For your blog post due Wednesday, January 22 at 9 am, please
consider our class discussion on Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony as led by Prof. Alegant
from the afternoon on Tuesday, January 21, and comment in 250-500 words on the
following points:
· What did you know
about today’s subject before the listening and/or discussion session?
· What did you find
most surprising about today’s subject?
· What would you
like to know more about after experiencing today’s class?
Your post should be placed directly in the comments to this blog
entry, and is due at 9 am on Wednesday, January 22.
The fourth symphony is actually my favorite Beethoven symphony. The beautiful melody and motives in all four movements and the taste on special harmonies are always fascinating for me. In my Theory IV taken last year, the class used a short excerpt, like 20 measures, from the symphony to discuss the chordal changes. I was impressed by some specific chords in it, and It is a pity that only a little analysis of the symphony was given in the theory class at that time.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed today’s discussion. Prof. Alegant almost covered everything in the first movement that I’d like to learn. I like the discussion on the notes with the same pitches and different names, and how they help to push the music forward. Every change here - G flat to F sharp, or C sharp to D flat - is a harmonically shift, which leads to a new stage of the piece. I’m also impressed by the idea of the German augmented 6 chord. The indication of this chord has shown up in the second measure of the whole music, and it gets into work again in the closure of the development. Among all, how Beethoven managed to put the music stays in unexpected harmony for a long time is the most surprising thing for me. Prof. Alegant humorously describes it as “?!” or a “!?”. The former stands for the shaky harmony finally settled down in a V or I after a long time of searching, the latter stands for a “seemed to be stable” harmony suddenly begins to change again. For me these harmony functions served as a cliffhanger, and the audience never knows what will happen next.
After today’s discussion, I’m suddenly not so sure about the definition of a closure. I always put the closure at the first V chord appears after the transition, most likely a pedal chord, which will take a long time to go to the last measure of the exposition. However, in the class we decided that the closure starts at measure 133, only 2 lines before the ending. I understand the choice here, but I do not totally agree with the idea that all the things from measure 96 are included in the development of the second theme since I can’t really hear the hint that this part is an expansion of the second theme. Measure 96 to measure 133 still seems to be miserable for me, and I wonder if there will be another term to define this part.
I was generally familiar with Beethoven 4 before today. I’ve listening to it many times (it’s a current favorite), played it in orchestra, and studied the first movement (looked at form + remote keys) in a conducting class.
ReplyDeleteI definitely don’t agree with what Schumann was implying when he said that symphony 4 is a slender Greek maiden between two towering Norse gods. 3 and 5 may be Norse gods, but 4 is not slight. I hear it as a kind of heroic progression from dark to light on a movement to movement level. How I hear the symphony: The first movement starts dark and eerie and goes to some angry, remote, spooky places. The running quarter notes give a sense of forward motion - journey and story to my ears. The second movement is certainly not cheery - the meter and persistent dotted rhythm make it feel like it’s trying to be soothing - which of course implies that something is wrong, which explodes to the forefront in the middle section. Near the end, there is a long section that sounds a lot like the pastorale, making me think the soothing has succeeded. The third movement isn’t the cheeriest Beethoven ever wrote. It’s certainly not quick and capering - a trickster - like the one in the first symphony. The slurred arpegiations passed from winds to strings have that “unmoored” quality Professor Alegant talked about in the first movement. Some sunlight, hope, playfulness, and happy resolve emerge in the trio. The fourth movement is just ultimate frenetic joy. It can’t be contained, the music is bursting with it. If it’s not loud, it’s fast. The initial p certainly doesn’t last long. There are some dark sounding chords, but they sound more humorous in the context of the movement - the way we can joke about dark things in order to cope. I love how, near the end, we expect a slow cadenza-ish section (like maybe the oboe one from Eroica) but instead the orchestra jumps right back into the main material. When we do get a little cadenza from the violins, bassoons, and middle voices, it isn’t much and certainly isn’t profound. Then, as if annoyed it had to play such a section, the symphony ends petulantly just a few bars later with a glib eighth note bang. I just love this symphony a lot.
I was most surprised by the difficulty of placing formal labels in the first movement. I was taught that the many different sections could trick you about the form, but not that the form itself was fundamentally ambiguous. When I’m doing analysis, I like things to be neat and tidy a la Webern. Urgh Beethoven!! I’ll get over it. As I said in many previous posts, I want to do some score study of this symphony.
Today’s lecture by Professor Alegant was really special, and although it was fast-paced, I was able to really get a lot out of it with a clear understanding. Prior to today, I had had almost zero experience with the fourth symphony. I recognized some excerpts upon hearing it, but largely I had no idea what to expect from it. I did know that it was one of the least respected symphonies, however, especially because it is sandwiched between the mammoths that are nos. 3 and 5. I think, however, that this symphony packs a major punch and is a spectacular piece of music!
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting things from the lecture and the listening today had to do with the harmonic content of the piece. When listening to the slow introduction to the allegro, I was extremely surprised. It sounded so dark for a symphony that I thought was jovial. It seems to be characteristic of Beethoven to include deeper meaning and contemplation in everything – even though the symphony is mainly lighthearted, I think this introduction signals that there’s more than what meets the eye. Professor Alegant’s explanation of the Gb and Db was really cool. The way they are enharmonically respelled to be F# and C# at various points in the piece to emphasize a big change in atmosphere is an example of Beethoven’s genius at work. It made me notice how those notes, so strange in a symphony in Bb Major, make their appearance again and again in sneaky places.
I continue to enjoy the analysis that all these guest lecturers bring to the class that enhances my Beethoven listening. The way I listen to this composer has completely transformed already. I look forward to ending strong with the last two symphonies that we have to cover.
I hadn’t heard any of Beethoven’s symphony no. 4 before our listening and discussion today. Granted, it is not one of Beethoven’s most famous works. After listening to it the first time, I enjoyed the joy and “Haydn-esque” humor in the piece. It is quite a lightweight contrast from Beethoven’s other middle period symphonies.
ReplyDeleteI learned a lot from Prof. Alegant’s discussion. He spent a lot of time talking about the etiology of certain musical elements or events. An example is where he described why Beethoven used some “strange” notes and harmonies that don’t belong in the key of B-flat Major. Beethoven included a lot of these peculiar harmonic changes in the first movement’s slow introduction. The relationship between Gb and F is established here, and used further on in the development. This provides us with one of the most astonishing retransition sections ever written (he sets us up for B major, but then resolves to B-flat cadential 6-4)! Beethoven, in this passage, enharmonically re-spells the chord to look like V7 of B major and then back to Gb augmented 6th of B-flat Major. Prof. Alegant believes that when a composer like Beethoven goes out of his way to re-spell chords enharmonically (e.g. Gb as F# in the key of Bb, a land of no sharps), something momentous is underway. This is true, because this moment is essentially a big, fat realization of the second bar of the intro, where the Gb sneaks in. These traits conflict with the tradition because it was uncommon for composers, like even Mozart or Haydn, to use the material presented in the introduction. Beethoven revolutionized the form by using the introduction as a platform for all of the other “weird” ideas to rest on. Prof. Alegant thinks that this symphony would probably be played more often had it not been written by Beethoven. This is because, when compared to his other symphonies, especially 3 and 5, it appears lighter and less heroic. As Prof. Alegant told us, Schumann sums it up like this: the 4th symphony is a slender Greek maiden between two towering Norse gods. I don’t agree, because I feel it carries its own unique aspects that make it interesting for me.
Overall, I enjoyed Prof. Alegant’s formal analysis of this symphony. It showed me that even though this piece sounds so Haydn-esque, and it lacks a narrative trajectory present in his other symphonies, it still bears the quirky trademarks of Beethoven.
Before today, I hadn’t listened to any of Symphony No. 4 on my own. We’ve mentioned it in previous classes as being another one of Beethoven’s lesser known symphonies, along with 2 and 8, but I thought it was interesting how Professor McGuire mentioned a quote that described it as a “slight Greek maiden,” or something similar to that. I thought that was an interesting way of comparing it to the gargantuan symphonies No. 3 and No. 5 that surround it. We didn’t talk about this in class, but I took note of the timpani part in this symphony. I didn’t realize before today that a timpani could do a trill, which I thought was a fun little thing to learn.
ReplyDeleteSomething I found interesting about the first movement of Symphony No. 4 that we looked at today was that it’s really just a sonata form. I feel like a lot of the time, people make Beethoven’s works out to be completely absurd in their disregard of convention. I suppose this is true with the way he does some of the other movements in this piece, but the first movement was not out of the ordinary in its form. Granted, Symphony No. 4 isn’t quite as convoluted as Symphony No. 5, for example, but I think the concept of ~exaggerating~ Beethoven’s genius still applies.
Something I’d like to learn more about after today’s class is how Beethoven thought about certain keys. I feel like keys are often described as “welcoming, warm, brooding, etc” but I wonder if they still had those connotations back in Beethoven’s day, or if it was different then.
Interesting hearing how people are generally fans of the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th symphonies while often disparaging the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th symphonies. Yet at the same time, the professor mentioned how if any other composer had written these less popoular symphonies, that composer would be world famous and those symphonies would enjoy considerably more time in the limelight. They only seem lacking when compared to Beehoven's other works which obviously stand far above the work of the average composer of the period.
ReplyDeleteI struggled a bit to make sense of the professor's explanations of some of the harmonic elements of the piece, particularly not understanding what a German augmented 6th chord is and how it affects the piece. At the same time, it was interesting hearing how the 4th symphony is essentially just in sonata form. I'd expected at this stage of his career, Beethoven would be composing more unconventional works that would appeal to his revolutionary and rationalist sensibilities. That being said, there were many moments where Beethoven went, in a phrase used by the professor, "unbuttoned."
After listening to Beethoven's 4th and listening to the discussion of it, what I'm left wondering is how influenced he saw himself to be by his contemporaries. I know people refer to some of his work as "Haydn-esque" and others and I wonder if Beethoven saw himself as a complete revolutionary or only a next step in orchestral composition or what.
Prior to today’s class, I had listened to Beethoven Symphony No. 4 very few times, and have never really paid close attention. Following along with the score this morning helped to pick up on a few general things, but diving in with Professor Alegant really made this symphony come alive for me. I think the comparison between 2, 4 and 8 as smaller, more slender symphonies is interesting and maybe somewhat accurate, but if another composer had written these two symphonies, I don’t think this comparison would be drawn as much. 4 certainly has elements of humor, like 8, and is shorter and more compact, more Haydn-esque than 3 and 5. I agree with Professor Alegant that this is a more boisterous symphony, however. Unlike 8, it feels larger and more emotionally dramatic. There’s a feeling of eeriness or deep angst, later juxtaposed with joyful and bouncy motives. I don’t necessarily agree with Robert Schumann that this symphony is a “slight Greek maiden” between “two Norse gods.” Maybe 3 and 5 are Norse gods, but to characterize 4 as a slight Greek maiden feels inconsistent with the character of the symphony and I think devalues its intricacies. 4 isn’t a Norse god, but something different, and in my opinion, not significantly less valuable.
ReplyDeleteI was most surprised by the very end of class today, when Professor Alegant mentioned that the same harmonic progression used in the development section of Beethoven’s fourth symphony, movement one, is also used in the ninth symphony, third movement. It’s a really profound progression, so I’m excited to hear that again later in the class.
I’m curious to know what Beethoven thought of his fourth symphony. I remember he believed his eighth to be a better work than the seventh, so I wonder if he thought the fourth to be a better work than any of the other more popular symphonies, or his general thoughts on the work. Was it at all profound for Beethoven, or was it just an opportunity to make money from Count Oppersdorff. I’m sure it’s somewhere in the middle, but I want to know if there’s something extra-musical that makes this symphony Romantic.