# Is Beethoven really being tonally ambiguous?



## caters

I have heard arguments that the introduction of Beethoven's first symphony is an example of tonal ambiguity from several people, but the first one I heard it from was Chairat Chongvattanakij, a youtube channel that has analysis videos of 6 of Beethoven's 9 symphonies. Specifically I heard it in this video, not surprisingly, an analysis of Beethoven's first symphony:






But I disagree. Instead, here is my perspective on the situation.

First measure emphasizes the subdominant, but we don't know it yet. There is then further emphasis on the submediant and the dominant. But we don't know until towards the end of the introduction that that is what is going on. Still, the harmonic motion is too clear for it to truly be tonal ambiguity. True tonal ambiguity would involve harmonic motion that isn't as clear as it is in Beethoven's works, and more likely, the whole tone scale or the pentatonic scale. Only 1 composer I know of did this on a regular basis, that one being Claude Debussy.










So what else could explain this fleeting C major that isn't confirmed until the Allegro? Modulation. I think this is what is going on, starting from the cadence on F. It would explain why C major is only there in fleeting moments before it goes back to being in A minor or whatever. It isn't until the last measure with its long G chord and its fast downward scale that leads straight into the Allegro that C major is confirmed as the key. Further evidence that this is modulation and not tonal ambiguity? Basically any of Beethoven's works, they all involve lots of modulation, including moments where the modulation is almost constant.










A great example of this though is his Rondo a Cappricio, which modulates a lot and has this moment of constant modulation where the key moves from B major to Ab major, through a bunch of seventh chords, most of them being diminished 7ths on the leading tone of the key they lead to or in third inversion. The sequence of vii°7 -> I is interrupted by G#°7, a chord that is treated like a B°7 that leads to C minor. This then leads to another sequence of V7 -> vii°7 4/2 -> V7 -> I, which ends on Ab major. In fact, I could analyze this entire piece, and perhaps I should.

But getting back to his first symphony, I think modulation is the answer. The harmonic motion is too clear to be tonal ambiguity, yet the C major is too fleeting to sound like the tonic in the introduction. The only thing that explains both of these things is modulation.

Here is the symphony with the score, so that you can see the fleeting C major:






And here is Rondo a Cappricio so that you can see why I think it is modulation and not tonal ambiguity that is the answer:






*Do you think modulation is the answer as to why C major doesn't feel like the tonic in the symphony introduction, or do you think Beethoven truly is being tonally ambiguous?*


----------



## Woodduck

I agree with you that the opening of Beethoven's 1st Symphony is not tonally ambiguous. There's simply some momentary suspense, since we aren't sure what the tonic is going to be until we hear a distinct dominant in bar four. The whole progression, I7 - IV - V7- vi - V7/V - V - V7, is easily comprehended in the home key of C.

Tonal ambiguity isn't the same thing as simple uncertainty about where we are at the moment or where we're going. If that were the case we could describe a large portion of tonal music as tonally ambiguous, making the concept rather useless.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I agree with you that the opening of Beethoven's 1st Symphony is not tonally ambiguous. There's simply some momentary suspense, since we aren't sure what the tonic is going to be until we hear a distinct dominant in bar four. The whole progression, I7 - IV - V7- vi - V7/V - V - V7, is easily comprehended in the home key of C.


I disagree; I think that Beethoven _IS_ exploiting the harmonic ambiguity of the C major scale, with its tendency to want to go to F via the leading tone E-F, and the general instability of the note F in the C major scale.



> Tonal ambiguity isn't the same thing as simple uncertainty about where we are at the moment or where we're going. If that were the case we could describe a large portion of tonal music as tonally ambiguous, making the concept rather useless.


To the contrary, in this sense much of tonal music *is* tonally ambiguous, and this is built-in to the system with the C major scale and its unstable "F" note.* But call it what you will; that's irrelevant to the facts of what is going on in diatonic music using the major scale.*
If you'd rather save the term "tonally ambiguous" for other purposes, fine; but this Beethoven example _clearly demonstrates_ that CP tonality relies on a _constant harmonic tension,_ and _a tendency to move out of the tonic key into the subdominant._ In fact, this is a _"built-in" feature_ of the C major scale.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Ok so now we get the Lydian Chromatic Beethoven? LOL. You have to wait until op132 for that. Why did Beethoven feel the need to flatten the ‘second leading tone’ by making the opening chord a dominant seventh?

‘Tonally ambiguous’ is a relative concept within a particular style - can not compare LvB to Debussy. Relative to classical period norms, the intro is ambiguous, particularly with the opening dominant chord which was unprecedented for music of that period


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Ok so now we get the Lydian Chromatic Beethoven? LOL. You have to wait until op132 for that. Why did Beethoven feel the need to flatten the 'second leading tone' by making the opening chord a dominant seventh?


Yes, "The Lydian Chromatic Beethoven" proves that this is an underlying principle of tonality, not just George Russell's concept.

The presence of a flatted seventh is not essential; the ascending leading tone takes care of everything. The net result, root movement a 4th up (we hear 4ths as 'root on top') is sufficient. Nice try, though. When will you see that I'm right?



> 'Tonally ambiguous' is a relative concept within a particular style - can not compare LvB to Debussy. Relative to classical period norms, the intro is ambiguous, particularly with the opening dominant chord which was unprecedented for music of that period


I agree. So reserve the term for other things, and tell this to the thread-starter. Now, quit quibbling about terminology, and address the question at hand.


----------



## isorhythm

million, as Bwv 1080 pointed out, the beginning sounds like it might be in F because Beethoven wrote B flat. In other words, because he made it _not_ Lydian. It literally shows the opposite of what you're claiming.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree; I think that Beethoven _IS_ exploiting the harmonic ambiguity of the C major scale, with its tendency to want to go to F via the leading tone E-F, and the general instability of the note F in the C major scale.
> 
> To the contrary, in this sense much of tonal music *is* tonally ambiguous, and this is built-in to the system with the C major scale and its unstable "F" note.* But call it what you will; that's irrelevant to the facts of what is going on in diatonic music using the major scale.*
> If you'd rather save the term "tonally ambiguous" for other purposes, fine; but this Beethoven example _clearly demonstrates_ that CP tonality relies on a _constant harmonic tension,_ and _a tendency to move out of the tonic key into the subdominant._ In fact, this is a _"built-in" feature_ of the C major scale.


As your "call it what you will" acknowledges, this is really a semantic, not a substantive, argument. How much uncertainty about where we are in a musical discourse we want to call "ambiguity" is mostly just a terminological preference. If we want to call any degree of uncertainty as to a passage's direction "ambiguity," then Beethoven isn't any more ambiguous here than much of Western music is, and the word isn't very useful. Personally, I'd reserve "ambiguous" for harmony that distinctly suggests alternative destinations and alternative readings, and keeps us in suspense for more than a few seconds as to what choice might be made. The opening of the 1st symphony uses such common chords, stays so close to the tonal center, and clarifies its destination so swiftly that after hearing it once we can't experience even momentary uncertainty. This is quite unlike the opening of _Tristan,_ which never loses its intended quality of ambiguity no matter how many times we hear it.

I think Bwv 1080 stakes out a sensible position when he says "'Tonally ambiguous' is a relative concept within a particular style...Relative to classical period norms, the intro is ambiguous, particularly with the opening dominant chord which was unprecedented for music of that period."

As for your present obsession with proving that the major scale is inherently ambiguous and unstable - a theory popping up here as it seems to everywhere of late - I have to continue to reject the whole notion that there is any "tendency to move out of the tonic key," or to move anywhere at all, built into any scale. Tendencies of notes to move or resolve to other notes are functions of the laws of tonal systems, not of scales. Scales are not tonal systems but only the raw materials out of which tonal systems are made, and any scale can be the basis of more than one tonal system. The third note of the major scale has no desires, but is perfectly content with its lot, until and unless it becomes part of a chord needing a resolution - typically to IV or ii - of which the movement from the third to the fourth tone is an element.


----------



## Bwv 1080

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


----------



## Vasks

Beethoven was (at times) a harmonic rascal. I'm sure he chuckled as he decided to start the first symphony with a secondary dominant seventh that delayed the sense of the real tonic. So he faked us out for a short time. But that's all. C major is fully heard soon after. I personally would not call those opening bars "tonally ambiguous".


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> million, as Bwv 1080 pointed out, the beginning sounds like it might be in F because Beethoven wrote B flat. In other words, because he made it _not_ Lydian. It literally shows the opposite of what you're claiming.


I'm talking about his root progressions by a 4th upward (C-F), not 5th (Bb-F).


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I have to continue to reject the whole notion that there is any "tendency to move out of the tonic key," or to move anywhere at all, built into any scale. Tendencies of notes to move or resolve to other notes are functions of the laws of tonal systems, not of scales.


I disagree, completely.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> View attachment 122295
> 
> .....................................................


Just a little lower, and he might disappear into a dark vortex.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I'm talking about his root progressions by a 4th upward (C-F), not 5th (Bb-F).


Why stop at F? In your model, Beethoven's use of a Bb should shift the "tonal gravity" to Bb Lydian, no?


----------



## Bwv 1080

millionrainbows said:


> I'm talking about his root progressions by a 4th upward (C-F), not 5th (Bb-F).


Nice try, its Bb-A in an upper voice, not the root movement - so answer the question - why flat the 'second leading tone'? would not C-F in the bass plus B-C in an upper voice have more LCC tonal gravy than C-F/bass Bb-A/upper voice?


----------



## millionrainbows

Bwv 1080 said:


> Nice try, its Bb-A in an upper voice, not the root movement - so answer the question - why flat the 'second leading tone'? would not C-F in the bass plus B-C in an upper voice have more LCC tonal gravy than C-F/bass Bb-A/upper voice?


You're missing the underlying point. The tendency to modulate up a fourth (C-F) is a tendency which is _also_ manifestly inherent in the C scale by its very note-content (as a harmonic tendency), so he doesn't have to use a leading tone; the mere harmonic presence of the 4th scale degree, in any major scale, is enough to suggest this tendency. Beethoven was a harmonic thinker.

I keep saying, over & over, "F is the culprit," yet nobody recognizes this obvious fact.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think much more interesting is Beethoven's use of root movements by thirds.


----------



## MAXSWAGGER

No. Never.

Mozart and Bach are.


----------



## Rogerx

MAXSWAGGER said:


> No. Never.
> 
> Mozart and Bach are.


Interesting view, why exactly ?


----------



## caters

Rogerx said:


> Interesting view, why exactly ?


Yeah, the harmony in Mozart in particular seems much more straightforward and much more tonally defined than Beethoven. When Mozart modulates, he often uses sequences and secondary dominants to set it up. When Beethoven modulates, he sometimes just goes directly to the new key with no setups at all(for example in the first movement of his ninth symphony which has many direct modulations to D minor, Bb major, and C minor, in other words, often going to those keys with no sort of setup at all, be it via diminished seventh(another common way for Beethoven to modulate), secondary dominants(most common way for Mozart to modulate), or any other harmonic setup like the omnibus progression for example)

Bach, I don't think you can analyze his harmonies beyond this:



> Okay, he is in the key of C minor now. He's going to the dominant. He has resolved to the key of Ab major.


His pieces often have little bits in different keys(and I really mean little, as in only a few measures) and the harmonic motion mainly comes from the keys, not the chords(since Bach tends to use mostly the tonic and dominant chords of a given key, especially in his fugues and canons).

In Mozart, the harmonic motion does come from the chords, but, with few exceptions, you can analyze a harmonic moment in a Mozart piece as being a different chord from the previous and from the proceeding one. And, his cadences and just the way he uses chords in general is much more predictable than in Beethoven and later composers. So if anything, Mozart is as tonally defined as it gets in Classical Music.


----------



## MAXSWAGGER

Rogerx said:


> Interesting view, why exactly ?


Because Beethoven never is tonally ambiguous - overall he's pretty hard rock.

Because Mozart, especially in his later "experimental" pieces, clearly aims for the mentioned ambiguity.

Because Bach, while not trying to achieve rich tonality by ambiguous chords like Mozart, does achieve it by smoothly flowing through the keys. Technically this isn't tonally ambigiuous - I call it tonally dynamic - yet his approach is as unique as Mozart's and both perfected music within the respective era they lived in.


----------



## MAXSWAGGER

Rogerx said:


> Interesting view, why exactly ?


Because Beethoven never is tonally ambiguous - overall he's pretty hard rock.

Because Mozart, especially in his later "experimental" pieces, clearly aims for the mentioned ambiguity.

Because Bach, while not trying to achieve rich tonality by ambiguous chords like Mozart, does achieve it by smoothly flowing through the keys. Technically this isn't tonally ambigiuous - I call it tonally dynamic - yet his approach is as unique as Mozart's and both perfected music within the respective era they lived in.


----------



## caters

MAXSWAGGER said:


> Because Beethoven never is tonally ambiguous - overall he's pretty hard rock.
> 
> Because Mozart, especially in his later "experimental" pieces, clearly aims for the mentioned ambiguity.
> 
> Because Bach, while not trying to achieve rich tonality by ambiguous chords like Mozart, does achieve it by smoothly flowing through the keys. Technically this isn't tonally ambigiuous - I call it tonally dynamic - yet his approach is as unique as Mozart's and both perfected music within the respective era they lived in.


How are the chords that Mozart uses ambiguous? Sure, the diminished seventh can resolve to any key. But Mozart uses it exclusively as a leading tone chord of either the tonic or the dominant. Sure, an augmented sixth can resolve in an unusual manner. But augmented sixths don't show up in Mozart nearly as often as later composers and when they do show up in Mozart, they resolve in a not so unusual manner. And most of the augmented sixths that show up in Mozart are German Augmented sixths. And while the German Augmented sixth sounds like a dominant seventh, the notation makes it pretty clear that it isn't a dominant seventh in any inversion.

And there is no way that the dominant seventh, be it primary or secondary, is tonally ambiguous. It along with the tonic is tonally defining. And the dominant seventh is the most common of 4 note chords to show up in Mozart, whereas in Beethoven, it is about 50/50 between the dominant seventh and the diminished seventh.

So if anything Mozart is more tonally defined than Beethoven, who is more tonally defined than Chopin, etc. Chopin seamlessly modulates, sometimes to the point where you can't even tell he is modulating. Beethoven frequently modulates, but you can always tell when he is modulating because he makes it pretty clear. Beethoven also modulates to quite distantly related keys within the space of a single note all the time. And some of his modulations have the confirming cadence tens of measures away from the start of the modulation. Mozart infrequently modulates and when he does modulate, he almost always follows the modulation with a cadence, even in his development sections. Also, when Mozart modulates, it is typically one of 4 keys he modulates to, those being the relative minor/major, the parallel minor/major, and the dominant or subdominant of the preceding key. More often, Mozart deceives you into thinking he is modulating but actually stays in the tonic. He doesn't bother with chromatic mediant modulations, unlike Beethoven and later composers.


----------



## MAXSWAGGER

caters said:


> How are the chords that Mozart uses ambiguous? Sure, the diminished seventh can resolve to any key. But Mozart uses it exclusively as a leading tone chord of either the tonic or the dominant. Sure, an augmented sixth can resolve in an unusual manner. But augmented sixths don't show up in Mozart nearly as often as later composers and when they do show up in Mozart, they resolve in a not so unusual manner. And most of the augmented sixths that show up in Mozart are German Augmented sixths. And while the German Augmented sixth sounds like a dominant seventh, the notation makes it pretty clear that it isn't a dominant seventh in any inversion.
> 
> And there is no way that the dominant seventh, be it primary or secondary, is tonally ambiguous. It along with the tonic is tonally defining. And the dominant seventh is the most common of 4 note chords to show up in Mozart, whereas in Beethoven, it is about 50/50 between the dominant seventh and the diminished seventh.
> 
> So if anything Mozart is more tonally defined than Beethoven, who is more tonally defined than Chopin, etc. Chopin seamlessly modulates, sometimes to the point where you can't even tell he is modulating. Beethoven frequently modulates, but you can always tell when he is modulating because he makes it pretty clear. Beethoven also modulates to quite distantly related keys within the space of a single note all the time. And some of his modulations have the confirming cadence tens of measures away from the start of the modulation. Mozart infrequently modulates and when he does modulate, he almost always follows the modulation with a cadence, even in his development sections. Also, when Mozart modulates, it is typically one of 4 keys he modulates to, those being the relative minor/major, the parallel minor/major, and the dominant or subdominant of the preceding key. More often, Mozart deceives you into thinking he is modulating but actually stays in the tonic. He doesn't bother with chromatic mediant modulations, unlike Beethoven and later composers.


Theoretical skill is like watching porn all day - no matter how much time you spend - you're still a virgin.


----------



## hammeredklavier

caters said:


> He doesn't bother with chromatic mediant modulations, unlike Beethoven and later composers.







There is an example of chromatic mediant modulation in Fantasie in C minor K475, where Mozart uses the F sharp pivot, the dominant of B major go to the tonic of D major:










And this piece overall is an interesting 18th century example to discuss regarding the topic of the thread:

http://www.cmpcp.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PSN2011_Chueke.pdf

"Written between May and June 1785, Mozart C minor Fantasy KV 475 is a perfect illustration example of what Brahms had in mind when proclaiming Mozart as "a fellow modernist." Extremely controversial, generating doubts and questions from the very first measure, musical ideas far ahead of their time make the adventure of exploring this piece with performance purposes one of the most exciting...

...The very first intriguing aspect we encounter is the non-establishment of any specific tonality, due to the absence not only of a key signature but also of a central tonality which would justify the allusion to C minor in the title...

...The same can be said about any of the numerous other tonalities suggested during the piece: none of them is sufficiently present to the point of being considered the tonic key. Mozart himself had done something similar, but not as daring as in the Fantasy - probably because the genre suggests more liberty of expression -, in his String Quartet in C Major, KV 465; Ligeti calls our attention to the fact that although the initial Adagio begins with a C played by the cello, the tonality of C Major will only be listened twenty two measures later at the beginning of the Allegro...

...Through the Fantasy's musical discourse, the confirmation of C minor as the main key is held until the end of the piece, justifying the term "musical plot"; the "mystery" will be solved only at the end, like in his operas...

...Besides the tonality issue, the non symmetrical grouping of measures is another aspect which could destabilize Mozart's contemporaries' ears. However, the same overlaps, which imply this non symmetry, not only of melodic lines, as in the beginning of the piece, where we here 4+1 mingled with 1+4 (example 2a), but also harmonic progression, as in the Piu Allegro where V-I of C mingles with V-I of F, etc. (example 2b), confirm linear hearing (polyphonic or not) as the best option in terms of parameters. These coincidences of endings and beginnings of phrases and cadences, coherently unify a hand full of changing scenarios, cumulating tension, barely "compensated" with very short moments of relaxation, until the
last measures of the piece...

...At the end of the piece, everything becomes clear, when the main theme returns, and we hear the resolution of the augmented-sixth chord into the dominant...
...making one last allusion to the initial expectation, we hear the C minor VI chord (V-VI, meas. 178), as if it had found what was missing from the beginning; this « V-VI » was exactly the third indication made by has Graf in the author's score. The VI chord in numerous tonalities presented until this point are justified as elements of the « plot », or « mystery », solved in these last measures . Yes, the missing tonality was in fact C minor; "atonality" is of course not justified, but it was certainly hinted…Adorno's « hegemony of tonality» remains and Mozart's acquisitions anticipate those of Wagner, transforming musical language « only indirectly, by means of the amplification of the tonal space and not through its abolition»"


----------



## mikeh375

MAXSWAGGER said:


> Theoretical skill is like watching porn all day - no matter how much time you spend - you're still a virgin.


One can only speculate as to how Beethoven managed to only lose his hearing given his formidable technique.


----------

