Although E.T.A. Hoffmann’s critique of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony makes some of the most important claims of Romanticism and sublime expression in art of the late 19th and 20th centuries, it is arguably what isn’t stated in his sweeping generalizations and broadly based critiques that make this article so ripe for discussion. At the most fundamental level, his assertion that Beethoven’s fifth has nothing in common with the “outward, material world” is far too broad and unspecific to apply to all the aesthetics found in the fifth symphony, and leaves evidence that simultaneously both supports and refutes this claim to contradict his statement. Though Hoffmann’s article does well in pointing out what specifically he finds to be sublime and inexpressible with analyzed measure numbers, he doesn’t discuss what it is about these passages that fundamentally distinguish them from any other kind of music. How these inexpressible, sublime emotions are created, in other words, is left entirely unaddressed. Analytically, in fact, I might argue that many of the pioneering Romantic assertions that Hoffmann makes in this article go unproven (despite the thorough examples which he provides), as the article seems to focus primarily on the emotions that Beethoven’s fifth creates, rather than how these emotions are created.
This is of course not to say that Hoffmann’s article is not historically relevant; quite the opposite, in fact. His contradiction of vagaries seems to be exactly what makes the article so intriguing, as it is perhaps not the qualifying proof that makes it so important in the history of musical sublimity, but rather the discussion of Romantic aesthetics that the article spurs. Hoffmann’s article is not an artifact of proof, but rather one of assertions. With all of the broad statements of musical sublimity overlooked in his article, there are a number of compositional issues that remain unaddressed and left open to discussion, as perhaps he intended. What makes this article so important, it seems, is not defined any sort of pioneering compositional tactics of Beethovenian Romanticism that Hoffmann uncovered (which, as it seems, his article decidedly does not find), but rather by the discussions of Romanticism, sublimity, and emotions that were subsequently spurred on by the assertions which Hoffmann’s article makes.
The contradictions of Hoffmann’s decidedly vague analysis, thus, are where I would like to begin my discussion of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. The historical context of the symphony and its distinct historical allusions to already established musical aesthetics fundamentally contradict the concept of inexpressible emotions that not only existing in, but are allegedly pioneered by Beethoven’s Fifth. How can the symphony claim to be the first Art form to exist without any connection to the “outward, material world” if it is still fundamentally grounded on already established musical attributes? The prevalence of the Sonata Form, the conventional juxtaposition of serious and sentimental emotions found in the first and second movement, and the allusion to utilitarian music in the fourth movement are a few amongst many aesthetics found in the symphony that fall under the same techniques of emotional development that existed long before the composition of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony.
The fourth movement of the piece, for example, is, as an isolated movement, an entirely conventional fanfare. The form is in 2/4, the orchestration uses bright brass colors, and the emotion of the movement is overwhelmingly celebratory. Historically, the movement is quite accurate not only to the aesthetics of the utilitarian fanfare, but to the emotional function of the fourth movement in the traditional symphony as well. As Professor Mathew said, the fourth movement of Beethoven’s Fifth serves as the “validation of a social contract” written through the course of the symphony’s four movements; a concept, no doubt, drawn from the traditional symphonic form. Out of context, the fourth movement is a standard utilitarian fanfare, found quite often in pre-Beethoven music to exist without attempting to portray any sort of sublime, inexpressible emotions. The movement, in other words, does not significantly stray far from the already established techniques of composition which existed much earlier than Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony.
This, of course, is quite a contradictory observation, as I wouldn’t deny that the fourth movement of the Fifth Symphony is in fact fundamentally unique from the standard utilitarian fanfare in its creation of distinct musical emotions that stand independent from the outward, material world, as Hoffmann stated. How then, as Hoffmann also accurately observed, does the fourth movement fanfare portray these apparently pioneering, inexpressible emotions of sublimity while still relying on the musical techniques of much earlier aesthetics? What is so different between Beethoven’s fourth movement fanfare, and, for example, any of Haydn’s numerous fourth movement fanfares? Again, it becomes apparent that the importance of Hoffmann’s discussion of Beethoven’s Fifth is not found in its analytical assertions, but rather in the discussion of contradictions which it creates, as I have just done.
The distinctiveness (and therein, sublime inexpressibility of emotions) observed in Beethoven’s fourth movement fanfare, I would argue, is not created through any single passage, but rather through a simultaneous use of juxtaposition and continuity about the symphony’s four movement symphonic form. Although the fanfare as an isolated movement is not unique, there are numerous, innovative qualities of the Fifth Symphony’s four movement form that contribute to its sublimity of expression. On the smaller scale, for example, the juxtaposition of contrasting emotions between its third and fourth movement is fundamental in the symphony’s creation of sublime expression. The “goblin” themed scherzo, as Professor Mathew characterized the third movement, uses its innovatively gloomy, dark colors (instead of the more traditionally expected, brightly colored minuet and trio) to prepare a musical emotion about the symphony that functions well as a mode of contrast. Instead of creating the traditional juxtaposition of similar movements against one another with a joyful dance preceding a celebratory fanfare, Beethoven juxtaposes a decidedly dark scherzo against a decidedly celebratory fanfare; two radically opposing aesthetics. Coupled with the additionally innovative, indistinctive transition between the two movements (an implicit technique of continuity, I might add), the arrival of the fourth movement fanfare occurs as a triumphant escape from the gloomy scherzo precisely because of this continuity. The sublime triumph of the fanfare, in other words, would be meaningless without first knowing the “goblin” which the music has triumphed over.
This same principle of juxtaposition and continuity, now, can be applied to the larger structure of the symphony as a whole. Every sublime, inexpressible aesthetic of the Fifth Symphony, as Hoffmann spoke of, can be considered a result of either small and/or large scale contrast. Professor Mathew mentioned in class that the sublime sensation of triumph that characterizes the fourth movement fanfare, as discussed above, is not only a result of tension built up through the third movement, but through all three movements preceding the fanfare. The fourth movement, he said, necessitates its excessively long, celebratory coda in order to respond to the building up of tension in the first three movements. The inexpressible emotions we find in the fourth movement, thus, can be attributed to both the juxtaposition of the scherzo against the fanfare as well as the fanfare against the entire piece.
I might argue, now, that the same is true for all of Hoffmann’s inexpressible, sublime aesthetics in the Fifth Symphony. The rhythmically unstable, recurring triplet motif of the first movement, for example, is most convincingly heroic upon its stable return as the “goblin theme” in the third and fourth movement, after it has been thoroughly explored throughout the course of the symphony. The rhythmically unstable motif, like the scherzo against the fanfare, is a technique of contrast; the desire to hear a rhythmically sound phrasing of the triplet motif is created only as a result of four movement’s worth of preparation and establishment of the inherently incomplete and unsound rhythmic structure of the motif. It is only after the motif has been portrayed so thoroughly as a thematic idea which crosses a bar line (and therefore rhythmically unstable) that the theme can be portrayed in the third and fourth movement in its rhythmically sound form. Without this extensive preparation as a rhythmically unstable idea, the motif’s presentation in the third and fourth movement would be more or less unremarkable, much in the way that the fourth movement fanfare would be unremarkable without its contrast against the third movement scherzo. Once again, contrast and juxtaposition of thematic ideas appears to be the means by which the sublime inexpressibility that Hoffmann spoke of is created.
The importance of continuity in thematic and emotional recollection in Beethoven’s Fifth which I’ve emphasized here insinuates that the concept of Beethovenian sublimity is overwhelmingly temporary. If inexpressible sublimity is created through contrast (and therein, a presentation of the unexpected), then this might suggest that these emotions are only valid upon the first hearing of the piece. Sublimity and inexpressibility, by the definition which I’ve given, would lend very easily to expiration, once the unexpected is no longer a surprise. In other words, if we already know through multiple hearings of the Fifth Symphony that a fanfare succeeds the third movement scherzo, and that the rhythmically unstable motivic device of the first movement will resolve to stability in the third fourth movement, then are these concepts really all that sublime anymore?
No comments:
Post a Comment