# Beethoven Vs Beethoven Vs Beethoven



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Early, middle or late Ludwig? 

Which do you prefer?

And do you think the dissection of his musical life into three distinct periods holds water? I mean, is it just a simplistic formulation or was his career actually so cleanly divisible into three?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I like his early, 1790s works and everything from the Hammerklavier onward best. There are wonderful things in between, but I particularly like his clean, classical early style and of course the late, polyphonic works.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think there is very real justification for the three periods as long as one realises there is overlap.

Personally I love works from all three periods. But then I love most of Beethoven's music anyway!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Given that Beethoven's 3 periods seem to suggest that he "progressed" as he went, I would assume that traditionalists would prefer the middle or early, rather than the late, indeed, perhaps even _rejecting_ the late works such as Grosse Fugue. The Ninth gets a lot of flak, too.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2013)

I've recently presented a 2 hour lecture on this very topic. I don't have much more to say about it than the tiny extract I'll cut and paste from my lecture:

_Beethoven's 2nd period ranges broadly from 1803-1815 and the composition of symphonies numbered 3 to 8, the "Creatures of Prometheus" ballet, the Violin concerto, Piano concertos No. 4 and 5, the two Cello Sonatas Op. 102, the "Razumovsksy Quartets", the opera "Fidelio" and piano sonatas No. 12 to 27. *The final period*, from 1815 until 1826, months before his death, reveals Beethoven at his most intensely personal and introspective, despite composing works on a large scale. This is the period of the last 4 piano sonatas, the "Diabelli Variations", the "Missa Solemnis", the Ninth Symphony and the late string quartets. I want to look at the critical reception of a couple of these works too. It must be stressed that the division of Beethoven's work into three style periods can be as misleading and problematic as it is useful, but I am particularly interested in the new directions for music which were signalled by particular works of the composer._

The rest of my lecture explored actual works and the extent to which they represented "the heroic: without heroes, without heroism" (Solomon).


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I've recently presented a 2 hour lecture on this very topic. I don't have much more to say about it than the tiny extract I'll cut and paste from my lecture:
> 
> _Beethoven's 2nd period ranges broadly from 1803-1815 and the composition of symphonies numbered 3 to 8, the "Creatures of Prometheus" ballet, the Violin concerto, Piano concertos No. 4 and 5, the two Cello Sonatas Op. 102, the "Razumovsksy Quartets", the opera "Fidelio" and piano sonatas No. 12 to 27. *The final period*, from 1815 until 1826, months before his death, reveals Beethoven at his most intensely personal and introspective, despite composing works on a large scale. This is the period of the last 4 piano sonatas, the "Diabelli Variations", the "Missa Solemnis", the Ninth Symphony and the late string quartets. I want to look at the critical reception of a couple of these works too. It must be stressed that the division of Beethoven's work into three style periods can be as misleading and problematic as it is useful, but I am particularly interested in the new directions for music which were signalled by particular works of the composer._
> 
> The rest of my lecture explored actual works and the extent to which they represented "the heroic: without heroes, without heroism" (Solomon).


That's very interesting. You see, would a three-period divide suggest a gestation period between each one, to allow him to change, and empty of his old ideas, brace himself for the new? But as you say, and David above, it isn't so straight-forward. There's "overlap" and it's "problematical" and "misleading" - while also being useful.

Is it also the case that there were works which are clearly Early-Beethoven and couldn't possibly be mistaken for Late-Beethoven, and so on? For example, you wouldn't confuse his last two piano sonatas with anything he wrote in the 1790's, but likewise, his first batch of six string quartets are different to his middle or later ones. So in _this_ sense, the 3-period distinction is useful, right?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Kieran said:


> Early, middle or late Ludwig?
> 
> Which do you prefer?
> 
> And do you think the dissection of his musical life into three distinct periods holds water? I mean, is it just a simplistic formulation or was his career actually so cleanly divisible into three?


I have no preference, i.e. I like a lot of his music, from all periods. I _am_ convinced that there are three periods, and that they are at least fairly distinct - as reflections of his attitudes/philosophy. Differentiating the mechanics of craftsmanship is not in my toolbox. The early period extends to approximately Op. 31, the middle period to but not including Op. 95. There is a little fuzziness at the period 'edges', mostly related to orchestral works.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hmmm...Beethoven's "three periods"...in a nutshell:

In his early works, Beethoven wrote in a style that aped his betters. Some was not bad, perhaps a cut above a few other composers of that time. But he in no way achieved the brilliance or the fluency of Mozart or Haydn.

In his middle works he developed an overweening pride, writing works that were longer and far more noisy. Some these pieces grew popular among a certain class of people. But his constant striving for effect, unprepared modulations, and cheap pandering in this period grow tiresome quickly.

In his last years Beethoven could no longer summon even his previous modicum of energy and invention. Most of these works are simply the weary meanderings of a worn-out mind, unable even to shock and startle as his previous works did.

Note: all inspired by (in the Hollywood sense) actual critical writings.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Hmmm...Beethoven's "three periods"...in a nutshell:
> 
> In his early works, Beethoven wrote in a style that aped his betters. Some was not bad, perhaps a cut above a few other composers of that time. But he in no way achieved the brilliance or the fluency of Mozart or Haydn.
> 
> ...


Well, just shows the value of critics - zero.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Hmmm...Beethoven's "three periods"...in a nutshell:
> 
> In his early works, Beethoven wrote in a style that aped his betters. Some was not bad, perhaps a cut above a few other composers of that time. But he in no way achieved the brilliance or the fluency of Mozart or Haydn.
> 
> ...


Hah. Utilizing a 'test' linked to by _head_case_ I have determined that I fit approximately into the Brit 'traditional working class'. I am willing to guess that those 'critical writers' were members of the 'green with envy class'.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm most attracted to the pieces reflecting the weary meanderings of a worn-out mind.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2013)

Kieran said:


> Early, middle or late Ludwig?
> 
> Which do you prefer?
> 
> And do you think the dissection of his musical life into three distinct periods holds water? I mean, is it just a simplistic formulation or was his career actually so cleanly divisible into three?


No preference, really, it's all about mood or my 'emotional state and needs'. Isn't it like that for you in books, say? Sometimes I like highbrow stuff, other times I want something light like when taking a flight for work or holiday.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Which ever was his grumpiest period.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

quack said:


> Which ever was his grumpiest period.


I think that's all of them...


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I like all 3 periods, but in general I listen more to the middle period (specially regarding symphonies, 3-8 are my favorites).


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Hmmm...Beethoven's "three periods"...in a nutshell:
> 
> In his early works, Beethoven wrote in a style that aped his betters. Some was not bad, perhaps a cut above a few other composers of that time. But he in no way achieved the brilliance or the fluency of Mozart or Haydn.
> 
> ...


"aped", "cut above", "overweening pride", "cheap pandering", "grow tiresome" etc. etc. I think you need to stop listening to Beethoven immediately, since it isn't doing you any good at all. And you're actually missing the point.

And I need to stop dignifying comments such as these.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Given that Beethoven's 3 periods seem to suggest that he "progressed" as he went, I would assume that traditionalists would prefer the middle or early, rather than the late, indeed, perhaps even _rejecting_ the late works such as Grosse Fugue. The Ninth gets a lot of flak, too.


It seems like most Beethoven fans here really like the majority of Beethoven and in most cases prefer middle and late Beethoven to his earlier works. In fact I can't think of anyone except myself that posts here, that thinks as (or more) highly of his earlier period than his late. (Maybe I'm wrong?) I have noticed a lot of French composers have/had some difficulty with Beethoven - Cherubini, Ravel, and Debussy for example. I think a lot of it comes down to what people look for and value in music. In the early 20th century there was a reaction by many against the more full blown "Romantic" values that Beethoven kind of opened the doors towards. A 'return to order' and neo classicist approach was popular even among the cutting edge circles in music (Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok etc). So I'm not sure these kinds of tastes are always so easily divided between 'traditionalists' and 'revolutionaries'.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> "aped", "cut above", "overweening pride", "cheap pandering", "grow tiresome" etc. etc. I think you need to stop listening to Beethoven immediately, since it isn't doing you any good at all. And you're actually missing the point.
> 
> And I need to stop dignifying comments such as these.


KenOC was quoting critical writings as a joke I think - I'm quite sure that post does not reflect his thoughts on Beethoven.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

That's a tough call. Like many here I love essentially all of Beethoven's works. The middle period may have more works that I love (Sym 3,5,6,7,8, violin concerto, late piano concertos), but the late period has my favorite works in most genres (Sym 9, late quartets, Missa Solemnis, and one of my favorite sonatas the 32nd). I would be hard pressed to select late over middle or vice versa.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I'd go for late Beethoven, which looks forward as far as can be imagined, perhaps past even our own time.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

To answer the last first, I think Beethoven's work, more than that of most artists, actually divides quite credibly into three periods -- with the caveat that was some stylistic overlap as he progressed. (In fact, to me, the most fun about the early works, are the little experiments that foreshadow things he perfected later.) There are even external events that help demarcate them, each in fact marked by a document in which he consciously re-dedicates himself to his art: The realization of and his coming to grips with his deafness -- as so poignantly related in the Heiligistadt Testiment -- certainly helps trigger the middle period. The renunciation of the Immortal Beloved, even though followed by a long fallow period in which fights his custody suit, helped send him into the contemplation that ushered in the late works. 

I suspect there are more late period works on my "can't live without" list, fewer but significant works from the middle period, and fewest from the early -- but some of those early passages are breathtaking.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

Late for sure. He composed some great music in all the periods, but his later works are the ones that truly stand out for me as his best. His 31st piano sonata is up there as one of my all-time favorites!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm no musicologist, but for me the three periods are a matter of organizational convenience. His output seems to slowly evolve, but with a few sudden leaps into unexplored territory, just the same as with most composers or artists. Still, as a convenience I'd say the *late period* brought the most significant works. It is a summary of all that had gone before, but also more leaps into the unknown -- and that unknown is not necessarily romanticism as many would have us believe. That too is a matter of convenience. Rather the late works are a weird hybrid neo-classical Beethoviana that seemed mostly to end with him. As Mahlerian says, he took classical forms about as far as can be imagined.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Weston said:


> Still, as a convenience I'd say the *late period* brought the most significant works. It is a summary of all that had gone before, but also more leaps into the unknown -- and that unknown is not necessarily romanticism as many would have us believe. That too is a matter of convenience. Rather the late works are a weird hybrid neo-classical Beethoviana that seemed mostly to end with him. As Mahlerian says, he took classical forms about as far as can be imagined.


Yes, I'd agree that the Romantics (and Moderns!) indulged in willful misreadings of Beethoven in general, and the late works in particular. That said, I'm happy that he has been misread the way he was.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Early works! Mozart on steroids!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The early Beethoven works are great. I came to them late, but most are absolute gold. But tonight I listened to the Op. 109 and 110 sonatas...young Beethoven wasn't quite to that level yet! No offense, Ludwig...


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The early Beethoven works are great. I came to them late, but most are absolute gold. But tonight I listened to the Op. 109 and 110 sonatas...young Beethoven wasn't quite to that level yet! No offense, Ludwig...


You're right KenOC (makes me think of ManiOC - that's a joke Ken, meant as a joke!), there are some absolute gems in the so-called first period. For me, the string quartets Op. 18.


----------



## Entropically (Feb 27, 2013)

I think it's interesting how peculiar the late works are. At first glance, I unfortunately can find them overwhelmingly sad or emotional. But each has very particular charms that, because of their contrapuntal nature, require extra attention to get right. With Beethoven generally, the first things that pop into my head aren't _brilliance_ or a sense of beauty (usually). When really internalized, the subtleties of his late works make them just as characteristic as his earlier works (if not more so) and each similarly creates a "world" that demands exploring and thought, only resulting later in a sense of supreme beauty.


----------

