Bernstein on Beethoven

[Michael]

I have just finished reading Humphrey Burton's excellent biography of Leonard Bernstein (who happens to be my favourite Beethoven conductor).

Bernstein always seems to have considered Beethoven to be the greatest of all composers (even though he may be remembered more for his championing of Mahler) but in a few of his many talks, he had a curious way of defining B's greatness.

It's rather alarming to hear a musician of Bernstein's quality down-playing Beethoven's qualities as a melodist, contrapuntist or even as an orchestrator. He supposedly redeems all by saying that Beethoven had the unique ability to know "what the next note had to be" - so all the rest didn't matter! I suspect that here Bernstein's showmanship usurped his musical judgement; he surely didn't mean all that rubbish.

I came across this item on YouTube, where Bernstein is running through his spiel with an audience of one, but is gently refuted by Thomas Goss, which makes for a very entertaining programme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjct5M8JzL4

[Chris]

Thanks, Michael - an excellent video!

[Peter]

Haven't watched it yet Michael but I have some sympathy with Bernstein. Beethoven's music like Haydn's is primarily concerned with structure - the motif is more important than a lyrical melody to these composers - the first movt of Beethoven's 5th is an obvious example. I'm not saying Beethoven couldn't write a good tune, but when I think of great melody composers I think of Schubert, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Verdi, Dvorak.

[Michael]

What bothers me is that Bernstein came up with this argument in his book "The Joy of Music" which was published around 1960. He framed it as an imaginary conversation between himself and two others, in which Bernstein dismissed Beethoven's abilities in all those areas to howls of protest from the other two.

Finally, one of the characters (described as "Lyric Poet") cries out in desperation: "... my idol has been desecrated before my eyes. There he lies .... a mediocre melodist, a homely harmonist .... an ordinary orchestrator, a commonplace contrapuntist! This from a musician, one who professses to lift back the hide of anatomical secrets of these mighty works .... it is all impossible, utterly, utterly, impossible!"

Bernstein (as one of the characters) replies: "You are right, Lyric Poet. It is truly impossible. But it is only through this kind of analysis that one can arrive at the truth. I am no different from the others who worship that name.
Many, many composers have been able to write heavenly tunes and respectable fugues. Some composers can orchestrate the C-major scale so that it sounds like a masterpiece ..... but this is all mere dust - nothing compared to the magic ingredient sought by them all - the inexplicable ability to know what the next note has to be. Beethoven had this gift in a degree that leaves them all panting in the rear guard.

"Beethoven broke all the rules and turned out pieces of breath-taking rightness. When you get the feeling that whatever note succeeds the last is the only possible note that can rightly happen at that instant, then chances are you're listening to Beethoven. Our boy ... has the power to make you feel at the finish: Something is right in the world .... something we can trust that will never let us down."
Lyric Poet then says quietly: "But that is almost a definition of God." And Leonard Bernstein (the character in this "conversation") replies: "I meant it to be."

When I first read that back in the sixties, I thought it was a brilliant piece of sophistry and dissembling on the part of Bernstein. His tongue was lodged firmly in his cheek throughout the discussion. What saddens me then is to see a much older Bernstein rattling off all this from memory - probably showing-off to Maximilian Schell - and pretending he was making this up as he went along.

Bernstein was notoriously contradictory and there are countless other videos on YouTube where his reverence for Beethoven is in no doubt whatsoever. His favourite of his own recordings was an orchestral arrangement for strings of the C sharp minor string quartet. And his vibrant recordings of the symphonies, with both the NYPO and the Vienna Philharmonic are among the greatest interpretations on record.

Unfortunately, some newcomer to Beethoven might stumble on this particular video - where Bernstein retained his torturous reasoning but somehow lost the thrust of his argument - and believe that Beethoven was somehow below other composers in the purely technical sense.

Just to isolate one area - melody - I have absolutely no doubt that Beethoven was second to none in this. Melody isn't always something one can easily whistle - and Beethoven will sometimes put more emphasis on harmony or rhythm - but he always sings - even in the Grosse Fugue! Sometimes, his melody is austere or stark or even unsettling but it is always sublime.
Of course, that is just my opinion - but I don't think I'm alone.

[Chris]

Just to isolate one area - melody - I have absolutely no doubt that Beethoven was second to none in this. Melody isn't always something one can easily whistle - and Beethoven will sometimes put more emphasis on harmony or rhythm - but he always sings - even in the Grosse Fugue! Sometimes, his melody is austere or stark or even unsettling but it is always sublime.
Of course, that is just my opinion - but I don't think I'm alone.

I agree, Michael. Two great examples given in the video were the second movement of Op. 13 and the first movement of Op. 78 (I'm glad he used that one!), and to that I would add another example from the piano sonatas, the second movement of Op. 90. In my opinion, these melodies are at least equal to any of Mozart's or Schubert's.

[Michael]

Yes - I was very pleased to see these less familiar movements being played amongst the usual suspects. There is a wealth of melody in the piano sonatas and it's sad that most music lovers only seem to be familiar with the slow movement of the Pathetique or the opening of the Moonlight (although that opening movement is sheer genius: people respond to it as a beautiful melody but what Beethoven is doing is demonstrating the melodic power of harmony).

I love Mozart and (to a certain extent) Schubert but Beethoven adds ........ salt (a very musical term, I know.)

Incidentally, regarding a recent "What are you listening to", Schubert's Fifth Symphony is pure melody divine. (We'll ignore the fact that he plundered Beethoven's Second Symphony for a lot of his early stuff. After all, Beethoven plundered Mozart and Haydn).





.

[Enrique]

What bothers me is that Bernstein came up with this argument in his book "The Joy of Music" which was published around 1960. He framed it as an imaginary conversation between himself and two others, in which Bernstein dismissed Beethoven's abilities in all those areas to howls of protest from the other two.

I had that book in my hands. I remember a famous chorale from the St.Mathew Passion was in it, showing the several settings of the chorale as they exist on the score. I wrote down one of them and used to play it frequently on the piano when in the conservatory. .

I think Peter put it right. In those times it was not about melody or great themes. It was all about structure, as the same sonata form suggests. As to orchestration, Beethoven understood it better than his followers (except Brahms). It never comes to a first plane, just as it should always be. Stravinsky spoke highly about its use by the Master

[Sorrano]

Bruckner, also, had a pretty good feel for structure, however I think that his viewpoint was much different from Beethoven's.

[Enrique]

Bruckner's are large scale architectures. And that is why one must "watch" them from a good distance. I mean, not look locally but globally (this idea is not entirely mine).

[Sorrano]

Bruckner's are large scale architectures. And that is why one must "watch" them from a good distance. I mean, not look locally but globally (this idea is not entirely mine).

One can be inside, as well, to appreciate the beauty. For me it's like being inside a cathedral; I can look at individual portions of that cathedral or, like you said, from a distance view the whole. But there is so much structural/contrapuntal activity that you miss much of it by viewing it from a distance.

In listening to Beethoven, and playing the music I find there is so much that the ear just cannot pick up but that the eye can see that leaves me with a deep feeling of awe with regard to the overall structure of his works. There are so many brief instances of motivic development that only a performer would appreciate. It's very interesting to me.

[Enrique]

In listening to Beethoven, and playing the music I find there is so much that the ear just cannot pick up but that the eye can see that leaves me with a deep feeling of awe with regard to the overall structure of his works. There are so many brief instances of motivic development that only a performer would appreciate. It's very interesting to me.

In this regard, I am reading Conversations with Igor Stravinsky, by Robert Craft and Stravinsky himself. At some point, Stravinsky speaks about how he hears (or listens to) music. I may be interesting how professional composers deals with this. For example, would not be great to know how much Beethoven heard when listening to music (well, say when he was 23)? I attach here part of the book (2 MB is the limit for a PDF file in our forum) in case you want to look at page 146, when R. Craft begins with "What do you actually hear 'vertically'...". Of course, it's avant gard music (avant gard for those times), not precisely the same as the Eroica (however, I would like to know if Stravinsky, not having ever heard the 9th, could write down all of the notes in the opening chord of the fourth movement, not to mention the other, even more horrid one just before the baritone entrance).