# Beethoven's 5th Symphony



## Judith

Programme recently on BBC about this symphony and what was going on in his mind when he composed it. Some people thought it was to do with the French Revolution at the time, but I'm going with the theory of him being frustrated at going deaf, as the first few notes reflect. What does anyone else think? The whole symphony was shown performed by "Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique" using the original instruments of the time and was conducted by John Eliot Gardiner.


----------



## Mahlerian

If he had a program in his mind, he never revealed it. Theories abound, but it's the music that matters.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Beethoven started composing the 5th one Christmas, and was tucking into his favourite exotic dried fruits when he accidentally hit the box with his elbow and they tumbled off his desk. Inspired by the sound they made, the opening motif thus represents "Dates knocked onto the floor". This was subsequently misheard, and the rest is history.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

The music speaks for itself. There is no need for any program, as is the case with all the great symphonic music.

It's worth noting also that Beethoven was not in the habit of providing any programs to his symphonic music. if he did intend any for his 5th symphony, we have no records of it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Beethoven started composing the 5th one Christmas, and was tucking into his favourite exotic dried fruits when he accidentally hit the box with his elbow and they tumbled off his desk. Inspired by the sound they made, the opening motif thus represents "*Dates knocked onto the floor*". This was subsequently misheard, and the rest is history.


Doesn't fit the Dah dah dah daaaaaaah rhythm! Myth busted


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Doesn't fit the Dah dah dah daaaaaaah rhythm! Myth busted


You don't know how many dates were left in the box. Myth reinstated


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven: "I think I'll write my C-minor using this rhythm, and then see if Schindler makes up some stupid story about it."


----------



## Guest

I must say I found that programme wholly convincing and it seemed to me that J Eliot Gardner was an engaging presenter. I don't think it would be true to suggest that there was a 'program', but his incorporation of the revolutionary tunes of the day could lead one to conclude that he wanted to "say" something about the turbulent times in which he lived.


----------



## Pugg

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> The music speaks for itself. There is no need for any program, as is the case with all the great symphonic music.
> 
> It's worth noting also that Beethoven was not in the habit of providing any programs to his symphonic music. if he did intend any for his 5th symphony, we have no records of it.


And lots of them.


----------



## Judith

Watched the performance again on TV as it was repeated. Sounds more fuller played on old instuments than modern day ones. A much deeper tone.


----------



## Merl

"Thus Fate knocks at the door!"

Schindler was such a bulls**tter. It was probably, Fay (his next door neighbour) knocking at the door. He wouldnt have heard her, though.


----------



## EdwardBast

By framing the problem of interpreting the Fifth Symphony as primarily one of programmatic music versus pure or absolute music we (meaning you , that is, most posters upthread) are perpetuating a more than two-century old mistake. As several prominent musical narrative theorists have recently argued, what Beethoven accomplishes in the Fifth is something far more subtle, universal and important than hiding a specific program or story in its structure. What he did, they argue, was successfully apply a new formal principle: using an abstract plot structure, that is, one without any specific referents in the real world, to solve the most important formal problem facing him: how to convincingly unify highly expressive multimovement works from beginning to end. The purely technical part of the solution is obvious: bring back or transform the themes of earlier movements in the finale and elsewhere, a procedure commonly called cyclic structure. The Fifth Symphony is one of the first works of Beethoven to do this systematically. But if ones opening movement is unique and strikingly expressive, as in the Fifth, truly effective unity requires that the later movements respond not only to its technical elements, but to its expressive dimension as well. Beethoven's solution, the narrativists argue, was to organize the thematic reprises and transformations entailed in cyclic structure according to a comprehensive expressive plan, what they would call an abstract plot structure.

The elements of this plot structure are (1) an overall progression from stormy music in the minor mode in the first movement to the triumphant, exuberant music of a major mode finale, which by convention is heard as a move from a negative expressive state to a positive one — something like anguish to joy, despair to hope, dark to light, sickness to health, whatever. (2) Reprising in the finale material recalling the dark first movement, as in the da-da-da-dum second subject of the scherzo, to both threaten a return to the initial negative state of the first movement and to emphasize the trajectory toward the light embodied in the themes of the finale. In this way Beethoven makes the finale respond to the expressive character of the first movement, thus simultaneously rounding off the structure through a grand thematic recapitulation while imposing a satisfying expressive resolution.

The abstract "plot" of the Fifth, that is, roughly, dark to light with a threat of reversal in the finale, is so general that it could accommodate any number of real-world stories. This storied quality in its structure is why listeners and critics, probably including whoever wrote the BBC program mentioned above, have for centuries been deceived into thinking that it must have been intended to express some specific program. I think the Fifth does have great human significance, but trying to reduce this significance to a specific program or biographically based story cheapens the work, dragging the universal down to a mundane level.


----------



## realdealblues

Judith said:


> Watched the performance again on TV as it was repeated. Sounds more fuller played on old instuments than modern day ones. A much deeper tone.


I have yet to hear ANY performance of any orchestral work by any composer on period instruments that sounded "fuller" or had a "deeper tone" than any on modern instruments.

I have not seen this program and don't know if Gardiner has re-recorded something but I have heard his old cycle with the Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique literally hundreds of times and it is terribly thin sounding. I've owned and compared over 60 Beethoven cycles, many of them on period instruments and none of them sound fuller or deeper than modern instruments except for maybe when compared to some mono recordings or some very poorly mic'd stereo recordings.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Part of the enduring appeal of the 5th (and Beethoven's music in general) is this lack of programmatic nature. The music is as pure abstract music as it gets. I've listened to the 5th hundreds of times and am yet to get bored of it.


----------



## DavidA

Really enjoyed the program which came up with intriguing theories. Well worth watching and engagingly presented by Hislop and Gardiner. See for yourselves.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> This storied quality in its structure is why listeners and critics, probably including whoever wrote the BBC program mentioned above, have for centuries been deceived into thinking that it must have been intended to express some specific program. I think the Fifth does have great human significance, but trying to reduce this significance to a specific program or biographically based story cheapens the work, dragging the universal down to a mundane level.





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Part of the enduring appeal of the 5th (and Beethoven's music in general) is this lack of programmatic nature. The music is as pure abstract music as it gets. I've listened to the 5th hundreds of times and am yet to get bored of it.


Watch the programme and then decide if the presenters are claiming that there is a 'program'.

As for the idea that a 'program' somehow cheapens the work, that is, like all other opinions about the work, entirely subjective.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> Watch the programme and then decide if the presenters are claiming that there is a 'program'.
> 
> As for the idea that a 'program' somehow cheapens the work, that is, like all other opinions about the work, entirely subjective.


Having read some of Jan Swafford's biography of Beethoven, the thesis of the documentary is all too familiar. Swafford explores all of those same influences as the basis for the revolutionary nature of the Eroica - the relationship to the French Revolution and its ideals, the intellectual atmosphere of Enlightenment Bonn in Beethoven's youth, popular musical styles representing egalité, etc. I haven't gotten to his discussion of the Fifth yet.

Cheapens is probably the wrong word. My point is that tying a work irrevocably to an all too concrete program tends to limit the range of responses to it. This is probably why composers so often suppress their extramusical inspirations for works that otherwise could pass for absolute.

Edit: Watched the BBC program and found the interpretation and the connections to French revolutionary tunes unconvincing.


----------



## Merl

realdealblues said:


> I have yet to hear ANY performance of any orchestral work by any composer on period instruments that sounded "fuller" or had a "deeper tone" than any on modern instruments.


It's not whether they sound fuller for me, it's whether they sound good to my ears. I find the Gardiner Beethoven set much more pleasurable than Zinman's and Gardiner's rhythms are spot-on. Immerseel's set sounds better than Zinman to me, too. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Zinman and actually much prefer the performances of the 2-disc Overtures set. I do liek his Beethoven cycle too but it doesnt connect with me. If I'm in the mood for big bad Beethoven I listen to Rattle (new one), Chailly or Szell. If I want something a little more subdued I go for Immerseel or Ashkenazy (but even in there there's a massive difference). I love Gardiner's 5th.


----------



## realdealblues

Merl said:


> It's not whether they sound fuller for me, it's whether they sound good to my ears. I find the Gardiner Beethoven set much more pleasurable than Zinman's and Gardiner's rhythms are spot-on. Immerseel's set sounds better than Zinman to me, too. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Zinman and actually much prefer the performances of the 2-disc Overtures set. I do liek his Beethoven cycle too but it doesnt connect with me. If I'm in the mood for big bad Beethoven I listen to Rattle (new one), Chailly or Szell. If I want something a little more subdued I go for Immerseel or Ashkenazy (but even in there there's a massive difference). I love Gardiner's 5th.


Sounding good is one thing, sounding wimpy is another. Beethoven doesn't sound good to me when it sounds wimpy. I happen to like Paavo Jarvi's cycle with the exception of the 9th. They're HIP performances on modern instruments and when I hear his recording of the 9th I have to laugh because it lacks all impact. There is no power behind it, it sounds wimpy and skimpy and is devoid of all the power and grandeur Beethoven had in mind. The same is found in all the period instrument performances I have heard of the 9th. They are all far too small in scale.

And there's far more to sound when it comes to enjoying a cycle for me. I dislike the Zinman cycle because everything sounds rushed and choppy. I dislike the Immerseel cycle because of the poor and sour brass playing, I dislike Gardiner's cycle because it sounds thin, anemic and dull. Now, Chailly is something special as is Szell. With those two you have power and muscle, you have textural clarity, you have drive and orchestral discipline, great orchestral playing with perfect flow from one movement to the next. they are both highly recommendable in my book.


----------



## Merl

realdealblues said:


> Now, Chailly is something special as is Szell. With those two you have power and muscle, you have textural clarity, you have drive and orchestral discipline, great orchestral playing with perfect flow from one movement to the next. they are both highly recommendable in my book.


Couldn't agree more. The Chailly set is brilliant IMO and the one I've recommended to more people than any other complete cycle. That 7th is probably my favourite ever. Szell's set has bags of power and is great too. I'm really enjoying Rattle's BPO set but it aint as good as Chailly. Mackerras' cycle is one I adore for other reasons. I'm currently really enjoying Tremblay's take on Beethoven - a young(er) conductor with a youthful (and very talented) orchestra and lots of fresh, well-sprung rhythms. Just listening to some of Weller's set at the moment as I picked it up for £3 last week. It's fairly enjoyable, tbh (not groundbreaking by any standards but enjoyable). I still rate Blomstedt's in my top 3 Beethoven cycles too. The Dresden crew could really play.


----------



## Merl

realdealblues said:


> I happen to like Paavo Jarvi's cycle with the exception of the 9th. They're HIP performances on modern instruments and when I hear his recording of the 9th I have to laugh because it lacks all impact. There is no power behind it, it sounds wimpy and skimpy and is devoid of all the power and grandeur Beethoven had in mind.


I thought exactly the same thing. I still dont agree on Gardiner and Immerseel though.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MacLeod said:


> Watch the programme and then decide if the presenters are claiming that there is a 'program'.
> 
> As for the idea that a 'program' somehow cheapens the work, that is, like all other opinions about the work, entirely subjective.





EdwardBast said:


> Having read some of Jan Swafford's biography of Beethoven, the thesis of the documentary is all too familiar. Swafford explores all of those same influences as the basis for the revolutionary nature of the Eroica - the relationship to the French Revolution and its ideals, the intellectual atmosphere of Enlightenment Bonn in Beethoven's youth, popular musical styles representing egalité, etc. I haven't gotten to his discussion of the Fifth yet.
> 
> Cheapens is probably the wrong word. My point is that tying a work irrevocably to an all too concrete program tends to limit the range of responses to it. This is probably why composers so often suppress their extramusical inspirations for works that otherwise could pass for absolute.
> 
> Edit: Watched the BBC program and found the interpretation and the connections to French revolutionary tunes unconvincing.


My thoughts are pretty much EdwardBast's. Very unconvincing connections to the French revolution.

Why does there have to be such a specific message in the 5th? Why are people looking for such specific messages and really trying hard to find evidence(no matter how weak) to back up their believes?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

realdealblues said:


> Sounding good is one thing, sounding wimpy is another. Beethoven doesn't sound good to me when it sounds wimpy. I happen to like Paavo Jarvi's cycle with the exception of the 9th. They're HIP performances on modern instruments and when I hear his recording of the 9th I have to laugh because it lacks all impact. There is no power behind it, it sounds wimpy and skimpy and is devoid of all the power and grandeur Beethoven had in mind. The same is found in all the period instrument performances I have heard of the 9th. They are all far too small in scale.
> 
> And there's far more to sound when it comes to enjoying a cycle for me. I dislike the Zinman cycle because everything sounds rushed and choppy. I dislike the Immerseel cycle because of the poor and sour brass playing, I dislike Gardiner's cycle because it sounds thin, anemic and dull. Now, Chailly is something special as is Szell. With those two you have power and muscle, you have textural clarity, you have drive and orchestral discipline, great orchestral playing with perfect flow from one movement to the next. they are both highly recommendable in my book.


At the risk of slight threat derailment, I find the Chailly version of 5-8 just OK (I haven't listened to the full set). The 8th is the best of the lot and 7th the worst. Also, I find two major issues with the sound: the cellos and basses are not given as much prominence as the upper strings (partly the result of their placement, which seems to be behind the woodwinds) and the timpani sound is muffled. Lower strings and timpani are very important factors in Beethoven for me. Other than these two major reservations, Chaiily is good but nowhere near the top choice for me for symp 5-8, with the exception of perhaps the 8th.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Vaneyes said:


>


All 3 of these are excellent but better still is this


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Cheapens is probably the wrong word. My point is that tying a work irrevocably to an all too concrete program tends to limit the range of responses to it.


I'm encouraged to see you recognise that 'cheapens' is not the right word. However, I don't see why it should narrow the range of responses - we're all free to hear in it what we will, not least because even if LvB intended anything, he's not here to object - and even if he were able to, we'd no more take any notice of him than we would if we were hearing the 'wrong' thing in a composition by a living composer.

I would also say that in the case of this programme, no-one is making a case for a 'concrete' program, if you mean to imply that the music has some kind of story. I also fail to see why the music is, nevertheless, not 'about' something in the way that the Eroica was.



EdwardBast said:


> Edit: Watched the BBC program and found the interpretation and the connections to French revolutionary tunes unconvincing.


Well, with the greatest respect, if it convinces Sir JEG, it must have something going for it.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Why does there have to be such a specific message in the 5th? Why are people looking for such specific messages and really trying hard to find evidence(no matter how weak) to back up their believes?


Good questions. One might also ask why those who say there is no program are trying really hard...etc etc...Is it really the case that, to quote Edward Bast earlier,



> trying to reduce this significance to a specific program or biographically based story cheapens the work, dragging the universal down to a mundane level.


If the music is any good - in its own right, with or without the program - it can surely resist being dragged anywhere. If I want to hear snatches of revolution (rather than fate) in the music, so what? It's still a great symphony, isn't it?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MacLeod said:


> Well, with the greatest respect, if it convinces Sir JEG, it must have something going for it.


Well, with the greatest respect, if the evidence on the BBC program convinced JEG then my estimation of him went down a notch.



MacLeod said:


> Good questions. One might also ask why those who say there is no program are trying really hard...etc etc...Is it really that case that, to quote Edward Bast earlier,


I think the burden of "proof" is on those who claim there is something (a specific meaning, a program). Those of us who believe there is no such thing have nothing to prove. We are not (at least myself) trying hard to show the absence of something but rather pointing out that there is no convincing evidence for its presence.



MacLeod said:


> If the music is any good - in its own right, with or without the program - it can surely resist being dragged anywhere. If I want to hear snatches of revolution (rather than fate) in the music, so what? *It's still a great symphony, isn't it?*


One of the greatest.


----------



## premont

realdealblues said:


> I have yet to hear ANY performance of any orchestral work by any composer on period instruments that sounded "fuller" or had a "deeper tone" than any on modern instruments.


Well, I would say that performances on modern instruments often sound too "fat", and that performances on period instruments usually sound more adequate.


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I think the burden of "proof" is on those who claim there is something (a specific meaning, a program). Those of us who believe there is no such thing have nothing to prove. We are not (at least myself) trying hard to show the absence of something but rather pointing out that there is no convincing evidence for its presence.


"Proof"? I don't think so. Neither of us needs proof as this is an amicable discussion about how we each respond differently to this piece of music. I see no reason to demand that you set out a proof that insisting on finding a program drags down a piece that should be left as 'absolute'...though you were the one who is eager to know why we 'insist' (when in fact we don't ).


----------



## Merl

I dont care if it's played on period instruments, modern instruments, comb and paper or whistled by a welder from Rotherham - as long as it's a Beethoven symphony, and it sounds good to me, then all is fine in the world.


----------



## groenendael1

Hi, this is the Gardiner/ORR performance recorded for the documentary 




And I find it terrific like there's no tomorrow. Actually, the best I can imagine
BTW, Gardiner has changed a lot since the time it was recorded. Disturbing


----------



## Boothvoice

In what way has Gardiner changed? His approach to conducting, his appearance? Not sure I follow where you're going.


----------



## Pugg

groenendael1 said:


> Hi, this is the Gardiner/ORR performance recorded for the documentary
> 
> And I find it terrific like there's no tomorrow. Actually, the best I can imagine
> BTW, Gardiner has changed a lot since the time it was recorded. Disturbing


Please do enlighten us?


----------



## KenOC

I'll add that the Gardiner/ORR performance of the 5th Symphony, the one in the Archiv box, is tremendous, especially the first movement. It's actually terrifying.


----------



## groenendael1

> In what way has Gardiner changed? His approach to conducting, his appearance? Not sure I follow where you're going.





> Please do enlighten us?


I shouldn't have mentioned it, sorry. Probably, it's none of my biz. I just go being hit hard on the head by JEG's music making. Well, he suddenly started to look skinny. At the latest concert he was conducting (St Matthew Passion in Wroclaw 4 days ago) he was sitting in a chair and did only the first part, after the interval his assistant took his place (no, JEG didn't let him have his cool chair, the guy had to be standing up) Before that a few Monteverdi Choir/Gewandhaus concerts in Leipzig had a conductor change altogether. I do hope it's all temporary


----------

