van Beethoven's worst mistake

[Flosshilde]

Why so? Florestan was a "personal" prisoner of Pizarro. The minister (presumably who you mean by the "autocrat") was a friend of Florestan and had thought him dead.

Even so, it's hardly politically revolutionary, even for the time. Remember what had recently happened in France - that was real revolution.

[Roehre]

Fidelio in its 1814 version is problematic, as opera, as text and musically.

As opera it's a hybryd between the 1805/'06 singspiel and the added liberation elements at a time that that had become old-fashioned.
Leonore (either in the 1805 original 3, or the 1806 two-acts) is a dramatically much more convincing work than Fidelio, and a dramatic unity.

As music it is a hybryd between the Heroic Beethovenian style from 1805 (the work was conceived among sketches for the 5th symphony and especially the fourth piano concerto, themes of the later swapped with the first Leonore sketches e.g.), and the empty Wellington/Glorreiche Augenblick music to celebrate Napoleon's departure from the European scene. It's not by chance that the sketches for Fidelio, especially the finale, are interspersed with those for the eventually disbandoned 6th piano concerto.
Leonore is an musical unity.

Treitschke's version of the libretto doesn't decide whether we've got here a work about "love", or about revolution or liberty.
Leonore is about "love" - hence it wasn't taken too enthousiastically by the revolutionary French troops in the theatre in Vienna at its premiere (where the work was dropped after 3 performances, as the nobility was in "exile", the French didn't appreciate the work and the Viennese population had something else to worry about than a beethovenian opera.
IMO Beethoven was very ill-advised to revise the work.

[David-G]

Even so, it's hardly politically revolutionary, even for the time. Remember what had recently happened in France - that was real revolution.

I do not suppose that the powers-that-be in imperial Vienna would have been very keen on real revolution appearing on the stage. But Fidelio is not so much about revolution; it celebrates liberty and personal courage, and is a statement against tyranny (in the person of Pizarro). The idea that the opera is simply about "The Triumph of Married Love" (as in the first post) is simply bizarre.

Roehre, thank you for your interesting observations.

[EdgeleyRob]

Fidelio in its 1814 version is problematic, as opera, as text and musically.

As opera it's a hybryd between the 1805/'06 singspiel and the added liberation elements at a time that that had become old-fashioned.
Leonore (either in the 1805 original 3, or the 1806 two-acts) is a dramatically much more convincing work than Fidelio, and a dramatic unity.

As music it is a hybryd between the Heroic Beethovenian style from 1805 (the work was conceived among sketches for the 5th symphony and especially the fourth piano concerto, themes of the later swapped with the first Leonore sketches e.g.), and the empty Wellington/Glorreiche Augenblick music to celebrate Napoleon's departure from the European scene. It's not by chance that the sketches for Fidelio, especially the finale, are interspersed with those for the eventually disbandoned 6th piano concerto.Leonore is an musical unity.

Treitschke's version of the libretto doesn't decide whether we've got here a work about "love", or about revolution or liberty.
Leonore is about "love" - hence it wasn't taken too enthousiastically by the revolutionary French troops in the theatre in Vienna at its premiere (where the work was dropped after 3 performances, as the nobility was in "exile", the French didn't appreciate the work and the Viennese population had something else to worry about than a beethovenian opera.
IMO Beethoven was very ill-advised to revise the work.

How close was this to being completed Roehre ?

[Roehre]

I don't find any Beethoven "dire" (at least not after he'd left Bonn), but there is some that doesn't show him on top form. (But I love even these works - even the good old "Battle" Symphony.) ......

Beethoven's output is easily divided in terms of what the composer himself thought of the quality of a work.

Generally a work with an opus number applied by the composer or agreed by him means he thought highly enough of it in qualitative terms.
Works published during his lifetime without an opus number were in Beethoven's view "public works", sometimes for society aims -ball room dances, little piano pieces, the military marches-, sometimes for nobility or other gatherings to demonstrate musicianship of just for fun - songs, variations- or because it sold well -especially variation sets.

Works without an Opus number (WoO) not published in Beethoven's lifetime is a mixed bag. Some of these are works prepared for publication but weren't published at the time of his death (the pianotrio WoO 39 from 1812 a prime example), some were older works which he did not want to publish (his juvenilia like the Piano quartets WoO 36, or the Trio WoO 38 which originally was planned to be a part of the opus 1 set), and quite a lot were either available in score sketches (Für elise !) or simply still sketches or little pieces not meant for public eyes (at least not at the time of Beethoven's death, like the discarded movements for the opus 10 sonatas, the andante favori which originally was the slow mvt for the Waldstein, most of the canons and musical jokes)

In this scheme it is remarkable that two IMVHO qualitatively "lesser" compostions with an opus number -Wellington's Sieg opus 91 and Der glorreiche Augenblick opus 136- were not given a number by Beethoven himself.
Opus 91 was such a public work [and money spinner !] which Beethoven thought not worth (!) an opus number, opus 136 was published posthumously.

This scheme is nicely illustrated by the numbering of the Lieder.
There are not many Lieder of Beethoven's with an opus number, but exceptions define the rule here:
Not exhaustively: An die Hoffnung opus 32 (a text Beethoven admired and set a 2nd time, again with an opus number: 94), Adelaide opus 46, Gellert-lieder opus 48, the partly Goethe inspired songs from opp.75, 82 and 83 and the likely first songcycle in music history: An die ferne Geliebte op.98
This in contrast to the 50 odd other songs, most published in Beethoven's lifetime, but without an opus number (WoO105-151), including the very popular Als die Geliebten sich trennen wollten woO 132 and Nur wer die Sehnsucht kennt WoO 134 (in 4 versions!). Regarded by Beethoven as not important enough to get a number

[Roehre]

How close was this to being completed Roehre ?

First movement up to the beginning of the development section in (nearly) full score, continuity score for quite a lot of the rest of it, some lose sketches for 2nd and 3rd mvts. There exists a recording of a completion of the 1st mvt.

[richardfinegold]

No, it's me as well!

[richardfinegold]

Van Beethoven wrote a lot of uncommonly exciting music, but he also made many mistakes. By far his worst mistake was to write an opera about "The Triumph of Married Love". Over what exactly is "Married Love" supposed to be triumphing? And what sort of "love" can "married love" possibly be anyway?

Wilhelm Furtwängler told us, did he not, that "the conjugal love of Leonore appears, to the modern individual armed with realism and psychology, irremediably abstract and theoretical." He also said that "for us Europeans, as for all men, this music will always represent an appeal to our conscience."

Well! We enlightened twenty-first century men of conscience, who devote, and rightly so, so much energy to ridding the world of the hideous mediæval practice of "wedlock", are unwilling to see our efforts undermined by this almost obscene opera from a nineteenth-century misfit. Let all performances of this travesty of "love" be banned henceforth and for ever!

As the editor of the Spectator reminded us in 1902, the only appropriate and valid kind of "marriage" must be a cohabitational arrangement made by the respective parents of a couple, and its only proper purpose the generation of offspring. "Love" has nothing whatever to do with the matter.

Obviously Mr. Grew is not a fan of the institution of marriage. However, there is an irony about Beethoven's feelings for the institution. He extols it in the Opera, yet ultimately drew away from it in his Personal Life.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But Fidelio is not so much about revolution; it celebrates liberty and personal courage, and is a statement against tyranny (in the person of Pizarro).

But wasn't this precisely Flossie's point (in response to ardie's comment)?

[Pulcinella]

Even the hardest Finale-9-haters will be unable to dismiss the Missa.

Oh dear!
Like DracoM says on the thread about John Adams: I've tried; I really have. But the Missa Solemnis does absolutely nothing for me.
A dear friend who died a few years ago, and had sung in the Philharmonia Chorus recording, kept assuring me that its time would come for me.
I have similar problems with his string quartets.
I fear that I am a lost cause.

My comment about his deafness was not intended to be as flippant as it might have appeared. I realise that there are many who regard Beethoven as a progressive and revolutionary composer, and genuinely wonder how much this might have been a result of his deafness.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Roehre - many thanks for #65.

So, for Beethoven, the addition of an Opus Number was a sort of seal of quality - he'd put a lot of work into the piece, so it was worthy of serious attention - whereas other pieces were perhaps more for fun? (That's probably why they've got "Woo-Hoo" Numbers )

[Roehre]

Oh dear!
Like DracoM says on the thread about John Adams: I've tried; I really have. But the Missa Solemnis does absolutely nothing for me.
A dear friend who died a few years ago, and had sung in the Philharmonia Chorus recording, kept assuring me that its time would come for me.
I have similar problems with his string quartets.
I fear that I am a lost cause.

My comment about his deafness was not intended to be as flippant as it might have appeared. I realise that there are many who regard Beethoven as a progressive and revolutionary composer, and genuinely wonder how much this might have been a result of his deafness.

Pulcinella, by "dismiss the Missa" I mean attacking its musical contents, not whether one personally likes or dislikes the work. I am not a finale-9-hater, I quite like the music, but for me (and probably eventually for the composer himself too) it is not the finale which concludes the three first movements satisfactorily.

Beethoven's musical thinking stood out already before he lost most of his hearing. But even deafness did not stop him commenting e.g. the performance of his late quartets just by looking at how it was played - B himself a viola player in Bonn.
But being cut off from the experience of listening to other composer's works means he necessarily withdrew into his own imaginary world.
Nevertheless he developed his style according to e.g. scores his was able to read. There is in that respect a straightforward link between him receiving and studying Handel's "complete" works and the thinking behind (the scoring of) Die Weihe des Hauses or the Missa solemnis (even including a consicous or subconscious "quote" from the Messiah in the latter).

[Flosshilde]

I do not suppose that the powers-that-be in imperial Vienna would have been very keen on real revolution appearing on the stage. But Fidelio is not so much about revolution; it celebrates liberty and personal courage, and is a statement against tyranny (in the person of Pizarro).

I wonder when the idea that it is 'revolutionary' took hold? Roehre's outline of its development above suggests that Beethoven set out to write a simple love story (I simplify somewhat) & then when that wasn't successful with the principal audience at the time decided to make it more appealing to them - ie make it more 'revolutionary' (apologies, Roehre, if that's a gross distortion of what you said) - not very successfully, to my mind. Clearly the opera was, to start with, about the 'triumph of married love' - & still is (although Leonore wasn't very successful in her efforts to free Florestan).

As an opera challenging the politics or social status of the time I don't think it's as revolutionary as, say, The Marriage of Figaro, itself based on a play that was (I think) banned, or even Cosi fan Tutti.

[aeolium]

As an opera challenging the politics or social status of the time I don't think it's as revolutionary as, say, The Marriage of Figaro, itself based on a play that was (I think) banned, or even Cosi fan Tutti.

No, and you could add Don Giovanni to that list of more revolutionary operas. After all, in that opera there is openly expressed hostility by the peasant Masetto to the nobleman Don Giovanni, and Masetto assembles a band of his friends to hunt down and kill DG.

Whether or not Treitschke or Beethoven would have wanted something more overtly hostile to the established order (which I doubt), it would have been virtually impossible in the revised version which was performed in 1814 when Austria was still joined with coalition allies at war with France, and in the repressive regime which came in under Metternich at the end of the Napoleonic wars any radical work may well have been censored and its authors in danger of imprisonment.

[Sydney Grew]

I am wondering whether the sub-title "The Triumph of Married Love" could have been an embellishment by his publishers. Does any one know? It is somehow difficult to imagine van B. himself being as illogical and sentimental as that.