Discussing Post-Beethovenian Composition as Aesthetically Independent Cultural Artifacts of Romantic Era Music Composition

“Beethoven controls our thinking to the extent that it dictates the shape of all other music and its values; he is the daylight by which everything else is night. Even to speak of his “dominance” is to use a word that is too weak—for it implies that there are real, albeit lesser, alternatives. In this case, even the alternatives are dictated by Beethoven: everything is either in the manner of the heroic Beethoven or not in that manner.”

-Scott Burnham

The historical perspective which Scott Burnham’s passage above depicts about Beethoven as the single most dominant influence of musical aesthetics as we know it today, while not fallacious, is somewhat too vague to properly portray the historical relevance of Beethoven and the aesthetic influences which he exerts about the style of post-Beethovenian composition. Most immediately, I would agree that the literate European tradition of the mid to late 1800s is very much fashioned by either similarity or dissimilarity to the pre-established Beethovenian standards of the era. One cannot discuss post-Beethovenian composition without first discussing the Beethovenian aesthetics that may or may not be present; such is the natural result when a single composer contributes as much as Beethoven has to a musical aesthetic (that is, the importance of heroism, sublimity, motivic structure, and a myriad of other aesthetics which the Beethoven repertoire pioneers about Romanticism).

However, while it is true that the aesthetics of post-Beethovenian composition reflect the vestiges of the Beethovenian style, it is also true that a number of other cultural influences have contributed to its development that are significant not just for their contrast against the “manner of the heroic Beethoven,” but for their cultural relevance as well. The diminishing importance of audience perception, for example, has led to the development of compositional innovation that significantly defines part of the musical aesthetic of the post-Beethovenian era. Twentieth century composition, in fact, is very much defined by the search for innovation. Schoenberg’s “emancipation of the dissonance,” the development of Twelve-tone composition, or the concept of Serialism, for example, are all results of musical composition motivated by innovation; quite opposing to the implications which Burnham’s passage makes. Claiming that post-Beethovenian composition is exclusively defined by its relation to Beethovenian aesthetics, in fact, is not just critiquing the “dominance” of Beethoven as a figurehead in music history, but questioning the very concept of post-Beethoven innovation of the Romantic era and onwards. Burnham’s passage, in fact, seems to suggest that everything composed post-Beethoven is not at all innovative, but merely defined by its attempt to mimic (or not mimic) Beethovenian aesthetics.

Here, I might suggest, is where Burnham’s argument seems a bit excessive. The retrospective conception which he holds about Beethoven as the final, “dominating” creator of true innovation hinges on the conception of musicology as a linear occurrence; that is, according to Burnham’s sense of musicology, the Romantic era is exclusively defined by Beethoven, and thus all other musical innovations (both of the Romantic era and afterwards) can only be characterized as either “of the heroic Beethoven or not in that manner.”

This, I would argue, is not true. The history of music and composition, rather, is characterized more accurately as a product of collaborative influences, where a number of Romantic composers, (both of the Beethovenian era and of the post-Beethovenian era) contribute to the aesthetics of post-Beethovenian composition. The dominance which Burnham indicates about the composer, in fact, is not nearly as overarching as he makes it seem. Post-Beethovenian innovation is not just defined by its similarity or dissimilarity to Beethoven, but rather is a product of various influences, both cultural and otherwise.

Referring back to the contradictions which I previously brought up between Burnham’s argument and Twentieth century innovation, I might argue that we could now apply this same perspective towards some of the cultural innovation which developed both during and shortly after the Beethovenian era. Innovation seen in the Romantic era, though not necessarily driven plainly for the sake of innovation (as is frequent in the Twentieth century), is often independent of Beethovenian influences, nevertheless. Felix Mendelssohn’s Fourth “Italian” Symphony, as Professor Mathew mentioned during his lecture, is an excellent example of a compositional fashion that is deliberately not of the heroic Beethovenian style, though of the same musical era. Speaking of the symphony’s first movement, Mathew points out that Mendelssohn’s “Italian” is suspiciously lacking in many of the qualities associated with Beethovenian heroism. “While Beethoven’s symphonic style is driven by the working out of thematic problems, Mendelssohn’s Fourth is very straight forward in thematicism.” The initial presentation of the main theme in measure one, even, is harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically stable; almost unheard of associations with the heroic style of Beethoven. Unlike the “built in” harmonic and melodic complications of Beethoven’s famous “Eroica C#,” or the rhythmic instability created by the motivic structure crossing the barline of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, Mendelssohn’s use thematic content is almost deliberately stable and straight forward.

Professor Mathew’s conception of Mendelssohn’s Fourth demonstrates two very distinct perspectives on Romantic era innovation and the influences of Beethovenian aesthetics. Immediately, it is apparent that presenting Mendelssohn in this fashion depicts exactly the dominance which Burnham’s passage suggests about Beethoven. Much of Burnham’s passage, in fact, seems to ring true by Mathew’s perspective; retrospective discussion of the Romantic era is indeed very much dominated by comparison to Beethovenian models. So important are Beethovenian aesthetics in defining the Romantic era that even in defining the additional Romantic era innovation which occurred during that time period, (often simultaneously as well as independently from Beethovenian aesthetics), the discussion is still dominated by Beethovenian contrast. Mendelssohn’s Fourth, in other words, despite all of the innovation which it represents, is still significantly defined by what it is not.

However, much of the points of contention which Professor Mathew pointed out in his lecture also simultaneously demonstrate the profound role which cultural influences played in shaping much of the Romantic era innovations which developed independently from Beethovenian influences. The “straight forward thematicism” which Professor Mathew associates with Beethovenian contradiction is referred to in Richard Taruskin’s Oxford History of Western Music as “evidence that Mendelssohn never outgrew his precocious youthful style[,] like many musicians from highly cultured, affluent families…(Oxford, v. 3, 180).” What Taruskin’s perspective seems to imply is that, though Mendelssohn’s use of thematic content is clearly very unique from the Beethovenian style, it is not so much a product of the composer’s deliberate attempt to distinguish himself from Beethovenian aesthetics, but rather is a result of the composer’s cultural upbringing amongst high cultured, wealthy families. The most prominent attribute of Mendelssohn’s thematic style, in other words, has nothing to do with its contrast against the heroic Beethovenian aesthetic, but rather with its reflection on Mendelssohn’s cultural heritage, and the connection it demonstrates between financial stability and compositional style.

Musically, as well, Taruskin associates the same motivic simplicity seen in the “Italian” Symphony with Mendelssohn’s “predilection for a national character,” referring to the pictorial innovation which his nationalist symphonies are credited for (including both the Fourth “Italian” Symphony and the Third “Scottish” Symphony). In this case, Taruskin speaks broadly of the nationalist symphonies as “souvenirs from countries to which he has traveled,” indicating that much of the thematicism heard in the symphony serves as musical references to exotic cultures (Italian and Scottish cultures being exotic amongst German audiences). More specifically, Taruskin associates the finale of the Fourth Symphony as and allusion to the Italian tarantella style, and the Third “Scottish” Symphony as incorporating Scottish highland tunes. Referring again back to Professor Mathew’s association with Beethovenian contradiction to Mendelssohn’s straight forward thematicism, it seems as if Taruskin’s perspective on the nationalist symphonies fairly thoroughly demonstrates a clearly distinguished aesthetic from Beethovenian influences. The “Italian” and “Scottish” Symphonies, in other words, are perceived as unique not just because of their contrast against Beethovenian aesthetics, but because of their reflection of Mendelssohn’s cultural heritage as well as their innovative borrowing of exotic cultural thematicism.

These contrasting perspectives of Beethovenian influences on Mendelssohn’s Fourth and, more broadly, the concept of innovation in the post-Beethovenian era speaks quite eloquently to how we should perceive the dominance of Beethovenian influences. In this discussion, it has become apparent that most of the innovative aesthetics of the Romantic era, though largely dominated by Beethovenian comparisons and contrasts, is a product of a wide variety of influences and, on this level, seems to at least partially contradict the perspective which Scott Burnham’s passage portrays. What I would argue is true, however, is that many of Beethoven’s symphonic works (most especially, the Fifth and Ninth Symphonies) traverse cultural boundaries more fluidly than any other composer, and is, for this reason, most readily associated with the aesthetics of Romanticism. The question is, however, why is it that Beethoven’s symphonic works are more representative than that of Mendelssohn (or any other composer, for that matter)? What makes Beethoven the proverbial “blank flag,” as Professor Mathew put it, capable of projecting symbols of our own choosing?

This, of course, brings us back to our original discussion of the so called “dominance” of Beethovenian aesthetics that Burnham suggests. If, as I’ve now discussed, it isn’t true that all alternatives of Romantic era innovation are dictated by Beethoven, then why is he our most commonly used blank flag? What I might suggest is that Beethoven is a product of cultural training. The Ninth Symphony’s recurrence in popular culture, as Professor Mathew mentioned, whether it’s used by the allies during the Second World War, the Nazis during Hitler’s birthday, or simply in the context of a Sesame Street skit, seems to be called upon not necessarily because of the aesthetic that the music fills out (especially given the wide parameter of contexts which Beethoven’s symphonic works come up in), but because of the Romantic aesthetics that Beethoven’s persona fills out. The concept of the heroic “mad genius,” I would suggest, is by far what is most important about the Beethovenian legacy. Typecasting the Romantic era through a character persona seems to be what makes the composer’s music so suitable as a “blank flag” and thus, as Scott Burnham put it, “dominant,” even in dictating alternatives. It is not, however, necessarily accurate to say that the musical values of Beethovenian aesthetics exclusively define Romantic ideals, though his character persona may be.

Works Cited

Taruskin, Richard. The Oxford History of Western Music; Volume 3: The Nineteenth Century. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.