# True descendants of Beethoven



## Nicksievers (Dec 20, 2017)

I am curious as to who you believe to be the true descendants of Beethoven? Is it the camp of Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner or Schumann and Brahms?

I definitely can hear a lot of Beethoven's later symphonic works in Symphonie Fantastique. Particularly in the interesting textures and the programmatic elements. Berlioz was then was a major influence of Wagner and Strauss. I must admit these elements feel to me a bit contrived and detrimental to the overall form in Berlioz. However he did greatly influence new german music through featuring a recurring symphonic theme which evolved into the Wagnerian lietmotif. 

At the same time I can hear Beethoven's larger coherent forms and logical progression of key areas present in Schumann and Brahms. These two do feature a lyricism not found in Beethoven. Their counterpoint is also more akin to Bach or Palestrina. However there is certainly Beethoven's stamp of the heavy orchestra particularly in Brahms symphony no 1. I also find Brahms and Schumann very good in terms of the type of logical coherency that is masterful in Beethoven. 

I know that is a lot but this is a big topic. Who do you hear as Beethoven's continuation and through what elements of the music? Feel free to bring in other influences and names as well.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

In "Lives of the Great Composers", the author, Harold Schoenberg, contends that every symphony by Bruckner and Mahler was an attempt at rewriting Beethoven's 9th. This is especially apparent in the soaring adagios that mark Bruckner and Mahler's symphonic output.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

For me, the trait that is most Beethoven-like is one of rigorous, logical development - no wasted notes, no "note spinning", no triviality. That rules out most composers who were Romantic in nature, leaving not too many. Brahms certainly was more Romantic than Beethoven yet at heart was a classicist. His symphonies are decendents of Beethoven. Bruckner, while clearly taking on many Wagnerian traits, still proceeded in a Beethoven-like manner, if a lot more long-winded. The Austro-German line seemed to end with Franz Schmidt and his four symphonies. Sibelius followed in Ludwig's steps, but then that line ran dry. Lesser know are the symphonies of Wilhelm Furtwangler who was a clear descendent of Bruckner - and a lot less successful. Of the more modern composers, the Russian Miaskovsky followed Beethoven's model of clear design, rigorous logic in the music.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I never thought Wagner was the logical musical descendent of Beethoven, the man just wouldn't cadence.:lol: But seriously, Beethoven is to Brahms what Wagner is to Schoenberg.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Schumann's solo piano music. A lot of Beethoven's influence there: Fantasie in C; Symphonic Etudes; Kreisleriana and Humoreske.

I doubt if Schumann's piano music could have happened without the Hammerklavier Sonata coming first: the "heroic" and the "poetic" both found in spades in the Hammerklavier and which became Schumann's calling card-playing each, one against the other.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

For me it is Shostakovich I have always thought of him as a son of Ludwig.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Both the Wagner and the Brahms camp loudly claimed that they were the true descendants of Beethoven. They were both right. The man was rather influential; that's sort of one reason why he's considered a great composer even by people who don't actually like his music.

But those final string quartets and piano works? I'm not sure anything like that existed either before or after him. It's his second period that left all the descendants.


----------



## Nicksievers (Dec 20, 2017)

I tried to hide my bias in the original post. I very much prefer the music of Brahms and Schumann. I do really enjoy some textures from the so called new german school. Although it seems that their obsession with their programmatic elements completely destroys any coherence in their music. Can someone point me to a work by Berlioz or Wagner that agrees with itself throughout? I genuinely want to know because my search has left me with nothing.


----------



## Nicksievers (Dec 20, 2017)

I am pretty inexperienced with Shostakovich but I am intrigued now. What elements of it do you see similar to Beethoven? Is it his motivic treatment? What's your favorite by him?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Brahms musical temperament to me just seems very far removed from Beethoven's. Towards the end of his life it seems like Brahms became more interested in J.S. Bach, and his music has more of that kind of feel to it to me. 

I think Schubert and Schumann were much closer to Beethoven stylistically than Brahms or Wagner. Wagner really knew how to use harmony to create effect in ways I just don't hear in Beethoven, who more favored the use of contrasting formal devices and dynamics. I think Liszt and Berlioz certainly had some impact on Wagner's sound, perhaps Weber and Chopin as well. 

I do consider Mahler a descendant of Beethoven due to the eccentric mood swings in his music and his sprawling use of form.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nicksievers said:


> I am pretty inexperienced with Shostakovich but I am intrigued now. What elements of it do you see similar to Beethoven? Is it his motivic treatment? What's your favorite by him?


I also consider Shostakovich as being closer to Beethoven than any of the Romantic era composers. But it has nothing to do with compositional techniques.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Nicksievers said:


> Can someone point me to a work by Berlioz or Wagner that agrees with itself throughout?





Nicksievers said:


> I am pretty inexperienced with Shostakovich but I am intrigued now. What elements of it do you see similar to Beethoven? Is it his motivic treatment? What's your favorite by him?


I don't know what you mean by that first quote. Do you mean a work wholly integrated by common threads? Or music which is organic, that is, it grows from some basic materials? In this, Wagner is an absolute master. The early operas don't exhibit this character, but the later ones sure do - in a remarkable, unmatched way. A comprehensive, detailed study of the entire Ring cycle will expose his methods and technique; but it takes a LONG time to study it that way. There are some pretty good books that try to bring it all together and explain it. Careful listening, preferably with a score, will reveal the extraordinary genius behind it all. The operas are not just a bunch of boring dialogues separated by some great orchestral numbers.

Shostakovich I love, but I've never heard the Beethoven in him. His goals were something else, and symphonic development isn't his goal. The Soviet authorities considered Beethoven to be "healthy" music that a good Soviet composer who wanted to stay alive should stive to emulate - and so it's no surprise that the 5th symphony is quite traditional and closer to the Beethoven model than any of the others. Study of that score is quite rewarding. Trace the repeated use of themes and ideas. The interval of a 4th is used in melodic material repeatedly for example.


----------



## Nicksievers (Dec 20, 2017)

Yes I was somewhat vague. What I meant is primarily pacing. Much of the output of the new german school seems to me appallingly terrible in its pacing. I admit I am not very experience with opera but I find there are some monstrosities in the genre of programmatic instrumental music. I find that many programmatic composers mistaking linguistic narrative pacing with musical pacing as well as passages that serve a narrative role but are musically very out of place. Let me give you an example. The Dies Irae in Symphonie Fantastique makes absolutely no sense in the music except for its narrative benefit with its historical association. I also find in some tone poems of Strauss, passages that seem very out of place musically but serve a narrative role via lietmotif. This isn't to say that programmatic elements can't make sense. For example, Beethoven's bird calls in his pastoral symphony feel so natural to the music, since by way of proper pacing the music has led to that exposed open section. I find this culminating in much of Wagner's music. He might introduce an intense passage with a leitmotif that the narrative demanded but musically it feels out of place. Yes, I recognize that he is a master of his handling of motivic material. However it seems that the logic of the music takes a backseat to the narrative.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Nicksievers said:


> Yes I was somewhat vague. What I meant is primarily pacing. *Much of the output of the new german school seems to me appallingly terrible in its pacing.* I admit *I am not very experience with opera but I find there are some monstrosities in the genre of programmatic instrumental music.* I find that many programmatic composers mistaking linguistic narrative pacing with musical pacing as well as passages that serve a narrative role but are musically very out of place. Let me give you an example. The Dies Irae in Symphonie Fantastique makes absolutely no sense in the music except for its narrative benefit with its historical association. I also find in some tone poems of Strauss, passages that seem very out of place musically but serve a narrative role via lietmotif. This isn't to say that programmatic elements can't make sense. For example, Beethoven's bird calls in his pastoral symphony feel so natural to the music, since by way of proper pacing the music has led to that exposed open section. *I find this culminating in much of Wagner's music. He might introduce an intense passage with a leitmotif that the narrative demanded but musically it feels out of place. Yes, I recognize that he is a master of his handling of motivic material. However it seems that the logic of the music takes a backseat to the narrative.*


The idea of musical form as generated by an extramusical idea or expressive narrative is essentially Romantic (though not without precedent), and Beethoven bears much of the responsibility for its ascendance. You can bet that the opening movement of the "Eroica" was not readily grasped as a form by its early hearers, and they were right in sensing a difference between its dramatic narrativity, which would have sounded to them like an excess of fancy, and the tight, balanced, easily perceptible Classical structures of Haydn. Wagner reasonably (from his Romantic perspective) saw this radical aspect of Beethoven - his sense of musical drama and the theoretically limitless expansion of form it suggested - as pointing toward actual drama on the stage, to be conveyed through music of symphonic scope.

It isn't quite right to say that the logic of Wagner's operatic music takes a backseat to narrative, since dramatic narrative, in many instances, provides the logic: dramatic expression is what the music_ is,_ and it makes no sense to look for "purely musical" justification for what is an essentially a dramatic idea. Wagner, however, had an uncanny skill at developing his motivic material and integrating it with carefully plotted key relationships to create a psychological progression, an arc of feeling, a structure with direction and coherence meant to be felt rather than grasped intellectually. It's been remarked that his music, by subjugating form to expression, breaks down the aesthetic distance, the mental "proscenium," which mediated between the composer's art and the listener's perception, and which had characterized the experience of music up until then. And yet, closer examination reveals a surprising quantity of traditionally balanced musical forms embedded in his huge structures, forms which are simply prevented from imposing themselves on our intellects by means of clever interlockings and harmonic deceptions.

I'll also remark that Berlioz's _idee fixe_ barely encroaches on the musical and dramatic elaboration of the Wagnerian _leitmotiv._ Wagner disliked the term "leitmotiv," preferring the term _grundthema_ (roughly and clumsily, "theme which is the basis") which better describes the musical function of his motifs. His practice of thematic transformation, his ability to get seemingly limitless mileage out of simple materials, has no more potent ancestor than Beethoven's fifth symphony.

Wagner was aware of the dangers posed by the attempt to apply some of his dramatic effects to abstract instrumental music, noting that "for the symphony one proceeds very differently," and he mused in a letter to Liszt about a concept of symphonic writing based on thematic metamorphosis. That sounds a bit like Sibelius, but we can see the principle at work in some of his orchestral passages. Too bad he didn't live long enough to get around to those symphonies.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Beethoven was sui generis. A lot of composers tried to use him as a starting off point -- each in a different way -- but none successful in doing anything that wasn't intrinsic to himself. Brahms was certainly more of a strict classicist than most of his contemporaries. Berlioz and Wagner both worshipped Beethoven but took their music in wildly contrary directions (Liszt too); Schumann was incapable of strict Beethovenian motivic development; Mahler could do nothiing _but_ develop albeit in a more free-form way; Schubert's late works approached Beethoven's late spirituality most closely; Bruckner was good at carving movements out of blocks of granite, like the first movement of B's Ninth . . . basically, almost every mid-nineteenth century composer thought he was taking up where Beethoven left off -- but none was.


----------



## Nicksievers (Dec 20, 2017)

I absolutely agree with the Schubert. Most of his early stuff I hear as more an extension of Mozart stylistically. However his unfinished and great C major absolutely have Beethoven's stamp.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I would have said that Schubert is the first obvious descendent of Beethoven - he was a pall bearer at the great man's funeral and you can see the late symphonies and quartets owe something to Lud. Of course, Beethoven was such a colossus that he influenced just about everyone after him. Even Verdi thought Beethoven was the greatest and you can hear echoes of Beethoven in some of Verdi's symphonic writing - for example the Forces of Destiny prelude has the same feeling as some of Beethoven's overtures.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MarkW said:


> Basically, almost every mid-nineteenth century composer thought he was taking up where Beethoven left off -- but none was.


If you had asked every 19th-century composer whether he was taking up where Beethoven had left off, I'm sure that few would have answered in the affirmative. Wagner would have, but only in the particular respect relevant to his own work.

Where _did_ Beethoven leave off, anyway?


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

Nicksievers said:


> I am pretty inexperienced with Shostakovich but I am intrigued now. What elements of it do you see similar to Beethoven? Is it his motivic treatment? What's your favorite by him?


In my view, it's the emotional tension that links Beethoven to so many including Shostakovich. While Haydn and Mozart seem to work on a purely musical level that strives for balance, Beethoven is more often at war with himself. This type of struggle or secret war that the composer has with himself, seems to also be apparent in the music of Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich (very much Shostakovich). Even Tchaikovsky, who professed to aspire to Mozart and not Beethoven, seems to place a very strong sense of personal struggle into his final three canonical symphonies. Along this line, it seems that Beethoven's presence is everywhere. Nobody dominates like Beethoven, not the New York Yankees, New England Patriots, Muhammad Ali, Bobby Fisher, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Michael Jackson...

...no one leaves their mark on a field or discipline like Beethoven. It's not until composers along the line of Debussy and Stravinsky come along, does Beethoven's influence seem to become less significant.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I see no relationship to any composer that followed Beethoven and Ludwig himself. I doubt his influence was on Schubert; they lived at the same time and Schubert died much sooner. 

I hear more of his influence in Mendelssohn than in Schubert or Shostakovich. Certainly Mendelssohn's "Lobgesang" symphony was a direct descendent of Beethoven's "choral." Mendelssohn also composed "Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage" while Beethoven did same. The violin concertos for the two composers are of similar duration and development, also. Ever heard Mendelssohn's Piano Sonata Op.6? Listen to it sometime and decide if that is not early Beethoven revisited. 

It is true that Bruckner began 8 of his 9 numbered symphonies in cadences similar to what begins Beethoven's "choral" but I hear no Beethoven in he or Mahler otherwise. In Mahler, especially, I hear more of an anti-Beethoven developmental form. To me, the composer I think of more often when I hear Mahler and Bruckner is Liszt: all three ramble and meander endlessly before making their points. This is not Beethoven.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Nicksievers said:


> I am pretty inexperienced with Shostakovich but I am intrigued now. What elements of it do you see similar to Beethoven? Is it his motivic treatment? What's your favorite by him?


I find the symphonies of both composers have the same feeling/intensity both composers use very simple themes and build around them a web of sound that appeals to me. Just a couple of interesting things I found on the www last night.

_Listen to Susan interview conductor Semyon Byshkov about the connection between Beethoven and Shostakovich.*Scroll down to the 2nd listen*_
http://wrti.org/post/shostakovich-and-beethoven-and-power-music

Also: The relationship between Beethoven and Shostakovich.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

larold said:


> ...It is true that Bruckner began 8 or his 9 numbered symphonies in cadences similar to what begins Beethoven's "choral" but I hear no Beethoven in he or Mahler otherwise. In Mahler, especially, I hear more of an anti-Beethoven developmental form. To me, the composer I think of more often when I hear Mahler and Bruckner is Liszt: all three ramble forward and meander endlessly before making their points. This is not Beethoven.


In "Lives of the Great Composers", the author, Harold Schonberg, makes a similar point, especially in regards to Mahler; that Mahler lacks the tight and heroic feeling that characterizes Beethoven. Even so, who can mistake the soaring adagios which are so characteristic in Bruckner and Mahler's symphonies as anything less than an attempt to rewrite Beethoven's adagio from the 9th symphony. Different men; different times; Bruckner the religious fanatic; Mahler the neurotic lying on the psychoanalyst's couch; my point is that Bruckner and Mahler (and for that matter, Shostakovich) follow after Beethoven's sense of struggle that he made the symphony a very personal musical journey.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

larold said:


> I doubt his influence was on Schubert; they lived at the same time and Schubert died much sooner.


Yet Schubert did know of Beethoven, practically deified him, and stated (paraphrase) 'who can do anything in music after Beethoven?', he also quoted him in some of his works.

Here are some other facts:

"When Schubert published his first substantial instrumental composition, the Variations on a French Theme for Piano Duet, op.10 (D 624) in 1822, it was dedicated to Beethoven from his 'worshipper and admirer Franz Schubert'. This is strong phraseology even for a dedication. Beethoven is said to have played Schubert's Variations with his nephew Karl and to have enjoyed them. Presumably Schubert, either directly or through his publishers Cappi and Diabelli, had obtained Beethoven's permission to dedicate the work to him. In making this dedication, Schubert was also passing up the chance to receive the gratuity he would have expected from a noble dedicatee. The act of homage to the older composer was clearly more important to him than financial considerations."

"Schubert knew his own worth and saw himself as the true successor to Beethoven. This belief was encouraged by Schindler's handover of the sheaf of poems, and also on Easter Monday 1827, when the celebrated violinist Ignaz Schuppanzigh gave his final subscription concert as an early memorial to Beethoven. The concert opened with the first public performance of Schubert's Octet (D803), followed by Beethoven's An die ferne Geliebte and an arrangement of the 'Emperor' concerto.13 In offering this juxtaposition, Schuppanzigh, who knew both Schubert and Beethoven and their instrumental works well, was providing an early answer to the challenging question posed by Franz Grillparzer in the fulsome eulogy he composed for Beethoven's funeral: 'Who shall stand beside him?'

http://unheardbeethoven.org/beethoven-and-schubert-2/


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Nicksievers said:


> I absolutely agree with the Schubert. Most of his early stuff I hear as more an extension of Mozart stylistically. However his unfinished and great C major absolutely have Beethoven's stamp.


Schubert goes into uncharted areas of form combined with thematic content in his C major symphony no. 9. It does grow out of the innovations of Beethoven and maybe some orchestration technique of Rossini, so while influenced by Beethoven let us be clear that it is mostly beyond having his "stamp."


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Some composers seem to have adapted their forms to house their melodic and harmonic content in a way that is often not proportionally far removed from Beethoven. I think of Dvorak or Nielsen(5 really breaks out of this mold though). Very different content, but they found a Beethovenian or Brahmsian/Schumanesque mold worked for them much of the time.

In terms of Beethoven 2.0, the evolution of form, we might look to Mahler, Bruckner, or Sibelius. Tchaikovsky even pushed on it or reshaped a little in his way, but like Chopin he seems to have found his way around him, mostly. Brahms seemed to do some significant reshaping, but sewed things a little more tightly rather than expanding, except maybe no. 1. Wagner maybe tried to emulate what he considered the most emotionally rich aspects of Beethoven, and maybe the leitmotif is Beethoven 2.0.

I need to listen more to really know.


----------



## licorice stick (Nov 24, 2014)

Who was the heir to Mozart? Who to Bach? I cannot think of any composer who took the baton from the towering greats and continued down the same path, not even Beethoven from Mozart despite Beethoven's magnificent emulation of Mozart in his early works. Schubert comes closest to being the direct descendent of Beethoven, although he converged on Beethoven from an earlier more Italianate style and in the last months of his life diverged in the direction of Mahler. Early Brahms has strained similarities to Beethoven, but middle and late Brahms are totally different creatures.


----------



## DreamBigKeys (Apr 15, 2018)

Neither. In my opinion, Beethoven was followed by Schubert, then Mendelssohn. There I think it’d be fair to argue whether Brahms/Schumann camp or Liszt/Wagner camp was better in developing music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Nicksievers said:


> I am curious as to who you believe to be the true descendants of Beethoven? Is it the camp of Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner or Schumann and Brahms?


Considering works like fantasie Op.17, I feel Schumann's way of thinking in some ways was "neutral" between the two camps rather than strong inclination toward one of them.

"At the same time, the overture was hailed as the legitimate heir to the symphony, and as a potential way out of the post-Beethovenian crisis of orchestral music. In his famous 1835 review of Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique, Schumann declared the symphony in Germany all but dead. _"It was feared that the name of the symphony now belonged only to history."_"
The Romantic Overture and Musical Form from Rossini to Wagner · Steven Vande Moortele · 2017 · P. 32


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> "Schubert knew his own worth and saw himself as the true successor to Beethoven.


Schubert's admiration for Beethoven wasn't questionable, but it's worth noting that as a composer himself Beethoven wasn't the sort Schubert said he _wanted to be like_. It also seems a bit like his main models were prolific composers of the German song and mass of the late 18th century, such as Johann Friedrich Reichardt (1752-1814) Johann Friedrich Reichardt
"I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes, and we went on.)"
[P.138 from 'Franz Schubert: A Biography' by Henry Frost]


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

It is my opinion that a composer such as *Arnold Schoenberg* is a true descendant of Ludwig van Beethoven. Schoenberg's music exhibits the same kind of rigorous command of his materials and disciplined thematic development.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

MarkW said:


> Beethoven was sui generis. A lot of composers tried to use him as a starting off point -- each in a different way -- but none successful in doing anything that wasn't intrinsic to himself. Brahms was certainly more of a strict classicist than most of his contemporaries. Berlioz and Wagner both worshipped Beethoven but took their music in wildly contrary directions (Liszt too); Schumann was incapable of strict Beethovenian motivic development; Mahler could do nothiing _but_ develop albeit in a more free-form way; Schubert's late works approached Beethoven's late spirituality most closely; Bruckner was good at carving movements out of blocks of granite, like the first movement of B's Ninth . . . basically, almost every mid-nineteenth century composer thought he was taking up where Beethoven left off -- but none was.


I would agree with this while also calling Schubert Beethoven's greatest student.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MarkW said:


> Schubert's late works approached Beethoven's late spirituality most closely


I'm sorry to say that I don't see this. Schubert, especially the later music, doesn't seem to me to have the same vibe as late Beethoven at all. You could be right, it's not as if I know much about either composer, but from my superficial acquaintance with their music, I'm not with you. I hope you'll make me understand what you've seen.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MarkW said:


> Schumann was incapable of strict Beethovenian motivic development.


I think you're doing a bit of an injustice to Schumann actually -- but maybe I don't know what "strict motivic development" is. Why isn't there strict motivic development in op 11/i for example? Or op 13?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

MarkW said:


> basically, almost every mid-nineteenth century composer thought he was taking up where Beethoven left off -- but none was.


George Onslow maybe.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Late Schubert seems even more sui generis and even less apt to be taken as model for later composers than late Beethoven. Schubert didn't live long enough to digest late Beethoven. He took some leads from early-middle Beethoven but was pretty much his own man in his best pieces, I think. It's a different way of expansion of the older "classical" forms.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's Schubert's Diabelli variation






and his funeral march


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

The remarkable thing about Beethoven is that the War of the Romantics was largely over what aspects of his art to focus on and develop. The fact that Beethoven fused the "progressive" ideas that Berlioz, Wagner and Liszt would run with with the "classical" ideas that Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Brahms would run with (poor Schumann was left to try to single-handedly sew the rift back together, being pulled simultaneously in both directions) and ended up with descendants that were both radical and traditional is a testament to his monumental genius. I don't think it makes sense to talk about "true" descendants (is that similar to a "true" Scotsman?) because all of the composers influenced by Beethoven, who developed his ideas, are his descendants. The only issue is to what extent do these descendants owe their artistry to Beethoven compared to other composers and compared to their own ingenuity. That is obviously impossible to measure in any quantitative way, so we're left to discuss and tease out such ambiguities.

I think what I'm left with is hearing aspects of Beethoven's genius in later composers without any of them managing to capture the full range of his talents. In Brahms I can hear the full-flowering of motivic and formal development; in Wagner I can hear the development of music as a form of drama; in Liszt I can hear the pianistic virtuosity and intent on making the piano itself compete with the grandness and versatile breadth of the orchestra; in Schumann and Schubert I can hear the profound poetry of often tortured souls and the desire to be progressive while still adhering to classical principles; in Mahler and Bruckner I hear the cosmic-sized spirituality; in Berlioz I hear the freedom and innovative programmatic aspects. Talking about which of these is more "true" doesn't make much sense to me. I just appreciate them all, including the aspects in which I hear Beethoven's echo.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Schoenberg is the most similar to him in function, though their music obviously has stylistic differences. Like Schoenberg and Wagner, Beethoven was someone I sometimes call a "before and after" guy - someone who had such impact that you can divide musical history into the period before their work, and after their work, in which case Wagner and Schoenberg are the most likely candidates. 

Of course, historical importance is only one aspect of Beethoven, but it's probably the one thing that sets him apart the most from all other composers.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Shostakovich I love, but I've never heard the Beethoven in him. His goals were something else, and symphonic development isn't his goal. The Soviet authorities considered Beethoven to be "healthy" music that a good Soviet composer who wanted to stay alive should stive to emulate - and so *it's no surprise that the 5th symphony is quite traditional and closer to the Beethoven model than any of the others.*


I'll dispute that. The Tenth, I would argue, is much closer. Consider that its opening motto returns as the basis of a principal theme of the scherzo, just as in Beethoven's Fifth. And, just like the Beethoven, the scherzo theme is brought back in the development section of the finale so that it can be cancelled at the onset of the recap, in Shostakovich's Tenth by the composer's signature motive. Thus Shostakovich followed the cyclic thematic plan of Beethoven's Fifth quite closely. I hear no such specific modelling in Shostakovich's Fifth.

Moreover, the closest models for the opening movement of the Tenth are, arguably, Rachmaninoff's Second and Tchaikovsky's Fifth, both of which are in the same key, E minor, and both of which also owe a debt to Beethoven in their cyclic designs.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> For me, the trait that is most Beethoven-like is one of rigorous, logical development - no wasted notes, no "note spinning", no triviality. That rules out most composers who were Romantic in nature,


there is plenty of stock note-spinning in Beethoven, just listen to any of the early to mid piano sonatas, you can find filler passages of arpeggios & scale runs just like in any other music of the period. Its all very well done of course, but it could just as easily been written by Czerny, Hummel or any other competent composer of the period. Schumann more or less avoided stock scale and arpeggio runs, while Chopin's originality in figuration became indispensable to the overall structure of the music


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

I don't think it's necessarily a given that scales and arpeggios always equate to note spinning or stock filler passages, and are therefore some sort of sign of banality. For example, instead of just jarringly going from one distant register to another, one may get there smoothly with the help of a scale or arpeggio. Scales also make the voice-leading much more coherent to the listener (and performers), especially if in the bass. Scales and arpeggios can also help in quickly establishing tonalities/new tonalities when modulating and are also quite useful in generating melodic or even accompanying material. They can help delineate more important thematic materials by keeping them separate and distinct from each other, help build momentum, and be extremely useful in transitions, introductions, and climaxes.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Torkelburger said:


> I don't think it's necessarily a given that scales and arpeggios always equate to note spinning or stock filler passages, and are therefore some sort of sign of banality. For example, instead of just jarringly going from one distant register to another, one may get there smoothly with the help of a scale or arpeggio. Scales also make the voice-leading much more coherent to the listener (and performers), especially if in the bass. Scales and arpeggios can also help in quickly establishing tonalities/new tonalities when modulating and are also quite useful in generating melodic or even accompanying material. They can help delineate more important thematic materials by keeping them separate and distinct from each other, help build momentum, and be extremely useful in transitions, introductions, and climaxes.


Indeed, they are integral to the classical and galant style


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

* True descendants of Beethoven*

Unless I'm mistaken, that's the plot substance of _Beethoven's 2nd_. The movie.









Cute little buggers they are, too.


----------



## Durendal (Oct 24, 2018)

Beethoven was unique. There is no other composer you could mistake him for. I've occasionally seen the comment that Brahms' first symphony was in essence Beethoven's tenth, but while Brahms was certainly a solid composer, I don't feel that he was in Ludwig's league...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Durendal said:


> Beethoven was unique. There is no other composer you could mistake him for.


Haendel. For example, sometimes I think that, for example, some of Samson's arias sound very like Florestan's.

And I know I'm scoring a point against my own thesis yesterday, but now I think about it, some of Schubert's violin sonatas sound very Beethovenish to me. The op 137 sonatas -- op 137/3/i for example. Here, see what you think


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Schubert has some Beethovenian passages, like that beginning, but from 0:33 or so, it becomes almost "Auf dem Wasser zu singen". And Beethoven does have some Schubertian passages (in the trios op.70/2 and 97 although they were also influential pieces for Schubert, so it could retrograde projection by the listener) and movements, e.g. the finale of the sonata op.90.

The most "Beethoven-like" music is probably from minor composers in his environment, such a Ries. The so-called Jena symphony by Friedrich Witt was mistaken for an early Beethoven piece. This one is so strongly indebted to Haydn's #97, that I am surprised historians could have thought Beethoven would write such a "clone" (maybe with 15 but not with 25).


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I'm sorry to say that I don't see this. Schubert, especially the later music, doesn't seem to me to have the same vibe as late Beethoven at all. You could be right, it's not as if I know much about either composer, but from my superficial acquaintance with their music, I'm not with you. I hope you'll make me understand what you've seen.


I wonder if Schubert's String Quintet is a sort of response to Beethoven's late quartets-- Schubert loved Beethoven's Op. 131 quartet (he requested to hear it when he was on his deathbed) so maybe he was trying to create an equally sublime work in his OWN style?

And, more definitively, Schubert's Great C-Major Symphony is clearly a response to Beethoven's Ninth.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Friedrich Witt


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> I wonder if Schubert's String Quintet is a sort of response to


"... The rewriting of the main theme at the opening of the recapitulation, however, reveals that Schubert had Mozart's famous C major Quintet in mind all along. The recapitulation, in which the detached mounting arpeggio that is a principal element of Mozart's opening now appears (introduced at the end of Schubert's development and continued into the reprise), allows us to see that two other elements of Mozart's structure were already present in Schubert: the decorative and expressive turn is found in both works at the fourth bar of the opening phrase, and Mozart's eccentric five-bar rhythmic structure has been retained but adapted by Schubert to a ten-bar structure. The rhythm, and this is typical of Schubert, is basically similar to his classical model but stretched out to be twice as long. In addition, Mozart shortens a later appearance of his main theme in the exposition to the more orthodox four-bar groups (the fifth bar of each original phrase overlapping with the next), and Schubert obediently follows suit in the counter-statement of his main theme by shortening his ten bars to seven-bar groups (actually eight-bar overlapping phrases). Essentially, even in the last of his great instrumental works, we can see that Schubert retained the conventional Viennese models (Mozart's above all) and increased their size, giving them the greater sense of space that was Schubert's most extraordinary innovation, and which would have a signal effect on the future history of music in the work of both Brahms and Bruckner."
<Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance Practice, Analysis, Edited by Brian Newbould, P. 5>



> more definitively, Schubert's Great C-Major Symphony is clearly a response to Beethoven's Ninth.


Sorry, but I fail to see how.


----------



## Michael122 (Sep 16, 2021)

This is the type of thread we should have more of.
Great topic, excellent responses.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "... The rewriting of the main theme at the opening of the recapitulation, however, reveals that Schubert had Mozart's famous C major Quintet in mind all along. The recapitulation, in which the detached mounting arpeggio that is a principal element of Mozart's opening now appears (introduced at the end of Schubert's development and continued into the reprise), allows us to see that two other elements of Mozart's structure were already present in Schubert: the decorative and expressive turn is found in both works at the fourth bar of the opening phrase, and Mozart's eccentric five-bar rhythmic structure has been retained but adapted by Schubert to a ten-bar structure. The rhythm, and this is typical of Schubert, is basically similar to his classical model but stretched out to be twice as long. In addition, Mozart shortens a later appearance of his main theme in the exposition to the more orthodox four-bar groups (the fifth bar of each original phrase overlapping with the next), and Schubert obediently follows suit in the counter-statement of his main theme by shortening his ten bars to seven-bar groups (actually eight-bar overlapping phrases). Essentially, even in the last of his great instrumental works, we can see that Schubert retained the conventional Viennese models (Mozart's above all) and increased their size, giving them the greater sense of space that was Schubert's most extraordinary innovation, and which would have a signal effect on the future history of music in the work of both Brahms and Bruckner."
> <Schubert the Progressive: History, Performance Practice, Analysis, Edited by Brian Newbould, P. 5>
> 
> Sorry, but I fail to see how.


[Responding to last bit-- the other example was speculation on my part that your source shows to be wrong]

1) A sprawling symphony started soon after Beethoven premiered his Ninth
2) Schubert quotes the Ode to Joy theme in the finale


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Schubert's Great C major is a "response" to Beethovens *Seventh*. There are many clear parallels: very long slowish intro, all movements are strongly defined by rhythmic motives, strong contrast scherzo-trio (and same key relation, a third down although the scherzo itself is in the main key of the symphony, thus more "regular" than Beethoven), minor key "walking" slow movement (with a strong minor-major contrast) 
But Schubert was of course able to produce something thoroughly his own.

Other Schubert pieces that seem at least somewhat influenced by specific Beethoven pieces or gestures could be the sonata D 850 (cf. first movement of op.10/3), D 958 (c minor variations have a similar theme to its first movement) and the d minor quartet (5th symphony and f minor quartet).


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I feel, among the candidates, only Berlioz believed that he was an heir to Beethoven.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Highwayman said:


> I feel, among the candidates, only Berlioz believed that he was an heir to Beethoven.


As well as heir to Gluck, Cherubini, Shakespeare, Lord Byron and probably even Virgil, Sophokles and Homer...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Torkelburger said:


> I don't think it's necessarily a given that scales and arpeggios always equate to note spinning or stock filler passages, and are therefore some sort of sign of banality. For example, instead of just jarringly going from one distant register to another, one may get there smoothly with the help of a scale or arpeggio. Scales also make the voice-leading much more coherent to the listener (and performers), especially if in the bass. Scales and arpeggios can also help in quickly establishing tonalities/new tonalities when modulating and are also quite useful in generating melodic or even accompanying material. They can help delineate more important thematic materials by keeping them separate and distinct from each other, help build momentum, and be extremely useful in transitions, introductions, and climaxes.


Well said. I often hear scale and arpeggio passages in Beethoven as primarily gestural in the dramatic sense. If one needs a sweeping upward flight or a crushing rain of brimstone, what else would one build it out of in that style?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Highwayman said:


> I feel, among the candidates, only Berlioz believed that he was an heir to Beethoven.


He certainly loved Beethoven, though I always figured from his own writings that he wanted to be the last Gluck-ian more than anything.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Isn't Schubert more like a contemporary of Beethoven who developed an appreciation for Beethoven's music late in his life?


hammeredklavier said:


> Schubert's admiration for Beethoven wasn't questionable, but it's worth noting that as a composer himself Beethoven wasn't the sort Schubert said he _wanted to be like_. It also seems a bit like his main models were prolific composers of the German song and mass of the late 18th century, such as Johann Friedrich Reichardt (1752-1814) Johann Friedrich Reichardt
> "I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes, and we went on.)"
> [P.138 from 'Franz Schubert: A Biography' by Henry Frost]


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

I think one must analyse the three major different genres for which Beethoven composed.
First of all his instrument is the piano and he wrote his piano compositions mainly to perform them himself as he was a virtuoso. He alternates charming pieces like "Für Elise" with impressive magical masterpieces like the Appassionata, The Hammerklavier and 111. I am of the opinion that the composer who reached comparable magical moments is Schumann with his Fantasia, Kreisleriana, Fantasiestücke and Symphonic Etudes.
His symphonies served to prove his superiority as a pioneering composer and relied on the three elements of structure that are contrast, repetition and development.I think you can find some of these elements in Brahms (Symphonies 1 and 4) and in Bruckner (Symphonies 6,8, 9). 
As to the pinnacle of his oeuvre the string quartets they were composed for future generations as Beethoven said himself. They are so advanced that most people that listen to them now believe it is modern or contemporary music. Nobody in the 19th century could approach such mastery. Only Schoenberg, Bartok and to a lesser extent Shostakovich are worthy descendants of the great Beethoven in this genre.


----------

