458, the unexpected arises: instead of returning to the tonic, the harmonies veer off into the blue: Fig. 352.

usw.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar 4491!.

Bars 44 5ff.

258

I

Fourth Movement

It is exactly this breach which gives the signal for further sequences, which take us eventually to Bb minor. On the way there, we encounter in addition to the motif already mentioned in figure 351 also the following new one in bar 463££.:

~

Bar 4 6gff.

. --- --- ----

... ....... ... ....... ...

Fig. 353.

~

~

.

On superficial inspection one runs the risk of positing here as well an independent entrance (in, say, B~ minor), but the two characters13 are too far apart to be considered identical. The motif of figure 353 certainly lacks that higher unity characteristic of the theme itself that results in equal measure from melody and scale-degree progression! Sixth entrance: B~ minor; the theme in violin II, counterpoint in the basses. The sudden event of bar 458 mentioned above is no less consequential in the sixth entrance, for here too the theme no longer returns to the tonic in the fourth bar (bar 472), but again, in a similar way, only trails off into sequences! Observe how from bar 4 71 on violins II and I: Fig. 354· VI. I.

basically convey only the following message: Fig. 355·

'pk err Ed' 1"~¥ r U11¥ r~r ~Ir r•r S- I usw.

In bar 475 we arrive at G~ major. In this key violin I now presents the first two bars of the theme, with which, however, a stretto is already associated: [ 13. That of this passage and that of an actual entrance.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement

I

259

Fig. 356. VI. I.

Basses

The mission of this stretto is to prepare a still more extensive attenuation of the theme to only two bars, after the fifth and sixth entrances here, as we observed, already brought about what fundamentally counts as an attenuation to three bars. At these points, incidentally, the usual counterpoints vanish-a fact which alone deprives the motifs of the rank of a theme. In the meantime, the next entrance is approached by means of the following harmonic progression in bar 485ff: Fig. 357·;;

~?

~~

~3

"~

~~

Seventh entrance: B minor; the theme here-in keeping with the attenuation applied earlier-has now become one of only two bars. Similarly, the counterpoint is shortened in a very significant way:

In a thus shortened form, the theme is now suited to serve the purposes of utmost mobility. In fact, the events in the following bars, 493££., fly past helter-skelter: Fig. 359.

VI. I

m:m er.ti : : { ='~ == • Im 5rr Basses

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bar 49 , ff.

260

I

Fourth Movement

VI. I

-

t~ft ttq rtr CJ! I eU ttr Im @ VI.I (!)

.......... ..

Sf

Sf

~

v

#[V _ __

_

_

_

VI . II

f tt

itt I f ~____ r ss-'iirv___'I___ ________ v usw.

What powerful expression resides particularly in the counterpoint here, and what force lurks even in the so brilliantly executed, but unfortunately so sorely misunderstood, rests alone! As can be seen from the scale-degree progression cited above, there is no further departure from the B-minor key achieved in bar 491. The dominant finds its resolution finally in bars 529-530, where the tonic appears. Above it sound the first three tones of the theme , as though representing the latter's ultimate attenuation to only a single bar, but at the same time as announcement of the fifth variation: Fig. 360.

1

Oboes

~~~

~--+lft·

I

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

261

The major quality yields in bar 535 to minor: Fig. 361.

whereupon, by means of simple reinterpretation: B min: I D maj: VI - V - I the path is gained to the D-major key, in which, finally, the last variation appears. The fifth (eighth) variation dispenses with any soloistic participation and remains only a choral setting throughout. The counterpoints in the strings are of scarcely more significance than figurations derived from the harmonies, while the winds merely reinforce the chorus. Every refined art thus leaves off, and all that remains is that elemental simplicity which, because carried by the masses, invariably makes the greatest effect. In this sense the fifth variation deserves the place at which it crowns the entire cycle with power and majesty. Under such circumstances, naturally, the chorus is set inf throughout. All the same, however, rhetorical accents are not lacking even in the choral writing: observe the sforzato in bar 549 at the word "Elysium"; a second one at the word "feuertrunken" in bar 553; a third at the word "Heiligtum" in bar 557; and still more significant, the intensification ofthefto.ffin bar 565, which, however, does not preclude the application of sforzato in bar 570. That the orchestra already revels in.ff from the beginning of the variation is only to be expected. PERFORMANCE

Bar 1.ff. The metronomic marking of the first presto is set by Beethoven at J· = 96; yet it must be recognized that this rate was conceived and is applicable as basic tempo only for bars i -65-that is, for the two fanfares, bars i-8 and i 7-25, and for recitatives Nos. i-4. This can be inferred from the following circumstances: because Beethoven writes Tempo I after the quotation of the first movement (Allegro ma non troppo) in bar 30 and again after that of the scherzo (vivace) in bar 48, he can certainly have understood it as meaning nothing else but presto. But when he adds to "Tempo I" after the quotation of This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars 5 4 3-59 4

262

I

Fourth Movement

the Adagio cantabile at bar 65 the explicit indication Allegro as wellTempo I. Allegro-, he obviously means by this that although the Adagio is indeed canceled and an earlier tempo restored, the latter is at this point nevertheless moderated to allegro. (The tempo marking of the last recitative of bar 81 ££.-immediately after the Allegro assai of bars 77-80, which announces the Joy theme-is the same, thus once again Tempo I. Allegro.) In a word: Beethoven uses Tempo I here in a double sense, in that he either calls merely for Tempo I, in which case it is presto that is to be understood, or adds allegro, in which case naturally only the latter allegro marking applies. Performance of the first fanfare causes great difficulties. Up to now attempts to solve this problem have taken the form of either continuing without interruption from the Adagio to the Presto in order to intensify the latter's effect, or relieving the allegedly excessive burden on the woodwinds by means of more or less extended collaboration of the horns and trumpets. The best solution, however, would be to apply here as well the principle-familiar enough to us by now-of the need for shading within an ff condition of longer duration. Thus I believe the effect of the content under consideration can best be secured-all talk of "retouching" or direct connection of the Presto to the Adagio 14 aside-by the shadings I have recommended in the following sketch: Fig. 362.

Fl. , Ob., Cl.

1--1

~ ff

1,:

P:.::.::::=--

[14. Allegro in the original, by oversight.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement

263

~-

The ff is here articulated, so to speak, into three dynamic swells: the first takes place in bars 1-3 in kettledrum, trumpets, horns, and bassoons; the second in the woodwinds alone; and the third and last, finally, in all instruments. Such an articulation ensures the advantage that woodwinds and brasses in bars 1-2 and 3-4 of the figure alternately conserve their forces, and that for exactly that reason the ff manifests ever new sources of power. The chief concern at all events is that while the flutes, oboes, and clarinets suddenly sink back to p after the first outcry of the appoggiatura bb and remain there through bars 1-2, the bassoons, horns, trumpets and kettledrum, on the other hand, must go immediately into a powerful cresc. from a p that seems as though only prankishly lurking. Bar 9.ff. The recitative must be performed strictly in presto (cf. the explicit remark in the score: Selan le caractere d'un Recitatif, mais in tempo). The tempest of the first fanfare must accordingly rampage ahead into the recitative as well; if, however, one insists on applying at the dimin. in bar I 5 a ritenuto as well, it must, obviously, be a very fleeting one. Bar 16.ff. The dynamic shading of these bars should be carried out analogously to that of bars 1-7. Bar 30.ff. For the quotation from the first movement, Beethoven also specified its tempo, Allegro ma non troppo J = 88. Ifwe consider, however, that he notates the two following quotations (from the scherzo and the Adagio) only with vivace and Adagio cantabile respectively, without any metronomic indication, we may justifiably doubt whether he himself took completely seriously the metronomic marking of the first quotation. Whatever one's opinion on that ques-

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

264 I

Fourth Movement

ti.on, this much is certain: just by its contrast with the preceding storm, almost any allegro-even one somewhat faster than that required metronomically by Beethoven-will automatically produce the effect of a ma non troppo. It is still more important, however, not to overlook the fact that one is concerned here only with a quotation, and that, accordingly, the tone must be entirely different from that at the beginning of the first movement, where the first steps were being taken to lay a secure foundation for the principal theme. That is to say, the quotation here should be approached as though it were only an imagined tonal complex, not one actually already existing in the present or even one pointing ahead to the future. Let this comment apply once and for all to all remaining quotations. Bar 38.IJ. Tempo /here, in keeping with observations given above, means a presto. For the rest, one should adhere strictly to Beethoven's instruction, which, with its dim., ritard., poco adagio in bars 44-77, at the same time lends most fitting expression to the modulation to A minor. Concerning the poco adagio in particular, let it be stated as a principle that within a faster movement the marking adagio (whether it follows a ritardando or not) does not, as is widely believed, signify a true adagio, but only a broadening appropriately geared to the main tempo (see below, bars 204-i205).15 Bar 65.IJ. Tempo I here acquires for the first time the addendum allegro; accordingly, the recitative is to be performed in a more moderated tempo. For the rest, Beethoven's dynamic specification should be observed, which calls for cresc. exactly at the point (bar 71) where the falling fifth D~ - G~ is negotiated and G~ is enharmonically reinterpreted as F#; and since the harmony rages forth from this point with what seems to be newly awakened momentum through G# and C# to E in bar 76 (cf. figure 319), one should combine with the cresc.-precisely in the spirit of this enharmonic and modulatory urgency-also an acceleration! Finally, regarding the treatment of the woodwinds participating merely as continuity voices, one should not neglect to bring about a close, virtually melodic connection of oboe I in bar 75 back to flute I in bar 72-across the rests in bars 73-74, and in spite of the apparently severing effect of the marking: cresc. in bar 71 and pin bar 75! This certainly will contribute more than a little to the effect intended by the composer. Bar 77.IJ. The announcement of the Joy theme, even though 15. Compare the Piano Sonatas Op. 10, No. 1, last movement [bars 106-113]; Op. 31, No. 1, last movement [bars 227-229]; Op. II I, first movement [bars ug121]; etc.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

i

49

is required here is to reckon with an external circumstance that had no status as a component of the content at the time of its inception. So how shall we satisfy this demand of late origin? The best solution, admittedly, would be simply to do away with it, since the best possible enrichment of the portrayal of content would certainly attain its goal only with the small orchestra. (It is likewise almost self-evident that a return to smaller concert halls and a reduction of gate receipts would follow as a further consequence.) It is not to be assumed, however, that exactly this ideal path will be followed, for the more time passes, the more the masses become intoxicated with newly gained power, and-by their allegedly just demand for large orchestral forcesblithely sacrifice beautiful effects of content of which they surely know nothing, and which they can certainly never attain along the paths they tread. Unfortunately it is absolutely necessary, therefore, that the solution to our question be attempted exactly from the standpoint of the current faulty relationship alone. And in my opinion, if the wind part is to be able to penetrate against the weight of the whole string orchestra, it is advisable to organize the dynamic shading-while preserving the original instrumentation, to be sure, including that of the homs!-as follows:

Str. unis.

mf

crtsc.

11lf

cresc.

Such a shading is suited not only to introduce light and shadow into the.ffin general, but, as is most to the point here, to enable the winds to achieve greater clarity, by having the strings still restrain their force at those points where the winds execute the strong bars 93, 97,

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

266 I

Fourth Movement

202. All other voices-admittedly with the exception of the bass, which under all circumstances must share definition, color, and dynamics with the melody-should without scruple be restrained. Bar 199. Here one should be clearly conscious of the attained A-major tonic as point of departure for the following cadence, and also of the modulation in the sense portrayed in the analysis above. The arrival at this summit should be celebrated, with the celebration adulterated by just enough of a feeling of reticence to avoid the impression of unchecked haste. Bars 203-207. All gradations of the instructions added by Beethoven-poco ritenente in bar 203, poco adagio in bar 205-should be placed in such a relationship to the basic tempo of allegro that they operate only as unpretentious retardations of the latter; in other words: the return of the allegro in bar 206 must be prevented from appearing to us, because of an excessive deviation from that basic tempo, as a suddenly new and unmotivated rate of movement. Bar 208ff. Concerning the dynamic shading of this passage, compare the discussion of bar l [ff.] above. Bar 2 J 1ff. With the application of prudent breathing technique, the soloist will no doubt succeed in giving accurate expression to the phrase even without causing the articulation to suffer. He should take care in the process not to miss Beethoven's hint in bar 234: the tone g should be initiated-by analogy to what happens in the orchestra-first at p, and only then should the cresc. begin. Bar 241ff. The most painstaking observance of a basic dynamic state, be it p or f, combined with the most intensive adherence to meaning-accents16 as they are underscored by Beethoven himself, should here be the rule of performance. Thus in bar 254 the word "Bruder" should be given emphasis. Bar 269ff. Here one should proceed in bars 280-284 according to Beethoven's instruction, which is so necessary to the sense (cf. above, p. 251, figure 342 ). Bar 297ff. Only by the lightest tone production of the singing voice can the figuration here be brought to expression at all. It should not be overlooked, too, that the cresc. begins only in bar 309 and thef in the second half of bar 31 l, where the register, however, has of late become a more comfortable one. Bar J 30. Observe in the kettledrum the following indication: [ i 6. Singakzente in the original, but the word intended was almost certainly Sinnakzente.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

267

Fig. 363. tr~

___=e==: ff=mo!to tenuto p

Its aim is to maintain the resonance of the chord unabated throughout the drum roll atff or at least atf! This effect is almost reminiscent of that beautiful pedal effect on the piano in which the player releases the pedal while still retaining the chord with the hand on the keyboard; after release of the pedal, the silhouettes of the chord sound on so clearly and purely, just as sometimes in clear air contours stand out in relief against the evening sky! Bar JJI!f. The metronome marking J. = 84 at allegro assai vivace indicates a scarcely noticeable acceleration in comparison to the preceding tempo. The performance of this variation demands fullest consciousness of the construction, both in the large and also in the smallest details. In particular, it is necessary to approach the content of bars 359ff. from the perspective of the analogous passage in the principal theme itself, especially to distinguish between the two different functions of bars 362 and 363 in spite of their apparent identity and to be able to negotiate the sharp corner of the syncope at the end of bar 364 with full consciousness of its true significance. Concerning the grand intensification lasting up to the fugato, which Beethoven himself has marked with greatest precision, see above, pp. 283-284. Bar 4 3 1ff. The sempre ff notwithstanding, it is altogether necessary to point up, at the expense of the other tones, the two sf markings that occur in the counterpoint each time. It is advisable to apply even veritable p shadings before the sfs, just to be able to fire off the subsequent sfs with even crisper energy. Such a radical execution of those accents will lend incomparably more convincing expression to the ff than a performance which, taking the dynamic mark literally, would merely storm through the fugato in a leaden, unnuancedff. Bar 491ff. Here I most emphatically recommend to conductors a nuance that has not to my knowledge been observed in performance thus far: specifically, there is no doubt that it would be of greatest dramatic power if one could express the eighth-note rests as well after the sf in each of bars 492, 494, 504, and 508! Whether this might best be accomplished by means of a passionately lengthened bow-stroke in violin I or bass (as the case may be), which then, of course, would have to be all the more abruptly cut off before the rest,

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

268

I

Fourth Movement

may be determined by experimentation on the conductor's part. Let him apply any technique he wishes to this end; but in no case may he sidestep the issue, since-especially from bar 503 on-if only justice is done to the eighth-note rests, he can be sure of the most gripping effect! Bar 5 43.ff. Not to be overlooked is the care with which Beethoven highlights the words "Elysium," "feuertrunken," and "Heiligtum" above the f of the chorus by means of sf accents. No less worthy of notice is the fact that even though he specifies ff also for the chorus already at bar 566, he nevertheless calls even under these circumstances for increased emphasis on the word "Bruder" in bars 5 70 and 586. LITERATURE

In the light of material presented by Nottebohm (pp. 179-192), one may distinguish three stages in Beethoven's composition of the finale. As the first of these would have to be designated that stage at which Beethoven is not yet completely decided even about whether the finale is to be conceived vocally or instrumentally. At the second stage we see that he has indeed already decided to work out the vocal setting of Schiller's "Freude, schone Gotterfunken" but is still preoccupied with the plan of having the chorus preceded at least by an instrumental prelude on its own motivic basis. The third and final stage, however, must be identified as that point at which he suddenly conceived the idea, in the midst of his work on composition of the Schiller text, to prepare the entrance of the chorus by means of both instrumental recitatives and variations on the Joy theme. Nottebohm's account may now be given in his own words. About the first stage, he is able to tell us, as he reports on the state of the work in 1822, the following (p. 165ff.): The most important thing is the fact that Beethoven, as can be seen from the following sketch, had in the meantime hit upon the idea of incorporating Schiller's hymn into the finale: Fig. 364.

~Finolo.

q

r

r t'

t' 1

rr rr 1

r

Freu-de, scho-ner Got-ter - fun-ken, Tochter aus

E - ly - si - um

This idea, as we shall see, was not yet unalterably fixed . Several entries in the same sketchbook that relate to the layout of the symphony as a whole are worthy of note. The first entry appears immediately after that melody to Schiller's words but, to judge by handwriting and content, does not belong to it. It reads, to the extent that it is legible, as follows : Die Sinfonie aus vier Stilcken darin das 2te Stuck im 2/4 Takt wie ind. ... die . .. konnte in 6/8-tel dur sein und das 4te Stuck

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I Fig. 365.

J. ; J 1 J

269

r r r J r rrrr r 1

1

recht fugirt 17 According to this entry the last movement was to be based on the fugal theme from the year 181 7. The movement on which work was in progress was intended, we must assume, to belong to the unmentioned first movement. The next entry brings two new themes and leaves open the question of what sort of theme should be adopted for the finale : "2tes Stiick Presto"

Ir r1r r1r r1r usw.

IJ IJ "oder anderer Ton"

v ! i: 14. JI J JItill r I f eIJ.1 ;] v 4531 J6aIt J!I aI@ 6~ It ~ "Auch"

a/la autrickien

J

pJ

I

ttl'.):

US\V.

The third entry presents the Schiller words with a new melody: "Sinfonie allemand entweder mit Variationen nach der (?) Chor Fig. 367.

Freu-de, scho -ner Got-ter-fun - ken, Toch-ter aus

E - ly - si- um.

alsdann eintritt oder auch ohne Variation. Ende der Sinfonie mit tilrkischer Musik und Singchor." 18 It is possible that this melody originated earlier than the one first cited. In the final entry the fugal theme of the year 181 5 is assigned to the [17. The symphony in four movements, the second one in 2/4 meter and ind. .. . the . .. could be in 6/ 8ths major and the 4th movement very fugal. A slightly different transcription is given in Sieghard Brandenburg, "Die Skizzen zur Neunten Symphonie," in Zu Beethoven 2: Aufsiitze und Dokumente, ed. Harry Goldschmidt (Berlin, 1984), P· 109.) [ 1 8. Sinfonie allemand either with variations after the(?) chorus next enters or also without variation. End of the symphony with Turkish music and choral singing. Nottebohm's question mark apparently stands for an illegible word.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

270

I

Fourth Movement

second movement; a theme assembled in the second notebook entry to the penultimate movement; and the melody listed earlier on Schiller's words to the last movement:

"2tes Stuck" Presto.

~= r r r I rrrr rI"3. Adagio"® r rI r rIt

r rd 1 Iusw.

"4tes"

rrt1tr r r1r r r1 "5tes"

Also deserving of mention is a remark occurring between the cited entries, which reads as follows: "auch statt einer neuen Sinfonie eine neue Overture auf Bach mit 3 " 19 (trombones? subjects?). By the "new" symphony can scarcely be meant our Ninth, or in other words that symphony to which the first movement that had been started was to belong. The variety of the above entries and several facts that come to light in them (e.g., that in the first entry the basis of the finale was to be the fugal theme from i 81 7, but shortly before, and also in the final entries, it was to be a melody to Schiller's words; moreover, the annotation of the third entry, "Sinfonie allemand," etc.) can be explained only by the assumption that just as Beethoven gave birth in 1 81 2 to the seventh and eighth symphonies as if to twins, this time as well he intended to write two symphonies; and that therefore he had not abandoned his plan conceived four years earlier. We are supported in this assumption by a statement of Beethoven's reported by Friedrich Rochlitz,2 0 who was in Vienna in the summer of 1822 and made Beethoven 's acquaintance; the statement goes as follows: "I have been occupied for some time with three other large works. Much about them is already hatched, in my head I mean. I have to get a firm hold on the following: two large symphonies, each different from the other, each different from my remaining ones as well, and an oratorio." 21 Beethoven must soon have abandoned the intention to compose two symphonies. At least no further intimation can be found from which the opposite could be inferred. In the last-cited remark alone, according to which Beethoven planned to write "instead of a new symphony" an overture on the name "Bach," an attenuation of his plan can be seen . Longer sketches for a movement that could have belonged to the abandoned symphony are not extant. All we have to go by are those notebook[ 19. Also, instead of a new symphony, a new overture on B a c h with J.] [20 . A footnote by Nottebohm is omitted here.] (21. See note 20 . The authenticity of this report by Rochlitz is generally disputed today. See Brandenburg, "Die Skizzen zur Neunten Symphonie," p. 1 1 o.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

271

entries, and they tell us nothing about the relationship that the projected symphonies could have. Our Ninth Symphony, according to the entries and the drafts up to the time, still lay in a state of complete chaos, with the exception of at most a portion of the first movement. From another quarter, however, several clarifying suggestions come to the fore. On io November 1822 the directors of the Philharmonic Society in London resolved to ask Beethoven to compose a symphony. 22 Beethoven accepted the proposal, for which he was ready. On 6 April 1822 he had written to Ferdinand Ries: "What would the Philharmonic Society offer me for a symphony?" And on December 20, 1822, he wrote: "I accept with pleasure the proposal to write a new symphony for the Philharmonic Society." The symphony that Beethoven sent to London was, as we know, the Ninth. At the first performance, by the Philharmonic Society (on 21 March 1825), it was announced on the program with the addendum, "composed expressly for this Society." The implication with respect to the notebook entries is clear. The latter fall around the time at which the proposal was about to be made or had in fact been made. Of the two symphonies Beethoven planned to write, one was intended for England, the other not. Concerning the one meant for England, Beethoven must have had doubts, at least at first, about including a vocal movement with a German text. The symphony would have to be completely instrumental. Such a symphony is envisioned in the first entry. About the other symphony, all uncertainty vanished. Here Schiller's poem was to be incorporated. The words in the third entry, "Sinfonie allemand,'' tell us clearly that it was not intended for England. The work, at first only intermittent as a result of that on the variations Op. 120, was now continued. It was the first movement which first began to take shape. The work on it continued into the second half of the year 1823. Themes and motifs, components and passages, appear which are not found in the earlier sketches. With the exception of the few motifs or themes invented earlier, it is only after the first movement was almost completely finished and settled in the sketches that several shorter or longer passages relating to the other movements gradually begin to appear. Beethoven's practice of working simultaneously on two or three movements reappears. The growth and completion of the first movement was, as can also be demonstrated in the case of other works (for example, the Eroica), decisive for the origin and shaping of the subsequent movements. Beethoven was not to succeed in drawing the basic outlines of the following movements and of the complete work before the magnificent substructure of the first movement was in place. The guiding idea of the Ninth Symphony evolved during the work of creation. 23 And about the state of affairs in the year follows on p. i 79ff.:

1823

Nottebohm reports as

From the sketches to the finale it can be inferred first of all that [22. See note 20.] [23. See note 20.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

272

I

Fourth Movement

Beethoven vacillated, once the composition of the Schiller lied had been begun and had progressed, about whether he should give the symphony a vocal or instrumental finale. On several related sheets that contain for the most part drafts approaching the final form of the second movement, the comment is found: Vielleicht dock den Chor Freude Schoner- 24 These words, which were written approximately in June or July of i 823, obviously express an indecision. The instrumental finale was to have a melody that was later used, with several alterations and transposition to another key, in the String Quartet in A Minor (Op. i 32): Fig. 369. "Finale instromentale"

The sketch, about whose purpose the handwritten heading leaves no doubt, is found in a sketchbook which contains, before and after it, almost nothing but drafts for the composition of the Schiller text. The same melody is found more complete and in a somewhat different version near the end of the same sketchbook. Fig. 370. "1 ster Tei!"

&~ &~

•

+• ~;ef

r i t l~r- tu Ir r r Ir· at I r r r J r· rJJ I r r r I r i t I r t H

Beethoven returned to the theme in autumn of i823 . Here it appears in a version that is again somewhat different.

[ 24. But perhaps the chorus, "Freude schoner"-]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

273

What the result would have been had Beethoven continued this work and written an instrumental finale instead of the vocal one is difficult to say considering the individuality of his work, in which nothing is based on prior, merely rational calculation, but everything instead on a seemingly organic evolution that connects to what preceded, to what is at hand. Beethoven's definitive plans thus attest most clearly that with the setting of the Schiller poem he by no means intended a final abandonment of instrumental music in general; rather, it was only a fond wish to set the poem in question-a wish nurtured from his earliest period-that here found fulfillment! If we consider what an unsavory influence has been exerted by Wagner's-artistically all too self-serving-ideas about the finale, we must be doubly grateful to Brahms for having warmly commended to the publisher the work of Nottebohm, which has indeed, as already mentioned, brought to light the most definitive refutation of Wagner. Even though for a time only a transient, small fragment of the community of musicians should actually be aware of the truth of the matter; even though among the public the glib, even shrewdly concocted slogan of Wagner has become more widely known than Beethoven's own annotations, the time must nevertheless come when Beethoven's two words "Finale instromentale" 25 will themselves give the lie to Wagner's whole thesis! About the second stage, we find the following information in Nottebohm, p. i 86ff: From other sketches we know that Beethoven had in mind for a rather long time to begin the finale with a thematically independent instrumental prelude, and then have the chorus enter either directly or after a preceding statement by the orchestra, first simple and then varied, of the Joy theme. The greatest variety of drafts may be found for such an instrumental introduction . We quote most of the available drafts below: [25. See figure 369.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

154

I

Second Movement

To this it must be answered that it was Beethoven 's perfect right under certain circumstances to exploit the normal relationships of his orchestra in such a way that strings and winds would be played off against each other as factors of equal rank. But the application of the horns, as I have already suggested, was governed only by the perspective of the symphonic style; it did not depend, as Wagner claims, on nothing but the characteristics of the instrument alone. Granted that in comparison to the natural horns our valve horns exhibit a somewhat expanded content; but what does this minimal difference signify in a matter that was purely one of style and not one of tonal range? Granted further that tone production on the natural horns-herewith a comparison of the two types: 10 Fig. 196. Root

Natural horn in F

ee>OeC> 5 :; :; 6 6

~ J iJ~JpJ ~ J iJ J 1J ~Jvr~ 1r¥tt=rr1 O

eC>O

C>O

C>O

C>O

C>Cl

0

ClC>OOO

6

7

8

9

10 10

II 12

12

13 14 14 15 16

7

7

8

g

Valve horn in F

I

(~)

~ J ¥df±JlAr r t

r tr

~~

usw.

-was far more difficult and less balanced than that of the modern horn; what has this, either, to do with the question of its usage, in which , as I have said, style alone had to be decisive? Were all the deficiencies, finally, not equally well known to Beethoven? And what is easier to believe than that all of them were already taken into account by Beethoven in the very selection of instrumentation? Most decisive in this matter were the purely stylistic reasons. One need only compare Beethoven's (and indeed Mozart's and Haydn 's as well) horn writing in his symphonic works or in the opera on the one hand with that in the smaller chamber music works (Quintet, Op. 16! Sonata, Op. 17') on the other to notice immediately that he uses less of the available tonal content in the former than in the latter, and uses it differently. Less virtuosic in the former than in the latter-that is how one might summarize the difference most concisely! This meticulously differentiated instrumentational practice 1 o.

Cf. "Artur Niloffs lnstrumentationstabelle" [see the Appendix].

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

275

;df We must, however, leave open the question of whether one or several of them may have been intended for the instrumental finale mentioned earlier. The first of these drafts, which was written at the latest in July i 823 and occurs among efforts still related to the first movement, leaves, by the accompanying words "von der Freude," no doubt about the part of the work for which it was intended. The same applies to the second draft. The drafts that come next were written later. There is no trace in the sketches from the period before July i 823 of a vocal and instrumental introduction or transition as we know it to the choral section. With these plans as well-for all that they must, in the light of the reasoning I have presented in the above text, be characterized as an artistic error-Beethoven expresses his ever-present faith in instrumental music! About the third (final) stage, we read in Nottebohm , p. i88ff.: Only in the second half of the year i 82 3 and during continued work on the setting of the Schiller text did Beethoven hit upon the idea, as the following sketch shows, of introducing the principal melody (to be played first by the winds) by a recitative-like prelude; moreover, by a recollection of the first movement of the symphony, and a motif that would announce that principal melody: Fig. 374.

9=~ ~r f r r i g u rJ r t I Ji e J ,. ~10= r ,. e J i 1

i

1

"nicht mehr etc."

4· "simile"

~•1~ ~-I This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

276

I

Fourth Movement

Thereby the first step to the present introduction was taken. Still lacking at first was the motivation of the entrance of the singing voices by means of words. The finding of these words cost Beethoven much effort. Schindler reports as much. The sketches tell the same story.... In the sketches, which are now to be presented and of which the first ones, according to Schindler, were written no earlier than the end of October 1823, Beethoven entered laborious attempts to find the suitable words and to provide some kind of justification for the entrance of the chorus. He gives himself free rein and speaks with a complete lack of inhibition. One must take his words in this spirit, and not find fault. They are, after all, not written for us. At several points the wording, because of illegibility, cannot be reconstructed. Such points must remain open to question. The first words that occur stand above a recitative-like prelude to which they probably belong: Fig. 375·

e·

In a draft that appears soon afterward, the quotations, in order, of the main themes of the first three symphonic movements are apostrophized: Fig. 376.

f~f fff Ifrtifr I rj1 uF Ir rB f r Heu - te ist ein feierlicher Tag .

.

.

die - ser sei

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ge - fei - ert

Fourth Movement I

277

~i rf}'t 1r t+-Yuvv~ o

nein, die - ses

nicht,

ss

et - was an - de - res

ge - fiil - li-ges ist es was ich ford ere

~= t i ~ auch

~

I"

r r r- r- r

die - ses nicht, ist nicht bes-ser, sondem nur etwas heiterer

d 1r J. ;I o= r 'v

vt

Auch die - ses es

t ST

llG

ist

et - was

zu ziirtl.

bJ

t s st auf - ge-weck-tes (?) mul1 :nan su- chen wie die .. . ich wer - de sehn dail

ich selbst euch et - was vor- sin - ge was der stimm .. mir nach

&rlrlr r r rlr r r ist

ist

es

ha

r r r r rIr r r r

ssss es

die - ses

7

nun gefunden

Freu - de

scho -ner

In the next example the closing passage of the preceding draft is set differently and continued further, which gives rise to a progression that found its way, with a little alteration, into the score:

Ha

die- ses ist

es.

Es ist

nun ge - fun-den

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Freu

-

I

278

Fourth Movement

After an interruption of greater or lesser duration, a shorter version of the recitative text is attempted. Beethoven first writes:

Lafit uns das Lied des unsterblichen Schillers singen 2 6

...

-

Fig. 378.

r

Freu - de, Freu - de, Freu - de

scho - ner

r

r

Got - ter - fun - ken

And then: Fig. 379.

,9 "Ba~

~·r ... ~ ~ I

I I 11

~

rLt±ki "Voce" "etc."

nicht diese Trine frohlichere Freude! Freude!"

Fig. 380.

~±@J Thus was the path paved to the final version. But consider also the following comment by Nottebohm: "Of the finale as it is printed, the choral part and the instrumental variations that precede it were created first; then work was begun on the instrumental and recitativelike introduction." About the Joy melody itself, Nottebohm reports the following (p. 182ff.): Aside from the melodies already quoted to the first words of the Schiller poem, Beethoven tried others as well. Here an example: Fig. 381.

!i' r sir

sit: sir sir sir sir s1L

Freu - de scho-ner

Got -ter - fun -ken

This draft falls still in the last months of the year 1822. From that time on Beethoven seems to have stayed with the melody as suggested by the first four bars invented in summer or autumn 1822. The melody had to undergo many transformations before achieving its final form . This is true especially of the second part, which still remained to be invented. In approximately July of 1823 the melody runs as follows: Fig. 382.

Bass

~r r

r rIT r

rI r r r r I r· s r t I

Freu - de scho-ner

(26. Let us sing the lied by the immortal Schiller]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement I

15 7

mance of the piano reduction. In our usual orchestral performances it seems that not even the most obvious remedy of considerably moderating the ff of the string instruments has yet been applied; for every time I joined together with musicians to perform this symphony, everybody set upon this passage with the most furious vigor. But I myself long ago discovered this remedy, and believed that I could hope for a sufficient measure of success from it, so long as I could depend on the effect of the effort of doubled woodwinds. But experience provided no confirmation, or at most very inadequate confirmation, of my assumption, because the woodwind instruments were always called upon for a spirited energy of tone that will remain contrary to their nature, at least in the combination present here. If I were to perform this symphony again today, I would know of no other recourse against the indisputable regression of this uncommonly energetic dance motif into unclarity (if not inaudibility) than the assignment of a completely definite thematic collaboration at least to the four horns. This could perhaps be accomplished in the following way: Fig.

201.

Oboes and clarinets

I

1~

I

Ir 1

Horns in D

t

I

r

Horns in Eb

~:

Bassoons

iB ~ 11th----.~I,._._~!-*- +-{n-+-. .+-~_ _ , ,_ . _.f-1I ~~ I

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

280

I

Fourth Movement

The chaotic outbreak of wild desperation pours out in a fit of shrieking and raging that will be immediately understandable to anyone who imagines the passage in terms of the woodwinds' line at the fastest possible tempo; in the process it will be at once noticed as characteristic that a metric scheme can scarcely be inferred from this impetuous stream of tones. Should the three-quarters meter be clearly imposed on this passage, and should this be done in that cautious tempo usually set by the anxious conductor and which is commended (lest it be lost altogether) to the basses for the performance of the following recitative, the resulting effect will be almost laughable. I have found, however, that even the most daring tempo-aside from the fact that it still left unclear the melodic succession of the unisono of the winds-did not free this passage from the tyranny of the metric scheme, which should here appear to be completely cast off. The fault again lay in the laconic participation of the trumpets, which, on the other hand, by the intention of the master, could by no means be dispensed with. These blaring instruments, in comparison to which the woodwinds could count as little more than a suggestion, interrupt their collaboration in the woodwinds' melodic line in such a way that one hears only the resulting rhythm [here Wagner quotes the trumpet part]. To point up that rhythm lay, in any case, outside the intention of the master, as is obviously shown by the final reoccurrence of the passage with participation of the stringed instruments. Thus it was here again only the limited character of the natural trumpets that deterred Beethoven from appropriately expressing his intention. This time, in a state of desperation very well suited to the character of this fearsome passage, I applied the remedy of letting the trumpets play the complete line of the woodwinds, according to the following specification:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

281

In the later reoccurrence of the passage the trumpets again played as the first time. Now the light was gained: the fearsome fanfare stormed over us in all its rhythmic chaos, and we understood why matters would ultimately have to come to "the Word." Wagner here overlooks the fact that it would have gone against Beethoven's will just on purely stylistic grounds to write the trumpet (or the horn) in exactly the same way as the less penetrating woodwinds. What he wanted always and in principle from the trumpet was that definiteness of continuitytones that is exactly the province of the trumpet alone-never any kind of longer-lasting (to say nothing of uninterrupted) accompaniment of the melodic instruments. This explains the rests of the trumpet part in bars 1-4 incomparably better than the alleged embarrassment with respect to the missing tone eb. For only when thus held as though in reserve and "ventilated" is the trumpet able, by its collaboration in the following bars 5-7, to help fuel the last, decisive cresc. The truth of these observations is best verified by the fact that Beethoven could indeed, if he had wished, have applied at least the horns in m to the motif without any difficulty. If he nevertheless failed to do so, what reasons can he have had, I ask, besides a principled concern, imposed by the nature of the horn, for the style of the movement-and here, moreover, the necessity of having several other voices perform under all circumstances a merely texture-filling function? And how, finally, could Wagner overlook the fact that Beethoven has reconciled with those requirements, incidentally, the participation of horns and trumpets in a thematic role as well? Just observe how the horns in Bb and the trumpets yield, in their succession, exactly the line of motif-segments that are due in this bar:

He has only the D horns remain in a function of [purely] continuity significance, although to be sure, if one insists, the tone eb ( = f) in bar 4 could, in combination with the trumpet progression of the same bar, again count as a thematic contribution! However one thinks of the matter, it must in any case be regarded as an established truth that Beethoven 's foremost thought as he composed the horn and trumpet parts was to hold those instruments in reserve for the intensification of bar 5££. Let us mention here still another alteration of Wagner's [p. 257] , which concerns the baritone solo at the beginning of the first vocal variation:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

282

Fourth Movement

In conclusion I mention, without going into it more fully, that I had no trouble persuading the excellent singer Betz ... to sing, instead of: Fig. 386.

~:~n-r Freu - de,

r r r r r rI

scho-ner

Got - ter - fun - ken,

rather as follows, in connection with the preceding bar: Fig. 387. ---.......

~'ff Freu

r -

de,

scho - ner

ri

Got - ter - fun - ken!

Our academic singers of the solid English oratorio school, on the other hand, are quite free for the rest of eternity to get over their "joy" in the space of two quarter notes. The unpleasantness of tone in the last sentence, strictly construed, is no doubt directed against Beethoven as well, and a rebuttal may here be in order. In the essay "Uber das Operndichten und Komponieren im besonderen," Wagner cites Naumann's melody to Schiller's "Ode to Joy": 28 Fig. 388.

~tL1IT1 r- sI uti-s tltr lj fJffi "Freu-de, scho-ner Got - ter - fun-ken, Tochter aus E - ly - si - um, Wir be - tre - ten feu - er - trunk en, Himmli- sche, dein Hei - Jig-tum "

Immediately afterward he juxtaposes with it Beethoven's melody, with the following words: But now Beethoven, the Authentic: Fig.

~89.

~

r- s r i 1t r r=r1 r· s r r 1 r- s r

"Freu-de, scho-ner Got-ter-fun-ken, Tochter aus E - ly - si - um, Wir be - tre - ten feu - er-trun -ken, Himmli- sche, dein Hei-lig-tum "

For the sake of the imaginary rhyme, Naumann distorts every accent of the verse; Beethoven gave the correct accent, but revealed in so doing that the accent for compound words in German falls on the initial component, and that the final component therefore cannot be used for rhyming, because it has the weaker accent. If the poet does not observe this, the rhyme is present only for the eye; it is a literary rhyme: before the ear-and thus for emotion as well as for the active critical faculty-it disappears completely.

[28 . Gesammelte Schriften 1o, pp. 1 52-1 75; the citation mentioned is on p. 160.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

!283

In the name of Beethoven's authenticity, so touted by Wagner, I now ask: how does one reconcile with it the fact that a completely logical and independent musical thought such as Beethoven's Joy theme, which corresponds to a linguistically likewise completely independent thought such as the first line of the stanza, is stripped of its strict alliance therewith-at the first quarter :£11 of bar !241 the two arrive at a state of congruence!-and, in violation of its true, inborn construction, is back-dated by a couple of tones, as Wagner suggests? Can Beethoven's melody, "for the sake of Wagner," actually have begun already in bar !240? Certainly not! Since the beginning of the melody must irrevocably be placed only in bar !241, the line's text must logically· also take the same bar as its beginning, if from bar !241 on the musical construction is not to belie the verbal, which, in Wagner's version, would begin already in bar !240! Kretzschmar writes (p. 118): The beautiful picture disappears, and now, in the fourth movement, comes the appearance of what Faust means when he says, "in the morning I awake with horror." What this means is undoubtedly the beginning of the finale in its direct contrast to the heavenly strains of the Adagio. The confused fanfare-the hellish noise-with which the agitated, howling orchestra begins loses the character of the incomprehensible, the capricious, best of all through most immediate connection to the end of the latter movement. This wild beginning signifies a regression to the chaotic mood of the first movement. Now the violins and the winds seek redeeming ideas. One group brings a melody from the first movement, the other brings one from the second, then there follows a quotation from the third. Nothing pleases the basses. Finally the oboes intone something entirely new. This finds the blessing of the orchestral fathers. After they have expressed their agreement in a final recitative, they themselves take up the motif and expand it to a broad melody. [Here a quotation of the Joy theme.] It is the same one to which the Ode to Joy is then adapted, and which, plain or varied, forms the leading thread of the entire finale. First it is treated in a fugue by the whole orchestra, but without, in the long run, being able to afford any satisfactory conclusion. Kretzschmar's very first venture into the purely substantive domain, then, represents a misstep, since-as is, incidentally, generally known-there truly can be no talk of a fugue here. It is not explained, moreover, what he means by a "satisfactory conclusion." As he obviously does not himself know what he means, it is all the easier for him to draw consequences from the unclear idea: "For it goes reeling back, after a moment of uncertain thrashing about, to that terrible scene with which the movement began. Help again arrives. This time it is the singer of the baritone solo who restores order with the words inserted by Beethoven himself: 'O Freunde, nicht diese Tonesondern la~t uns angenehmere anstimmen und freudenvollere.'" How inadvertently comical that the commentator, instead of illuminating the relationship of the two parts of the last division, and instead of bringing closer to the musician or the layman one of the most beautiful demonstrations of artistic strategy and consistency from the exalted sphere of the Beethovenian

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1284 I

Fourth Movement

genius, speaks of the bold transition and coda as a "moment of uncertain thrashing about". How naive that he construes, obviously in trying to help himself out of a shameful embarrassment, nothing other than embarrassment on Beethoven's part: "Help again arrives"-by which, however, he intends nothing more nor less than to do away with the musically organic necessity of the second part! "And now," [Kretzschmar continues,) "he begins the hymn in the preceding folksong-like melody-one of the few Beethoven invented immediately at the first attempt-with which the other soloists and the chorus then join in." At the first attempt? How little truth there is in that remark the reader has already learned above from Nottebohm's reports. What notions Kretzschmar must have had about the conclusion of the finale, however, when just at the point at which a plan so tightly knit virtually obtrudes he sees nothing but that "the other soloists and the chorus then join in"! Just think-the whole grandiose variation plan is here reduced to the wordlet "then"... ,29 Of Schiller's ode Beethoven used only a few stanzas and developed from them a series of musical pictures. He has the creatures revel in kisses and in wine; he appears with the cherub before God; he paints the path trodden by the hero in a wild, stormy fugato, whose battle-tumult ends in a solidly victorious throbbing. The refrain of all scenes, which Beethoven either presents in complete form or sketches, is the "joy" once again represented by the chorus. Beethoven treated most exhaustively the scene of the hero; consideration of the dimensions of the movement unfortunately did not permit a similar procedure with all themes of the poem. What is complete and what is only begun stand side by side; and with all enthusiasm for the captivating beauty of the details, we sense, consciously or unconsciously, a deficiency in the overall form of the finale. To quote from Schiller's poem is easy; more difficult, however, is to have a command of the world of tones. And I will not go into the question of whether the fugato really "ends in a solidly victorious throbbing"; for I am more interested in the compositional function of, for example, an eighthnote rest (like that in bar 4912) than in all of Kretzschmar's interpretations. But I cannot neglect to describe as inexcusably wrong in particular his idea that "the refrain of all scenes, which Beethoven either presents in complete form or sketches" is the Joy theme, since one really does not even need more detailed information about Beethoven's construction to be able to avoid such a falsehood! Regarding the major key and the retransition to D major, moreover, I have given an account in my comments to the fourth vocal variation (al/a marcW., 6/8); the reader will have inferred from it that through the change of key a necessity proper to key-relations was satisfied; thus "consideration of the dimensions of the movement" truly is not the reason no similar event occurs at other points. Thus I must be permitted finally to view it as the very height of absurdity-I will say this much and no more-when the commentator, who (as will no doubt be obvious to the reader) has not

m

[1i9. The ellipsis is in the original.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

1285

even read the music correctly, presumes to utter that criticism expressed in the last sentence! Weingartner (pp. 1217-1218) argues for direct connection of the Presto to the Adagio: "The eminently dramatic character of this beginning never seemed to me to produce its genuine crushing effect when a long pause immediately followed the Adagio, this pause interrupted by applause and possibly by the appearance of the soloists, or even of the chorus, on the stage." He makes astute suggestions concerning stage arrangements: "I demand unconditionally that the chorus should all be in their places at the beginning of the performance and should wait quietly until they rise to sing. I request the soloists to do the same but admit the possibility of an exception here .... I always insisted in recent years, however, that the soloists should come in after the Scherzo, and not after the Adagio, which was followed immediately by the last movement." 30 In the orchestrational retouching of the "fanfares" he goes even further (p. 1212of.) than Wagner himself by including even the horns as thematic participants. He wants the fugato played at the same volume throughout (p. 12128). Weingartner, even if unconsciously but nonetheless by good instinct, liked to impose shadings within dynamic states; the fact that he makes an exception in the fugato may clearly be attributable more to his own conception of fugato than to [lack of] security of that instinct.

Second Division Andante maestoso (Bars

1-60)31

The second Division is, as mentioned above, devoted to only the first and third choral stanzas of the Schiller poem; the chorus alone sings here, without the addition of solos. As a substitute [for the inclusion of solo passages], the necessary contrasts are obtained either by having the tenors and basses alone precede with a unison performance of the melody and only then letting the complete chorus repeat the melody with the full display of harmony and voice leading, as is the case in the first choral stanza, or letting the orchestra precede the chorus, as is seen in the third choral stanza The new meter, 3/ 12, already signifies in itself a strong contrast in comparison to the even meters of the earlier variation cycle. The new meter is brought into agreement with the meter of the poem, how-

[30. The Crosland translation has been slightly modified here.] [31. In this and each subsequent Division, Schenker renumbers beginning with bar i. In the following discussion of this (second) Division, add 594 to the bar numbers cited in his text to arrive at those of a consecutively numbered score.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

286

Bars 1-8

I

Fourth Movement

ever, in that each metric foot of the versification occupies one bar. Three trombones join the orchestral force. The melody of the first bar-group (bars 1-1 6, first and second lines) goes as follows: Fig. 390. Tenors and basses

/

,.. Seid

Ii - o - nen !

um - schlungen,

~ ~

.J.'.__ Sf

ff ~

:e

.a.·

I gan - zen

Welt!

"9-

.a.•

"9-

ff

Bars 9-16

One must include as a constructive and altogether integral component of this melody the upbeat of such characteristic effect at the beginning of each line (see the diagonal lines to the words "Seid" and "diesen" in the above example). We will, of course, have the opportunity later to learn still more about the significance of this upbeat. In bar g the chorus enters with the repetition. Now the harmony is unleashed as well: Fig. 391.

bar 9

10

11

I2

I3

14

I

5

I6

~):#~=@] :c-¥7If_~~~~=~ I

V

IV

II

Uill3

IV_ _

V

The succession III#3 - IV in bar 14 involves a deceptive-cadence chromaticization (the effect is that ofV - VI in E minor; cf. Harmony, § 143). Beethoven applies the most magnificent art to the figuration with which violins I and II, cellos, basses, and contrabassoon (reinforcing) flesh out the simple basic lineaments of the counterpoint:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

Ve., Roots : G

287

asses , and Cbn. __ D

l~J

1~J filj I~~~~~~ c 16

-·........ ~

= ff _ _ __ _ B _ _ c.__________ _

.a.·

D)

Accordingly, we find in bar Io at the third half note an anticipation (the tone e) and in bar 11 at the first half note in the bass a suspension of a second: d - c·.32 How beautiful, moreover, are the neighboring notes at the third half note in bar i 2 and likewise in bar 13. How potent in the first half note of bar 14 the anticipation b - c - c in the basses, and above it, simultaneously, the expressive idiom of violins I and II! (NB: The octave-succession between violin I and basses from the first to the second half-note of bar i o must on no account be regarded [32. That is, a 2 - 3 suspension.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

288

I

Fourth Movement

as a voice-leading flaw; after removal of the diminutions, this passage reads simply as follows:

usw.

Bars 17- 2 4

-thus a voice leading which, as is plain to see, knows nothing of parallel octaves. Compare Counterpoint i, p. i 29ff. 33) The first of the two upbeats mentioned above appears in bar 8 in the woodwinds, and the second, admittedly altered for the sake of the harmony (b instead of c), in bar 12, again in the woodwinds, but now with inclusion of the alto voices and the alto trombone. The dynamic marking in bars i-8 isjffor all involved voices, but still more forceful accents protrude above that level: sf in bars 4 and 6, and finally !fin bar 7 (at the words "ganzen Welt"). At the entrance of the chorus and instruments Beethoven specifies only J, let it be noted, reserving the ff just for bar 15, again at the words "ganzen Welt." The reduction in dynamic is, however, only an apparent one, since the full instrumental and choral bodies undoubtedly of themselves add a sufficient amount of volume; besides, care had to be taken from the outset to allow for the possibility of a further intensification (in bar 15). The sf in bars 12, 13, and 14 should not be overlooked, finally, as providing welcome accents in the service of the upbeat and of the text. Greater difficulties for understanding are posed by the melody of the second bar-group (bars 17-32), third and fourth lines: Fig. 394· Tenors and basses 18 17 ...

• ~~·

~r

19

r ~~ r ~~ 20

:21

·~- ~

~---¥~_ · J__J___ _-f~fj Brii

der!

ii - berm

Ster - nen - zelt

muf.I ein

Ve!. Cb., Tenor, and Bass Trb.

[33. Probably this reference should be to Counterpoint 1, p. 199ff.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I 23

22

~

~---I

8f~~

~

lie

I

~

24

::!' I

I

Va - ter

ber

289

.p..

I£

I

-=l

woh-nen!

I

~:I

~---I

~

~~

gI

sf

.p..

£ I ::!'I

I

Which harmony is expressed in the horizontal direction (cf. Harmony, §76) by these tones? There is no doubt at first that in bars I 7-18 the process of composing out is applied to the harmony f - (a) - c, since the rising fourth signifies nothing other than the falling fifth (cf. Counterpoint I, p. 79££.):

~:

From bar 20 on, however, we are confronted with puzzles whose solution the horizontal line alone cannot provide: are we still to hear the harmony on F in bars 20-21 as well? Should we moreover reinterpret the falling fourth (c - (a) - g) in bar 22 as a rising fifth (c g) and thus assume a new harmony on C? And finally, are we to append to the tone g in bar 22 the tone-succession immediately following and thus hear the harmony as G-with the d in bar 24, accordingly, as the fifth? But as I said before, the horizontal direction here does not yet support any definitive solution. The first upbeat is dropped by virtue of the connection of bars 16-1 7, and only the second returns, in bar 20. Despite the absence of any explicit marking, ff appears to be intended by the composer for bars I 7-24 as well. In bar 25 the full chorus enters. The harmonic progression takes shape as follows: Fig. 396. 25

26

F maj .: l __ IV

27

28

29

30

31

_ _ _ _ V _ l_ V _ I Cmaj. : IV_l_

32

V

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Bars 25-32

290

I

Fourth Movement

Interpreting in retrospect, then, we have here a confirmation that the harmony of F was intended as early as bars I 7-18, so that in bars i 6 and I 7 [root-] movement up a third (with chromatic alteration l off~ to f1 must be assumed. At bar 30, moreover, a modulation from F major to C major obviously occurs, which, however, not even the choral setting is able to express cogently enough, since it too includes at this point an insufficient amount of composed-out tonal material. (How much less could such cogency be expected from the horizontal line alone!) One must therefore account for the harmonic construction in bars 25-y2 less in terms of modern tonality than in terms of voice leading alone. Here too the business of figuration and diminution falls to violin I and II, cellos, basses, and contrabassoon. Of particular interest is bar 31: Fig. 397.

Sop.

r~~ - §·~·----3-§§~~

1~~~~ Bar y,ff.

At the fourth quarter the tone d of the bass forms a passing tone, but nevertheless also takes an anticipation (c - e) in tow. In bars 24 and 28 the two upbeats are back in place! We come now to the third choral stanza (third bar-group, bars 33-60). Here, as I said earlier, it is no longer the tenor-bass half of the chorus that performs the melody but rather a part of the orchestra, and moreover with harmonization added: Fig. 398. ---- --T-------~----+-

J

~- 1~

r

l ~~~~~==-~---

E:::jt:=~=;st=::=1:::::::'.:~====:::':4=~~~=i=1-==+==

cresc.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

i

64

I

Second Movement

Fig. 204. (b. 248-251; concert pitch)

(~·

~ =-I

.

Kettledr.

:

C j

EHom7(Dl=~

~ms PPJ. '§ I J'JEJ•~29-~ Homs (m)

P'j"

(m)

-

---

These-recall the first dispersion of the tonic chord in the Introduction! !-stand merely in the service of harmony and its associated scale-degree-progression tendencies. But how unsuspectingly we would have been accosted by such a situation had we not earlier been alerted in some way to anticipate such a construction! Also not to be overlooked is that along with the increasing intensification in bars 260-267, finally violin I (reinforced by flute I and oboe I) as well educes a dispersion-indeed, one involving enlargement-from V~:

As in bar 31 3ff. of the first movement, Beethoven here places just before v~ = ~ in bar 260££. the harmony m• 1 , which-after reinterpretation of the A~ as G#, it is true-appears as #IV" 7 and then is obviously intended as such by him. (Thus the path from Din bar 237 through the falling fifths G and C in bars 238-241 to Bb and min bars 242-245.) It is interesting to see, though, how Beethoven, in what might be called the final moment of the cadence, lets himself be inspired by the apparently nondiatonic harmonies Bb and E~ (which are in fact VI and ~II in D minor) to a new, touchingly beautiful formation:

In bar 260 the dominant enters, and with the suspensions ~' which, to be sure, do not find resolution, since the I follows directly at bar 268:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

292

I

Fourth Movement

Both elements point convincingly to the fact that we must posit the first caesura in bar 44 at the word "Welt," since not only is the IV reached here, but the cresc. of the preceding bars finds release in the ff as well. In agreement with this determination, incidentally, is the fact that in the aforementioned bar we have arrived at the end of the second line. By similar means , the close of the third line on the V and atf is set in bar 48. The last line, however, is formed in harmonic terms from a deceptive cadence: V - VI. The f here moreover intensifies to ff, which finally signals the conclusion of the complete stanza:

J

I

I

!: ff

u

i

$

ber

Ster - nen

I

$

I

$ .....

$

$

Sf

muJJ.

er

woh - nen.

This same VI is reinterpreted in the continuation as a ~II of the key of D minor, so that the V of the new key can enter already in bar 53. But the bass in bar 53 does not immediately present the root A itself; rather, it makes within the harmony the leap of a falling fifth e - a (compare the bass motion in bar 4?!), which is quite usual in a situation of composing out:

l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J

This observation needs to be made just for the reason that otherwise the hearer runs the risk of misunderstanding the harmony in bar 53 and of interpreting it as an independent one. The beautiful fifth-resultant in the bass, however, is far surpassed by the superb show mounted above the bass by the remaining instruments:

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

293

- -

Fig. 403. bar 53

~ •

•

.3

•

I

I

I

I I I

Ww.

~ :s:

:s: :s: :s: :i :s:

pp

I speak intentionally of a "show" even though fundamentally it is the ears that transmit sounds to the heart; for what we hear from bar 53 on can be identified by our eye as well in the sense that in this case the word "show," derived at first from the domain of the eye, can immediately be transferred into that of the ear! Veritably, when we hear one instrument after another rise up like a ladder, a true ladder to heaven, we feel as though devout hands point us toward the stars; we follow their indication and see the stars twinkle above ... - "ilber Sternen muf3 er wohnen!" PERFORMANCE

Bar rff. Andante maestoso, J = 72. The conductor should concentrate all attention on the representation of the highly characteristic upbeat formations, which were discussed above in detail. The upbeat will make all the more impressive effect as such the more one deliberately applies a kind of urgent acceleration from upbeat to the next strong beat. Thus an affiliation of the upbeat and the following strong half note must by all means be expressed! The director's most energetic concern should also be devoted to the rhetorical accents that were discussed as well in the analysis. They cannot be underscored strongly enough if the performance is to match Beethoven's intentions and express instructions! Remember that both chorus and orchestra are to produce only an/from bar g on, in order to do justice with anff, in keeping with the

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

294

I

Fourth Movement

meaning of the text, to the climax at the word "ganzen" only in bar 15. Bar 3 3.ff. Adagio ma non troppo, ma divoto J = 60. Aside from the upbeats, which must be given their due here as well, the conductor should above all aim for those dynamic apexes that represent the culmination in each line: the ff at the word "Welt" in bar 44, and the f at the syllable "zelt" in bar 48. LITERATURE

Beethoven's remark in the sketches reported by Nottebohm (p. i 86): Auf Welt Stemenzeltforte Posaunenstoj3e 34 became a reality in bars 44 and 48. Kretzschmar writes (pp. i 19-120 ): "Especially solemn and enchanting are those moments at which Beethoven draws near to the firmament and the heavenly father who dwells above it. He set the words "Seid umschlungen, Millionen" in the manner of a kind of ceremony, which seems to play upward to the eternal throne. Its concluding sounds are celestial." My only comment is that this follows from the Schiller poem itself! The reduction in quantity of content in the commentary by Grove (p. 347) is, of course, accompanied by a reduction in the quantity of error. The description of unmistakable facts (e.g., that trombones appear), together with reports of a few impressions on one passage or another, fill only a few lines. The only substantive remark, however-"to which the full chorus responds, with accompaniment of the following powerful orchestral motif:"

Cbn., Ve., Cb.

-certainly represents a crass error, because the bass, even though it appears in a figurated manner, certainly by no means presents just for that reason any "motif" in the true sense of the word; rather, its function is still merely a supportive one, and it moves exclusively in the path of the necessary harmonic roots.

Third Division (Illa) Allegro energico, sempre ben marcato (6/ 4) (Bars 1-108)35 "Uber Stemen mu~ er wohnen!"-how grateful and happy it makes man to feel secure in the bosom of the creator! To be at one ['.>4· forte trombone-attacks on Welt, Stemenzelt] ['.>5· See note '.> 1. In this section bar-number citations should be incremented by 654 to arrive at the numbers of a consecutively numbered score.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

295

with the creator, to worship the creator's ruling hand in love and awe-which dithyramb is strong enough to express the great fortune of earth's child! The third Division takes on the task of portraying the jubilation of the human soul, now so intensified by awareness of the creator. The intensification of joy here finds its equivalent musical expression in the form of a double fugue on the two principal themes of the preceding Divisions: Freu-de, scho-ner Got-ter - fun-ken, Tochter aus E-

I

Fig. 405.

iJ#+if1·

J

Seid _ _

I

r- · um

ly - si - um,_

r· · r· I

I

1

I

I

-

schlun - gen,

wir

be - tre - ten

d L,

J

t J r- ~

1

Mil

~-p.~J__,.,,._:.=--~ @.---+-J-~+--.• t---t-1

I

Die

Himm - Ii - sche,

dein

li-

--+-~ ?T --+-~

J,_.__,I;,,,,__...,.,__J

I

nen!

0

-

feu - er - trun - ken,

sen

I

:-

Kul1

der

Hei - Jig - tum!

~j·J ;r· J I f· J gan

zen

Welt!

Now the Joy theme (theme of the first Division) reappears on the scene and, since it occurs in the soprano, dominates the texture! It brings a return of the even meter, to which the second theme (theme of the second Division)-which was set originally in triple meter (s/ 2 )-now also bows and subjugates itself. This makes the victory of the Joy theme all the more prominent since, in contrast to the first theme, only the second appears in complete form. From a still higher standpoint, however, the victory of the Joy theme in key, meter, and register is to be interpreted as meaning that the variations of the first Division (both instrumental and vocal) now-above and beyond the intervening second Division-obviously find in the double fugue of the third Division what might be called their ultimate variation, their true conclusion! This, then, explains the unity of first and third Divisions even with respect to meter and key! What a broad horizon in the conception of the variation cycle! What majestic scope in the finale! The table below [figure 406] affords an overview of the entrances and episodes.

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

296

I

Fourth Movement

a) (Bars 32- 34)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement 5

6

~

~

7

+

+

8

I

297 9

JO

9

IO

~

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i

68

I

Second Movement

key, then, the modulation theme (bar 296££.) appears as well, and only an additional, second modulation (see bars 304-305) based on the following reinterpretation: mmaj:I D min: VI - - - I Bar 304ff.

finally brings back the main key. At first it is the modulation-theme that makes use of the main key. While this repetition of the modulation-theme in itself on the one hand corresponds exactly to Beethoven's procedure in the First Part, where he likewise set it twice in succession (bars 77-84 and 8592 ), here the master on the other hand exceeds the limits of that procedure in that he sets the modulation-theme two additional times, so that it appears a total offour times (instead of twice)! It is characteristic that Beethoven, at the points of repetition, adheres to the main key as well, even if in doing so he admittedly avails himself of mixture of major and minor, as the following plan shows: Fig.

211.

Bars 306-313 in D maj.: Fl. I. cresc.

dim.

Ob:l-_.J.r,.J~- 1-- I

r~· ~~ ·~~,~~s: ~ob.u.I jf ~ $ ~i=sf!±H p

Fig.

213.

cresc.

Bars 322-329 in D maj.:

Fl. II

_.-------------

1- 1

~ -'2. -.9-.

Bar 33 off.

11 ~'61-. + -.9-l=-·.........:it~,__-~

.a.

Let these variants motivate the reader to seek out on his own the additional modifications to which the composer has subjected the modulation-theme in respect to scale degrees and instrumentation. The second theme (bar 330££.) appears at first in D major, but by

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

299

example, in the fourth bar of the second entrance, g instead of g#, by reason of the tonicization of the fourth degree; similarly in bar 4 of the third entrance, c instead of c#; in bar 4 of the fourth entrance, again g instead of g#; in bar 5 of the fifth entrance, g# instead of g because of the succession II# 3 - V = V - I; finally, in bar 4 of the sixth entrance, again c instead of c# (cf. the third entrance) for Iq 7 - IV. All choral entrances of the Joy theme are at the same time accompanied by figuration by instruments: thus in the first entrance, the soprano is accompanied by violin I; in the second entrance, the bass by the cellos, doublebasses, and bassoons; in the third entrance, the tenor by the viola; in the fourth entrance, the alto by violin II; in the fifth entrance, the soprano again by violin I; and finally, in the sixth entrance, the alto by violin II; all notwithstanding that in the episodes as well, the figuration is similarly continued by the stringed instruments or the bassoons, as the case may be. The shape of the figuration-which is as follows: Fig. 408.

VI.I.

~ifif

~

......--._

prrrr J~r, rr ~ ~ E

......--...

~~i~J rrerrj I rj rrr~ rrrftr==d f

f

f

f

- }Jl!ij }@J fJFr rFr-rrr rFF4 ~ JidjjjJ JJJJJJ I 4JJJJJ f

f~

f~

f

ECIJFd

-evinces a certain recklessness in the treatment of the line, to the extent that strong clashes arise at the weak beats in bars i, 3, 5,36 etc. It is clear, however, that primarily the strong beats-thus the first and fourth quarters-are to be emphasized, and this alone eliminates the harshness. Finally, the organ point that lasts through the whole of the last

[36 . The original text instead reads bars 2, 4, 5, evidently by error, since the clashes between soprano and violin I occur consistently in the odd-numbered bars.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

300

Bars 76-108

I

Fourth Movement

entrance, bars 64-75, should be singled out as an element of particularly imposing effect! By bar 75 the double fugue is over. Now, in bar 76, a transition to the closing Division begins; such was all the more necessary for technical reasons as the double fugue concluded, indeed, with the tonic itself! The composer uses for this purpose a recitative on the text of the third choral stanza: "lhr sttirtzt nieder, Millionen? ." He uses only three lines of it, however (see bars 76-91 ), substituting (in bars 92-108) for the fourth line once again the last two lines of the first choral stanza: "Bruder, tiberm Sternenzelt/Mu~ ein Heber Yater wohnen." (Thus the first choral stanza is sung completely in the third Division as well, while of the third stanza only three lines are newly set.) The melody in bars 76-91, which migrates upward from bass through tenor and alto to soprano, goes as follows:

Ihr

stiirzt

du

den

nie

-

der,

Ii - o

Mil

-

nen? Ah - nest

~:

~

Jl l t J I#V·

Ster

-

-

Schop - fer,

nen - zelt,

~

Sop-

1y1-rt r I Et t tr I such'

ihn

ii

-

ber'm

~·

tttft~

ber'm Ster - nen - zelt !

In appearance only irrational and impervious to any interpretation, on closer inspection this melody nevertheless can be founded on the following completely logical progression of harmonies or scale degrees: (passing tones)

")

D maj.: I~7

~IV

-· "'9>"

(VII) _ _ _ _ _ _ __

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I harm.

301

harm. tone harm. tone (passing'-)_ __

usw.

v From this it follows that after the tonic of bars 75-78 Beethoven's purpose obviously was first of all once again to arrive at the dominant. In fact, he builds on the V, which lasts from bar 91 to bar i 04, the last two lines of the first stanza, by using in alternation also the neighboring-note harmony of the dominant:

i"·1 ii

L -~

§

i

-6'

-6'

-6'

He creates, moreover, a new motif from the two harmonies:

CL I I Pl

usw.

Only at bar i 04 does he continue the journey to the IV, by means of V - I~ 7 .3 7 The IV now lasts until bar 108-that is, until the end of the 37. In bar 104 Beethoven seems to have suffered a lapse; viola and alto voice show the following: Fig. 413. Alto

i~ kffea -6'.

-6'.

Viola.I-I '-:::

:::0-

Flutes I and II, clarinets I and II, and bassoons I and II, on the contrary, have the following figure: Fig. 414. I I I I

~J.

1 J.

!l

~ ~ ~

~ f ¥ f===--==-rr ~ 1

~~-===

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I

302

Fourth Movement

third Division. It would nevertheless be wrong to regard it as a concluding harmony just for that reason. Rather, that harmony, which naturally awaits a further continuation, serves to engender an all the more intensive transition to the fourth Division. When we see how the next Division begins with the scale-degree progression IV - V - I in D major, it is immediately clear that only at

It is clear that C# in the first example and C in the second are, from the most literal standpoint, irreconcilable. My personal solution is to revise Beethoven's oversight in flutes, clarinets, and bassoons as follows: Fig. 415. ~

I

fil 9

1 r

I

I __

~:!: :i-r

I

...

1

•

I

-,_ _ _ ~-,_ ,_I_~f~

,____r

:: My justification is the following: As it is beyond doubt that C# must here be chromaticized to C for the sake of the tonicization-process, the only question that remains is when this must happen-whether already at the beginning of the bar, on the first quarter as figure 414 shows, or only in the second half of the bar (figure 41 3). The particular rhythmic structure of the preceding bars 91 ff. gives us the answer:

i"~· #fl 8!· e

e1f: rilifi= p: ~'iptpm ~~ffir= 1=1 r= ~mp: p=!f= ~=If= ~H --=====-=== 1

1

L _ _ _ _ _ _ __J

,_ _ _ __ _ _ _ J

~·-~·JI~.~·

'---

i::lt

filf#

p

'---------'

-

::>'---~--~_____j

~ P2Ff1= ~Fiif (! ) -

-=:::: >--

~-----

P

'---

~· ~· ~·

r=' r=

piu p

FM

usw.

__J

We see here in bars 91-92 a syncope, and we find the same each time with the tonic harmony in bars 95-96 and 99-1 oo, while in bars 93-94, 1o1-1 02, and 105-1 06, which contain the dominant harmony (or the IV), such a syncope is, for the sake of contrast, lacking. This rhythmic organization of a regular alternation of two bars that include a syncope and two syncope-free bars necessarily implies that at the dotted first half note of bar I 04-where, according to that rhythmic organization, the syncope was actually due to appear-one must for this reason still assume C#, as the only tone that would have made the syncope possible! In other words: at the beginning of bar 104 the same harmony must remain in place that sounded at the end of bar 103, precisely because of that syncope, which, according to the preceding syncopation-models, was in the end possible here as well!

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

303

the beginning of the following fourth Division does the cadence prepared at the end of the third Division finally reach its conclusion: 105-108

V--Iq 7 - - I V - -

1-2,

5ff.

IV--V-- I

It is instructive at this point to recall the interconnections of the earlier Divisions and to subject them here to a comparison. Thus the connection of the first and second Divisions in bars 590-594 occurs by means of I - IV in D major, and that of the second and third Divisions in bars 49ff. by means of the following progression:

Gminor: VI D major: HI - V - (I) PERFORMANCE

Bar 1ff. Allegro energico, sempre ben marcato J. = 84. The general instruction contained in the words sempre ben marcato by itself provides the clearest imaginable elucidation of the requirements on performance. 38 Add to this the fact that in spite of this general instruction Beethoven tirelessly notates sf or f on downbeat and upbeat in the various instruments, and one knows how these indications are to be satisfied: downbeat and upbeat must be struck sharply, with independent pressure, while the remaining quarters, on the contrary, are by artifice to be kept at p. The above remark applies in particular to the strings, who carry the eighth-note figure; more to them, indeed, than to all other instruments or even to the singing voices, to whom this manner of performance is a rather familiar one. Only by this means is it possible to avoid the harshnesses that otherwise arise when the figurations proceed along with the primary content in an undifferentiated/ Here too, exactly as in the second Division, all mental energy should be devoted to presenting the upbeats-they are precisely the legacy of the structure of the second Division to the third!-in the most defiant possible manner. One should emulate Beethoven himself in this matter, who singles out each upbeat throughout the whole 38. Compare as a similar general instruction, for example, the Vivace ma non troppo. Sempre legato for the first movement for the piano sonata Op. 109. [The sempre legato is not actually part of the general instruction in Op. 109; Beethoven wrote it at the end of bar 12, where he discontinued notating slurs.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Second Movement

I

i

71

a - d (see above, p. 170). If one has , accordingly, within the fourfold repetition of the tone-succession just mentioned (bars 416-423), carried out the acceleration requested by the master, then one automatically arrives also at the correct tempo of the presto, where the half-noted is equal to the full-bard. of the preceding part. The metronomic marking at the presto reads d = i i 6. Regardingthe question of whether o= 116 19 should be assumed here, as is given in the scores published by Schott or Breitkopf and Hartel, or whether d = 116 is more suitable, the decision must be made in favor of the latter marking. For it is found explicit in Beethoven's presentation copy to King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia, as well as in Beethoven's letter (mentioned earlier) to Moscheles. According to Nottebohm (Beethoveniana, p. 132), the master sent the metronome markings to the publisher only "after the score had already been published, on October 13, 1826," so that for this very reason the markings were able to be incorporated into the edition only later. This alone would not have accounted for the incorrect marking but for the fact that, as Grove reports (p. 308, fn.), in the Schott score the notehead (d = i i 6) "at the top of the page has lost its stem, so that it appears to represent a whole note. At the foot of the page," Grove continues, "the note in question has retained its stem, in accord with Beethoven's intent." LITERATURE

The sketches from the year i 823- see Nottebohm, p. i 7off.-reveal that the fugue theme, the principal theme of the Scherzo, was forged in its definitive shape only at the appearance of the Recapitulation :

Bassi.

It goes without saying that this accomplishment exerted a retroactive influence, and that only now did Beethoven renounce the two earlier ver-

[ 19. Schenker's original text shows a half note in this equation by mi stake .)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:20 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

305

of tones, speak for themselves as doubly necessary for this type of composition.39 As the primary aid for the former, let it be recalled that the director or singing teacher should instruct and accustom each individual singer to draw breath at the correct time in relation to his chest's proportionate endurance, and in the correct volume for its strength; the latter is especially important for re-attacking after taking a new breath. Those who take a new breath too late in respect to the proportionate endurance of the chest will tend to lower the tone (at the end)-to pull it downward; those who take new breath too quickly or too forcefully with respect to the correct volume for the strength of the chest tend to raise the tone (at the beginning)-to push it upward. Both of these faults at the same time impede or actually distort the important connection and carrying of the tones with respect to their succession. If the individual singer is trained in what is here recommended, as any singer should be, regardless of what type of songs he intends to sing; if he is practiced and accustomed to it, then it will never be difficult to put the chorus as a whole into the same habit. And all that will be necessary otherwise is to make them aware, and keep them in a state of awareness, that they-the singers of each individual part in the chorus (meaning the sopranos tutti, the altos tutti, etc.)-should not draw breath at the same time but should in this respect be mindful of each other (most conveniently, neighbor of neighbor), so that when one of them re-attacks, the other is all the more certain not to do so at the same time. This will give rise without particular difficulties to the same beautiful, richly effective, and today so often missed portamento in the chorus which was formerly taught to the individual singer; and if this merit is necessary for the truly good performance of every significant vocal work, it is doubly so, as mentioned earlier, for works of that early period and style. LITERATURE

The sketches communicated by Nottebohm on p. 185 provide the basis for the final version of bars 76-1 08, which follow upon the double fugue:

t

Fig. 418.

9=

ri rt I Jt~ t I rt ri 11 rt 1131 r t t t tqm

Ihr stiirzt

nie -der,

Mil - Ii

-

o - nen,

ah - nest

du

den

(39. That is, vocal music of the fifteenth through early eighteenth cen turies.)

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

306

Fourth Movement

~*3 =rstEPgl=~~$~~~~1ij~re~1!~ltlt~l~1 ~1tl~II~ Schop-fer,

Welt?

Such' ihn

ii-berm

¢-IJl!r r llf r 1r f 1

ii - her Stcr-nen

311

all

woh-nen,

mull> er

I

Ster - nen - zelt,

f f 1#f r 111f ~

woh-nen, mull> cin

ein lie - her_ _ _

woh

-

lie- bcr

nen_

Va - ter

und lie - her

ein lie-her

When Nottebohm says that the sketches show "in their beginning an interpretation of the text fundamentally different from that of the printed version" and explicitly states that "only in the rhetorical accents with which certain words are supplied can a similarity to the later treatment of the words be recognized," his remarks can only be ascribed a perfunctory character otherwise seldom encountered in his work. For if one leaves aside rhythm , which, to be sure, is notated as 4/ 4 in the sketch but as 6/ 4 in the score (both, however, are even meters, in that 6/4 means twice three), elements of the sketch that found their way into the score include not only the ascending order of entry of the voices (bass, tenor, alto, soprano) but also the clearly present tendency toward composing out of a diminished-seventh chord. That the score nevertheless presents a more matured and consistent version may be taken for granted-observe in bars 88-91 of the score the continuation of the recitative material of the preceding bars, while in the sketch the soprano at the analogous point moved ahead to new words: "iiber Sternen muf3 er wohnen," and with them also to half-notes; or, compare the individual stamp of the rhythmic organization of bar 91 ff. of the score with the still chaotic stammer of the sketch, and so on. Kretzschmar writes (p. 120): "The earthly music retreats in this milieu 40 completely to silence. The solo voices enter again as though only furtively with their 'Freude, Tochter aus Elysium'; 41 soon, however, the whole ensemble regains its courage [ ... ]." 42 As we see, Kretzschmar was unable to (40. That is, the milieu of the firmament and the heavenly father. This quotation from Kretzschmar follows directly upon the one cited above on p. 294.] [4i. In bar 763ff. of the score.] [42 . Schenker ends this quotation with a period; the more accurate ellipsis has been added editorially. In fact, this quotation is continued, without intervening punctuation , in the next quotation from Kretzschmar.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Fourth Movement I

307

derive from the double fugue so much as the image of a mood. Since he could not begin to do so, he furtively began, as if there were no third Division at all, only at the fourth Division-thus at the point where the solo voices begin "as though only furtively" with their "Freude, Tochter aus Elysium." He concludes his analysis with the following words: 43 " . .. and rushes in with an enthusiasm that grows ever stronger, and finally becomes a fullfledged frenzy of joy. Beethoven has executed this closing scene in the realistically energetic style that made its first appearance in music with him ." Mteingartner (p. 229) writes in reference to the first entrance: "It is difficult to understand why Beethoven did not strengthen the very first note by means of the alto trombone and did not bring in this instrument until the c# both here and in bar 694, where there is not even the support of the trumpet. If a good first trombone player, sure of his high notes, can be obtained, I see no reason why the first trombone should not play

:=:- . I += += I r

Fig. 419. ;e·~·

W#

I ff

Sf

r·

I

Sf

in both passages." Parenthetically, Weingartner seems to have overlooked the passage in bars 74-75, where Beethoven, in spite of the ultimate degree of enthusiasm, again deliberately writes only Fig. 420.

-.p..

E?r

f i

for the first trombone! That Beethoven knew no fear of heights-knew none of the acrophobia and claustrophobia ever imputed to the old masterswould have to be clear from the fact that, for example, in the Missa Solemnis (thus in a proximate work, so to speak) he leads the trombones to d 2 several times, in the fugue of the Gloria, in the Credo, and so forth. And did Beethoven, incidentally, at any other place or any other time shy away from perilous high registers? How often have the stories been recounted about how in this matter he could never be persuaded to make concessions-not to Schuppanzigh, not to the singers Sontag and Unger, not to the chorus, not to the orchestra? But the result has always been the same: one merely told these stories, read them or heard them (all the more comfortably the more these recountings were able to substitute for relevance!), while one proved strangely incapable of extracting from them the only moral-namely, that Beethoven invariably followed only the thematic necessity and valid reasons of the style, for whose sake he never hesitated for a moment to seek out the most perilous heights. Had one but understood the sense of those reports, and moreover applied it to Beethoven's manner of leading the trombones without hesitation to d 2 in the one instance, but only to c# 2 as a limit in the other, one would necessarily have arrived at style-that is, at the fullest

[43. See note 42.]

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.12 on Thu, 21 May 2020 03:03:23 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

308

I

Fourth Movement

congruence of the particular situation in question and the nature of the instrument-as the uniquely and solely definitive reason! An analogous case is the much-touted alleged fears of our masters concerning the high register of the trumpet. But did Mozart himself not write as follows in the E~-major Symphony (K. 543): Fig.

Trumpo