This is all true. But none of these composers had fully grasped, let alone gotten beyond, the conception of musical structure and its relation to content and expression that Beethoven explored in even his middle-period works. Sergei Rachmaninoff, widely acknowledged as one of the greatest pianists and conductors of his age, a genius of musical interpretation and a man who had met Tolstoy and whose first symphony is based on Anna Karenina, never worked late Beethoven into his repertoire, though he performed the big middle-period sonatas with regularity. The music didn't speak to him and he apparently didn't grasp it. It is difficult music—it was difficult then and it is difficult today. I don't think one can fault a non-musician like Tolstoy for not understanding it.
Well... I will agree that to suggest that Beethoven's late works were "fully digested" is something of a exaggeration... but this would be true of many works of towering genius. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Shakespeare, Dante, Tolstoy, Goethe, Michelangelo, Titian, Rembrandt, Matisse are all still being studied by subsequent artists who are delving deeper into the work and discovering or emphasizing elements not yet fully grasped or recognized. Having said this, we can't pretend that among the majority of composers and classical music aficionados that Beethoven's late works were not appreciated or dismissed as bad art in the manner as seen in Tolstoy.
I might start by pointing out that Hanslick was pretty much right about Liszt and Bruckner and to some extent about Wolf as well:-).
Well... this obviously depends upon personal opinion. In many ways Liszt is one of the most underrated composers... and one whose reputation is often based upon but a small portion of his output. Bruckner, like Brahms, can be very dense... so that a little goes a long way. Wolf I find quite marvelous... but he cannot be seen simply as building upon the tradition of German lieder of Schubert and Schumann. His works are more "dramatic"... the text being more of an essential part of the whole to the extent that I cannot really listen to him without following the lyrics... which is not true of Schubert or Schumann.
And his treatise On the Musically Beautiful (or The Beautiful in Music, whichever you prefer) had more influence on twentieth-century music theory and musical aesthetics than any other work of nineteenth-century criticism. Hanslick was in fact a champion of some of Wagner's early work and I'm not sure the conservative vs. new school opposition is particularly helpful in getting at his problems with late Wagner. His critique of Tristan and Isolde, for example, focuses primarily on the libretto, which he found to be full of tedious and infantile symbolism (light/dark, day/night, blah blah) and about two hours too long. It wasn't really conservatism per se that made him prefer Mozart's operas over Wagner . . . but this post is going to be long already so let's not get too far into those weeds.
I can't argue about the importance of Hanslick's treatise upon subsequent music theory, but I would question how influential this was upon the actual development of subsequent music... in comparison to the influence of actual composers such as Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner... and even Brahms. Wagner remained the lynch pin for most subsequent composers... even those such as Debussy, Puccini, and Schoenberg who eventually broke from his influence and headed in a different direction.
The late quartets served as the model for the chamber works of Schubert and Brahms.
This is simply incorrect. Schubert was just coming to terms with middle-period Beethoven at the time of his death and I see no particular influence of the late works. In matters of form, Brahms was far more conservative than Beethoven and composed nothing in the realm of chamber music that even begins to grapple with the issues raised in Beethoven's late quartets.
You may be right with regard to Schubert. Schubert spoke of the Op. 131 as Beethoven's most perfect work and requested to hear it once again upon his death bed. Then again... in response to this same work, he remarked "After this, what is left for us to write?" Schubert is always problematic in comparison to Beethoven due to his lack of formal training and virtuosity as a performer (which would impact his compositional style). Schubert was profoundly enamored of late Beethoven... but takes a different, more lyrical direction so that his late piano sonatas and quartets were often dismissed as "lightweight" in comparison to Schubert... which seems like dismissing Debussy or Ravel in light of Wagner.
Brahms chamber works, on the other side, clearly seem to build upon the tradition of Beethoven... and in many ways act as a link between Beethoven and Schoenberg (for better or worse... not being a Schoenberg fan myself).
I was actually quite surprised... just browsing some comments on late Beethoven... that Wagner was quite influenced by the late quartets. I was quite aware of the impact of the 9th... but considering the manner of Wagner's compositions, this quite surprised me.
Berlioz ran with the idea of fusing vocal and instrument symphonic music, but the term "model" isn't really appropriate in any but the most vague and general sense. Mahler's and Brahms's first symphonies, on the other hand, and countless other works, were in fact modeled on the Ninth. The influence of the Ninth is undeniable.
I agree with regard to Berlioz... but then every artist picks and chooses his or her predecessors... and what aspects of their works to build upon. I question the possibility of Berlioz symphonic/operatic/choral constructions without the examples of Beethoven and Liszt.
Everyone in the nineteenth century (excepting Liszt) retains the traditional classical structures, more of less, when it comes to any kind of sonata cycle (sonata, symphony, string quartet). In fact, it is a general criticism of this music that they held too slavishly to classical forms (see Charles Rosen's The Classical Style). Many of Beethoven's works in these genres are indeed fully within the classical tradition. Others are more radically Romantic in the most essential sense than any composed over the next fifty years. Beethoven doesn't fit neatly or simplistically into either era. Schubert and Schumann are indeed true Romantics, especially in their emphasis on songs and song cycles, solo piano cycles, small genre piano works, etc.
There seem to be debates even on the classical music sites as to whether Beethoven is a Classical or Romantic composer. I think many mistake his employment of the minor key, the emotional expression, and drama as making him inherently a Romantic... but we might then presume that Mozart's Don Giovanni is also a Romantic work. Personally, I agree with the usual notion that Beethoven is a transitional figure... pointing the direction from Classicism to Romanticism much as Monteverdi is the lynch-pin from the Renaissance to the Baroque.
Oddly enough, considering how much time I just spent disagreeing on musical issues, but I essentially agree with your position on Tolstoy as a critic. I would have been inclined to tell him: "Oh shut up and write another novel already."
I'm surprised at how bad some artists can be in judging art (Van Gogh had taste that was notoriously middling at times). But then there are those who are quite astute as critics. I think Zola, Baudelaire, Octavio Paz, and J.L. Borges fall within this category. Tolstoy...? Not. Perhaps it has much to do with the fact that Tolstoy is closer to an artist like Van Gogh than an artist like Degas or Picasso who recognizes that Art begets Art. As Cezanne put it it, The Road to the Louvre is through Nature, but the road to Nature is through the Louvre.
Whether Tolstoy actually regretted his "bad judgment" is questionable -- he seems a man generally confident in his decisions.
In this he strikes me as not unlike another visionary or messianic writer: William Blake.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
