Has anyone read this new Beethoven biog?

[Lordgeous]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2769881/Rage-lust-Ludwig-brothel-creeper-He-lonely-frustrated-love-silence-Beethovens-sublime-music.html

Scholarly or sensational???

[Thropplenoggin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/book...ime-music.html

Scholarly or sensational???

Jane Swafford? It's Jan. Still, who turns to the Daily Heil for their literary criticism?

In answer to your question, it received a favourable review in The Economist, of all places. The author's biography of Brahms was well-received. It is, however, hefty: 1,007 pp.

[Roehre]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/book...ime-music.html

Scholarly or sensational???

Well written, badly researched and Sensational in a bad way.

Leave it as it is IMVHO interpreting other people's interpretations only.
For a serious scholar/biographer it is compulsory to take all available sources in account.
Swafford doesn't.
It's very revelationary that of all his 1867 notes and all 11 pages of works cited there are only some 20 references to a German source.

Some examples:

Swafford either doesn't read German or doesn't think it's relevant to be able to read the original texts concerning a German speaking composer.

He doesn't take the trouble to check English translations of German documents against the originals either, which means e.g. that the Anderson edition of B's letters (3 volumes, 1961) is taken as point of departure, not the really complete but in the original German Brandenburg edition (7 volumes, 1996-1999), including many amendments regarding dates and addressees.
As a consequence he is interpreting e.g. the letters to the Immortal (or Undying) Beloved according to his own interpunction, differring from the Anderson edition or the Beethovenhaus edition [the latter in German with a superior English translation] of this letter, let alone checked against the original German text.

His not using of German sources excludes fully and completely the 11 volumes of the Konversationshefte, B's notebooks in which conversations were dotted down , most of the time visitors, sometimes with an answer by the composer.
How on earth can a serious biographer simply ignore these?
[btw: these ARE listed in the “works cited”, but why not a reference in the notes then?]

But in the case of the immortal beloved this leads to a completely and utterly stupid –and on top of that: unnecessary- omission: not having seen, let alone appreciated Harry Goldschmidts’s Um die unsterbliche Geliebte , the only serious rival in terms of scholarly well based research to her identity to Maynard Solomon’s. Unnecessary,, as a good English translation exists (just use eBay to locate it).

In stead apart from Solomon he relies on two in beethovenian scholarly cycles much derided publications, one of which he himself acknowledges that he finds “dubious datings and translations and other fudging”. (p.1020 n.4)
He also writes “My treatment of the Immortal Beloved mystery …gives an overview of the various theories” (p.1020 n.4 again) and “I have no new theory to offer…I am a musician” (p.1020 n.4 again).

That he is a musician is clear: he analyzes B’s works, and does so well.

But he uses exclusively the published scores of the works in question.
Swafford does hardly quote from any of the published sketches.
If something reveals Beethoven workshop then a look at the sketches reveals much more than analyzing the published works, especially where the latter are used to prove something personal, like emotions and feelings expressed (as Swafford tries to prove).
Here he had the opportunity to use English publications (as well as German and Russian, both with English introductions), but apart from Nottebohms classic (and important) 1870s publications (used in translation!) none of Johnson’s, Kinderman’s, Brandenburg’s or 1950-1970s Beethovenhaus publications of sketches is used.

Swafford prefers not to give any thought about the ten Beethoven Jahrbücher (1950-1980) from the Beethovenhaus or its ongoing publication of diverse studies, some technical on the music, others however about biography, such as B’s relation with Haydn or B’s travels through Bohemia in the 1790s or the Bonner Beethoven Studien (now 9 volumes since 2000).
It might have helped him to take notice of the contents of the 6 Volume Beethoven Handbuch, including a Beethoven Lexikon (2006-2014)

Serious research?
I am afraid not.

Short:
Swafford’s work (1076 pp, 936 pp actual text) is pretentious and not seriously based on own research of original archives or other sources.
He overlooks important existing literature, and his conclusions have to be taken with a very big pinch of salt.

If one wants to read a very readable as well as scholarly well based biography in English:
Maynard Solomon (1977, 2nd revised edition 1998),
William Kinderman (1995, 2nd revised edition 2008)
Lewis Lockwood (2003),
and brilliant but now a bit dated (showing Solomon the way how to “find” the immortal beloved):
Marek (1969)

For an excellent recent Flemish [also available in German] biography:
Jan Caeyers (2006)

The standard biography however remains Elliot Forbes: Thayer's Life of Beethoven (1964, many reprints, including one by the Folio Society) Very readable, but chronological.

Barry Cooper’s (1991) and Glenn Stanley’s (2000) Beethoven companions are excellent introductions to work, life, background of the composer

[Roehre]

Jane Swafford? It's Jan. Still, who turns to the Daily Heil for their literary criticism?

In answer to your question, it received a favourable review in The Economist, of all places. The author's biography of Brahms was well-received. It is, however, hefty: 1,007 pp.

Ivan Hewett praised the work in the Telegraph too, but is he a Beethoven expert, does he know what he is talking about re Beethoven-sources? I am afraid not.

[Lordgeous]

Wow, thankyou R. I wasnt expecting such a full, detailed and authorative response. I was bought up on the Thayer (as a music student) but i shall certainly explore the others you mention now. Cheers!

[teamsaint]

Jane Swafford? It's Jan. Still, who turns to the Daily Heil for their literary criticism?

In answer to your question, it received a favourable review in The Economist, of all places. The author's biography of Brahms was well-received. It is, however, hefty: 1,007 pp.

Ah THAT is where you have been,studying the markets.
Got any good tips? Go long on classics? Big box futures looking bullish?

[Tetrachord]

Wow, thankyou R. I wasnt expecting such a full, detailed and authorative response. I was bought up on the Thayer (as a music student) but i shall certainly explore the others you mention now. Cheers!

Most of the critics disagree with Roehre's assessment of Swafford's book on Beethoven:

1. http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-rev...ord-1406927297
2 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/bo...-swafford.html
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...o-9697448.html
4. http://www.classical.net/music/books...61805474Xa.php

A friend of mine, a PhD and retired music academic, has just emailed me about this biography:

"I’ve finished reading Jan Swafford’s Beethoven.
This book comes 13 years after Solomon’s and it is apparent that Swafford has had access to additional - new? - material.
I can’t really make a detailed comparison of the two. They are both fine studies. But I can say that I enjoyed Swafford more. His book is lovely to read, so his work is likely to stay with me longer. He brings to us the character ‘Beethoven' with great insight and sympathy. I enjoyed too his analyses of the works.
A good one for your Christmas reading - if you have a long Christmas holiday. Nearly 1100 pages."

It's important to remember there is a huge difference between a readable biography and a PhD thesis on music. We ought never confuse the two.