I find the symphonies of both composers have the same feeling/intensity both composers use very simple themes and build around them a web of sound that appeals to me. Just a couple of interesting things I found on the www last night.I am pretty inexperienced with Shostakovich but I am intrigued now. What elements of it do you see similar to Beethoven? Is it his motivic treatment? What's your favorite by him?
In "Lives of the Great Composers", the author, Harold Schonberg, makes a similar point, especially in regards to Mahler; that Mahler lacks the tight and heroic feeling that characterizes Beethoven. Even so, who can mistake the soaring adagios which are so characteristic in Bruckner and Mahler's symphonies as anything less than an attempt to rewrite Beethoven's adagio from the 9th symphony. Different men; different times; Bruckner the religious fanatic; Mahler the neurotic lying on the psychoanalyst's couch; my point is that Bruckner and Mahler (and for that matter, Shostakovich) follow after Beethoven's sense of struggle that he made the symphony a very personal musical journey....It is true that Bruckner began 8 or his 9 numbered symphonies in cadences similar to what begins Beethoven's "choral" but I hear no Beethoven in he or Mahler otherwise. In Mahler, especially, I hear more of an anti-Beethoven developmental form. To me, the composer I think of more often when I hear Mahler and Bruckner is Liszt: all three ramble forward and meander endlessly before making their points. This is not Beethoven.
Yet Schubert did know of Beethoven, practically deified him, and stated (paraphrase) 'who can do anything in music after Beethoven?', he also quoted him in some of his works.I doubt his influence was on Schubert; they lived at the same time and Schubert died much sooner.
Schubert goes into uncharted areas of form combined with thematic content in his C major symphony no. 9. It does grow out of the innovations of Beethoven and maybe some orchestration technique of Rossini, so while influenced by Beethoven let us be clear that it is mostly beyond having his "stamp."I absolutely agree with the Schubert. Most of his early stuff I hear as more an extension of Mozart stylistically. However his unfinished and great C major absolutely have Beethoven's stamp.
Considering works like fantasie Op.17, I feel Schumann's way of thinking in some ways was "neutral" between the two camps rather than strong inclination toward one of them.I am curious as to who you believe to be the true descendants of Beethoven? Is it the camp of Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner or Schumann and Brahms?
Schubert's admiration for Beethoven wasn't questionable, but it's worth noting that as a composer himself Beethoven wasn't the sort Schubert said he wanted to be like. It also seems a bit like his main models were prolific composers of the German song and mass of the late 18th century, such as Johann Friedrich Reichardt (1752-1814) Johann Friedrich Reichardt"Schubert knew his own worth and saw himself as the true successor to Beethoven.
I would agree with this while also calling Schubert Beethoven's greatest student.Beethoven was sui generis. A lot of composers tried to use him as a starting off point -- each in a different way -- but none successful in doing anything that wasn't intrinsic to himself. Brahms was certainly more of a strict classicist than most of his contemporaries. Berlioz and Wagner both worshipped Beethoven but took their music in wildly contrary directions (Liszt too); Schumann was incapable of strict Beethovenian motivic development; Mahler could do nothiing but develop albeit in a more free-form way; Schubert's late works approached Beethoven's late spirituality most closely; Bruckner was good at carving movements out of blocks of granite, like the first movement of B's Ninth . . . basically, almost every mid-nineteenth century composer thought he was taking up where Beethoven left off -- but none was.
I'm sorry to say that I don't see this. Schubert, especially the later music, doesn't seem to me to have the same vibe as late Beethoven at all. You could be right, it's not as if I know much about either composer, but from my superficial acquaintance with their music, I'm not with you. I hope you'll make me understand what you've seen.Schubert's late works approached Beethoven's late spirituality most closely
I think you're doing a bit of an injustice to Schumann actually -- but maybe I don't know what "strict motivic development" is. Why isn't there strict motivic development in op 11/i for example? Or op 13?Schumann was incapable of strict Beethovenian motivic development.
George Onslow maybe.basically, almost every mid-nineteenth century composer thought he was taking up where Beethoven left off -- but none was.
I'll dispute that. The Tenth, I would argue, is much closer. Consider that its opening motto returns as the basis of a principal theme of the scherzo, just as in Beethoven's Fifth. And, just like the Beethoven, the scherzo theme is brought back in the development section of the finale so that it can be cancelled at the onset of the recap, in Shostakovich's Tenth by the composer's signature motive. Thus Shostakovich followed the cyclic thematic plan of Beethoven's Fifth quite closely. I hear no such specific modelling in Shostakovich's Fifth.Shostakovich I love, but I've never heard the Beethoven in him. His goals were something else, and symphonic development isn't his goal. The Soviet authorities considered Beethoven to be "healthy" music that a good Soviet composer who wanted to stay alive should stive to emulate - and so it's no surprise that the 5th symphony is quite traditional and closer to the Beethoven model than any of the others.
there is plenty of stock note-spinning in Beethoven, just listen to any of the early to mid piano sonatas, you can find filler passages of arpeggios & scale runs just like in any other music of the period. Its all very well done of course, but it could just as easily been written by Czerny, Hummel or any other competent composer of the period. Schumann more or less avoided stock scale and arpeggio runs, while Chopin's originality in figuration became indispensable to the overall structure of the musicFor me, the trait that is most Beethoven-like is one of rigorous, logical development - no wasted notes, no "note spinning", no triviality. That rules out most composers who were Romantic in nature,
