Reprising this post on a fascinating and oft-debated issue: Beethoven’s sense of life. To start — three sensitive commentators on the meaning of Beethoven’s music.
* Hermann Hesse, the Nobel-Prize-winning novelist, in Steppenwolf, contrasting Mozart to Beethoven (and to Kleist, who committed suicide at age 34):
“You have lent a deaf ear to those that plumbed the depths and suppressed the voices that told the truth of despair, and not in yourself only but also in Kleist and Beethoven. … [Mozart’s] The Magic Flute presents life to us as a wondrous song. It honours our feelings, transient, as they are, as something eternal and divine. It agrees neither with Herr von Kleist nor with Herr Beethoven. It preaches optimism and faith.”[1]
* J. W. N. Sullivan, the art critic and mathematician, in his classic study, Beethoven: His Spiritual Development:
“To Beethoven the character of life as suffering became a fundamental part of his life outlook.”
“To compare the ninth symphony with the fifth is to realize how greatly this man had grown in stature. That early, almost boyish idea of fate has become a much profounder conception in this first movement. Fate is no longer personified as some sort of powerful enemy that sufficient courage can defy, even if hopelessly. It is now a truly universal destiny, too complete to evoke any thought of resistance. The brooding mystery from which the theme emerges is, like the primeval darkness that preceded creation, something that conditions the human world, but which is not part of it. And this extra-human power, as presented to us here, has nothing benevolent about it, necessary as it may be for the moulding of the human soul. As the answer to this fate theme Beethoven gives us no more than submission and resignation.”[2]
* Ayn Rand, the novelist and philosopher, responding to a question, What do you think of the work of Beethoven?:
“He is a great composer, but I can’t stand him. Music expresses a sense of life — an emotional response to metaphysical issues. Beethoven is great because he makes his message so clear by means of music; but his message is malevolent universe: man’s heroic fight against destiny, and man’s defeat.”[3]
I am not a music professional, but I can report that I always find Beethoven’s music to be both very powerful and very saddening. At the same time, his music has surging and uplifting elements with great energy, and I respond positively to those elements. So, like many others, I wonder how that fits with the experts’ claim that his music is negative and pessimistic.
My only contribution is a philosophical hypothesis in two parts. One is that Beethoven’s music engages with the great themes, and when we listen we too engage with those themes, which elevates us as humans. We respond positively to any profound statement or experience of the human condition, even if we do not agree with it fully intellectually or emotionally.
The other part is that philosophical art involves two interrelated elements: a deep theme (a metaphysics) and an evaluative response to that theme (a value judgment). Beethoven’s major music combines two elements: an expression about the truth about the universe and an expression of his human response to that truth.
Suppose that Beethoven’s music tells us that the universe crushes everything, as our sensitive critics above suggest.[4] That’s negative metaphysics. But how does one respond to that negative truth? That’s a value choice. Does one give in quietly — or moan and groan and bitch about it — or divert oneself with other activities — or take on the universe in glorious battle?
Interestingly, while our critics agree that Beethoven’s musical universe is malevolent, they differ over his value response: Hesse speaks of despair, while Rand speaks of a doomed, heroic fight against destiny, while Sullivan speaks of suffering, hopeless defiance, or resignation depending on which period of Beethoven’s music one is considering.
Compositionally, the longer pieces develop the elements separately (e.g., movements about Fate manifesting itself, other movements focused on gathering one’s strength and resolve), and then bring them together (e.g., movements in which the battle is joined). So it makes sense that one would respond positively to the positive elements when experienced in isolation. We respond humanly to the approach of great challenges, inner strength’s waxing and waning, the give-and-take of an all-consuming battle. All of those are powerfully expressed in Beethoven’s music, and any vital human will respond affirmatively and even thrillingly to them. What Beethoven adds, though, is an ultimate resolution of defeat, and that is the broadest framing context for his major music.
My label for music like Beethoven’s is romantic fatalism. One is condemned to a tragic fate, but one accepts it and asserts oneself against it, all the while knowing that one will be crushed. Dying while fighting a hopeless cause is the greatest value, and life is the most hopeless cause of all. But one simultaneously asserts one’s life and embraces its dissolution.[5]
Sources: [1] Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf (Modern Library, 1963), pp. 106, 107. [2] J. W. N. Sullivan, Beethoven: His Spiritual Development (Alfred A. Knopf, 1927), pp. 43, 143. A e-version is online here. [3] Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand Answers, p. 226.[4] A clear example is the opening of the Fifth, which Beethoven referred to as “Fate knocking at the door.” This excerpt works with a graphic representation of each instrument group. [5] Nietzsche’s amor fati strikes me as a philosophical expression of the same theme as Beethoven’s music.
Update (September 4, 2017): Kirsti Minsaas pointed me to this The Telegraph article by conductor Daniel Barenboim: “One could paraphrase much of the work of Beethoven by saying that suffering is inevitable, but the courage to fight it renders life worth living.”
Related: Other music-related posts. “Beethoven on the metaphysics of music.”
In advance I should say that the “critics” chosen do not represent general Beethoven criticism, any more than the first notes of the 5th Symphony represent “fate knocking at the door.” The best source of what his music is “about” is Beethoven himself. His many letters and comments written (when deaf, and using note pads) indicate that music was a high art meant only to express uplifting joyous “things”. He deplored Mozart’s choice of Don Giovanni as a libretto as “frivolous,” but not so the music. Mozart, like Beethoven, never wrote a bad note. Beethoven wrote “When I like the music, and if I think the public will listen to it, and God will approve it, then I write it down.” Most of his reading matter was philosophy and poetry. Wagner called Beethoven “the composer who set music free,” that is, Beethoven allowed music to echo more than itself. It could “say” something, albeit in musical terms. Mendelssohn’s remark “music is a different language, without words, and may say things words cannot.”
The “Ode to Joy”, Beethoven’s best known work, expresses noble sentiments and anticipates the day when all men will become brothers. It finishes in a Turkish march wherein these happy folks join each other. Beethoven’s only opera portrays a romantic story of a wife who saves her husband from death in a dungeon. His songs are invariably happy, romantic, deeply moving, even comical. “The Kiss” is an utterly charming song-drama. “To the Distant Beloved” is a song cycle of deep pathos and longing. The 6th symphony is the most perfect “tone poem” in its depiction of walking in the green, the weather, the peasants’ dancing, and conveys only bucolic bliss. I could go on…but to characterize Beethoven as a “fatalistic” or “Romantic” [in the sense of literary writers] composer is almost nonsense.
The critics chosen I lament. Neither of the first two is known for intelligent remarks on music, and Ayn Rand seemed to prefer “tinkly feel good music” aka honkey-tonk or ragtime. I cannot recall any detailed remarks by her on any great composer. How does one deduce a philosophic view from pure music? If Mendelssohn be right, one cannot!
Beethoven believed that we struggle, and that we overcome. We are not drippings of fat or doomed cattle. If we aspire to great heights we shall see them, and music is a holy method thereto. The expressions of joy and triumph are so frequent one must be uplifted. The exquisite melancholy of the “Moonlight” sonata (not Beethoven’s choice of name) is not resignation. Beethoven did not write jingle-tunes or catchy melodies like Rossini, whom he deplored : “Had that fellow been kicked in the butt by his teacher, he could have become a great musician.” He admired Cherubini, the most serious of Italian composers. He knew Mozart to be a great genius, and liked the Magic Flute — which depicts the victory of light over darkness. Beethoven gives hope to the imprisoned, and dutiful pleasure to the free. He wore a crown of fire. His last string quartets are considered to be the greatest music ever written down.
A method question, Stephen, about analyzing music when we have a “He-said-she-said” situation — i.e., one critic says “This music expresses X” and another critic says “This music expresses not-X.”
Is there something *in the music* one can point to support either critic’s claim?
In this case, I hear in Beethoven what Hesse, Sullivan, and Rand hear; but you disagree because you and others don’t hear that but rather other things.
What’s the next step to advance the discussion fruitfully?
You’ve given me a hum-dinger, here. Music is NOT metaphysics, for metaphysics entail logic, ideas that can be put into words. Then poetry, perhaps, which can be set to music. Music itself is governed by such strict mathematical arrangements of rhythm, melody and harmony, that people can listen to without understanding. Possibly because music is directly transmitted into the brain, whereas visual images require huge processing and identification.
So (with due respect) saying that you hear something and I do not, is inaccurate and presumptuous, for you can imagine you hear something, as can I. Yet, this feeling cannot be corroborated in words. Music is also for the “musical”. People with inferior or indifferent ears cannot fully appreciate Beethoven, for example. They don’t hear or discern the syncopations, harmonic modulations and often are unable to say whether the theme is being played by a flute or oboe. Moreover, there are basic kinds of music : vocal music, instrumental music that break down into dramatic music, symphonic music, choral music, dance music, and “lyrical” music (best played on strings). Music is usually written in keys, major and minor. Minor is darker, more “serious” (?) but there are three minors, a simple minor, a melodic minor, and the harmonic minor (used to simplify harmonies and voice leading).
The Viennese aristocrats who listened to Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven could easily identify the themes (in the sonata rondo schema) or pinpoint harmonic changes. It’s like an oenophile who can tell you “it’s a Burgundy, not a Claret”. Educated Shakespeareans know every word. But in the case of music or wine-tasting, there’s scanty metaphysic.
Moreover, music “critics” usually study the performance of the music, whereas musicologists explore the background and possible meaning of the work. Anyone can comment on music and say “It’s so tragic!” but the consensus on great music is that listeners find it “beautiful”. It reaches the heart. And, one may listen to the same sonata over and over again in a brief time, but one cannot read a novel over and over, though, perhaps, a poem. But poetry is epic and lyrical — long and short. All great art is inexhaustible — for an infinity of reasons. And, analogously, one cannot prove a work of music is great by discussion, but a musicologist can show you that the music is not great nor competent, though it may be catchy.
Although Beethoven “freed” music, as Wagner claimed, he did not control its future. Other composers like Brahms and Schumann wrote like Beethoven, just as Beethoven wrote like Mozart, and Mozart like Haydn. But they are exquisitely different. But in no sense can a claim be made that Beethoven’s music prophesies that man is doomed, or worthless, destined to defeat, as Rand proposes. This is the expression of a prejudice or misunderstanding. Jazz is a musical idiom, but a pidgin form of music. People who “love jazz” often have other “addictions.” The purest forms of music we know are “classical,” that is, works by men like Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Indeed, Daniel Barenboim said of Bach’s preludes, “you may write more music than this, but I don’t see the point of it.” The master had covered all the major spectral lines.
If you go on iBooks one may download two essential items:
A. THE CORRESPONDENCE OF BEETHOVEN
B. Beethoven, in his Own Words
A biography might also help. I recommend George Marek’s, as it clearly identifies “the Immortal Beloved.”
While there are many critics and biographers who have written about Beethoven and as a result many differing views of his life and thought, especially over the almost two centuries since his death, I think that there can be some agreement about the context of his thought and his fundamental connection to Romanticism as a movement in Art and Philosophy. I believe Dr. Hicks has described Beethoven’s outlook accurately with his designation of “romantic fatalism”. In support of this belief I cite two additional sources: first, from George R. Marek’s biography, Beethoven: Biography of a Genius, in the conclusion of his chapter on the turn from Enlightenment thought to Romanticism he comments on the influence on Beethoven of Rousseau and, even more importantly, Goethe stating, “Beethoven also adopted Goethe’s belief in a pitiless fate–‘fate’ used in the sense of Greek dramatists–in a demonic force which could ride roughshod over man’s reason. He believed in . . . the necessity for resignation: “Renounce, you must renounce.” [Faust] (p 152); and second, from Beethoven’s own words near the end of his life, “A hard lot, indeed has fallen upon me! However, I submit to the will of fate, and only pray to God so to ordain it in His Divine will I may be protected from want as long as I have to endure death in life” (letter of March, 1827 to Ignaz Moscheles).
Beethoven’s romanticism is evident in his music which sometimes soars heroic, but I believe that the underlying philosophical views of the man as documented by George Marek and Beethoven’s own words add additional weight to Dr. Hicks’s identification of Beethoven’s “romantic fatalism”.
Mr. Henderson makes excellent observations, and I rejoice in his choice of a biographer for “the Master.” I would interject that seeing Beethoven through 20th century eyes is difficult, as would be the task of interpreting the influence of poets and philosophers upon his “thought.” His political persuasion was Republican, and his great Eroica dedicated to Napoleon, then removed when Boney became Emperor. The letter quoted is obviously from his deathbed, and he died miserably. But the idea of “fate” and Greek/Goethe ideas of man being doomed, I think, is misunderstood. Fate may predetermine much of your life — certainly, its end, as the Fates cut your thread — but it does not affect your character or “romantic” outlook. That is, you must suffer and die along this absolute path, but nothing can rob you of dignity and your heroic steps. Beethoven was heroic by nature. He also believed that God would, in due course, right all wrongs and restore the Earth. Music’s holy or high flung purpose was eventually sent in Heaven’s direction.
However, if we enter the music sphere with preconceptions about metaphysics, Rousseau, Voltaire, Kant, Fate…whatever, we have begun to deceive our musical mind with its metaphysical counterpart. I’d fall back on my previous comments that music expresses subtleties and “ideas” not regulated by such preconceptions. In producing his art, Beethoven was heroic, and overcoming these “fatalistic” harpies. You find dark notes and dark motifs, but for me, they enhance the brightness of themes. Most of Beethoven’s music is joyous, and in good humor, for Beethoven composed many “musical jokes” (as did Mozart) and loved a good pun. He was alcoholic at times, and began the day with a cup of coffee that would level most men. He would not “salute the flag” as it were, for during a visit with Goethe he refused to bow to a lord, saying, “There are many dukes and lords, but only one Beethoven.” Sounds vain but ’twas a coarsely simple Germanic aside.
In 1800 Europe was free of pesticides, though manure covered the streets. The water was free of dioxins, yet contained the occasional cholera germ. The young were slain by tuberculosis and infant mortality corrupted a generally healthy populace. A world with much to hope for and little to regret. The aristocratic order was becoming more flexible, and let’s not forget 80% of most masterpieces, in music, art, theatre, were produced through well-bred sponsors. As Dr Johnson pointed out, “deferment is a very good thing which preserves an order in society.” Beethoven’s music should be listened to and then evaluated, but not by trying to connect preexisting philosophic ideas to music thoughts. His music was serious altogether but not without a light heart. He was also tortured by a major handicap that he overcame as best he could. I think that the Heiligenstadt Testament is perhaps his most eloquent and meaningful piece of writing, and would urge the reader to turn his glance thereto.
Two questions about music, metaphysics, and logic, Stephen:
1. Structurally, music is very mathematical, and math is a species of logic. So is it true to say that music structurally is logical?
2. Metaphysics is about the universe and our place in it. What if we said that (a) music expresses/communicates a view of it by means of emotional abstractions expressed auditorally, while (b) philosophy expresses it by means of concepts expressed linguistically? If there’s anything to that, then what we have is a metaphysics expressed in two different (but hopefully complementary) forms.
[Added in 2021: Now I’m reminded of this line from Schopenhauer: “Music is an exercise in unconscious metaphysics, in which the spirit does not know that it is doing philosophy.”]
To answer your questions,
1. Music hath its own logic, based on the number of beats in a measure, the number of measures, the pitch of notes and their duration. The Greeks discerned that a note sounded one octave lower if the lyre string were doubled in length. Or, higher conversely. If music is not structurally logical or properly “composed,” it isn’t music, it is musical or noise. Or awful intervals with no auditory appeal, extreme dissonance. A good book on harmony will fill in details here.
2. I see metaphysics as the nature of the universe expressed in laws which precede or override physical laws. Our place is the universe can be in space-time, or in our possible places of survival. In this music may relate to metaphysics via its mathematics or logic, but not in terms of human “fate,” or free will, consciousness, purpose. When music speaks in its own “language” I feel it expresses high “metaphysical” views because of its structure and spiritual drive, but it is not the language of philosophy cum metaphysics. Its sublime nature (from composers like Beethoven, Bach, Mozart et al) delivers a spiritual message in a “higher” tongue that may surpass words — one can argue over the meaning of a poem, but not about the meaning of music, unless it is associated with words, hence thoughts.
Because music appeals to the simpler sense of hearing and is registered in the “mathematical’ section of the brain, it may produce emotions which are meaningful because they derive from the ultimate reality. During my 2nd year at Yale I took a history of music course and the first session the first subject was : WHAT is MUSIC? The teacher pointed out that no good definition could be had. People in the third world listen to tinkling of bells and gongs or drums and consider that music — something they like to listen to. Asiatics love pentatones, so do hillbillies. As no animals “listen” to music, scholars sometimes call it a “gift from God,” because the spiritual realm is filled with music, and, it is supposed, poetry, as poetry is speaking with a musical heartbeat. Almost all composers have had a religious or spiritual bent — I don’t include the Beatles or Tin Pan Alley or the modern deplorable forms since rock ‘n’ roll turned to metal and rap and worse. Popular music has usually been a simple form of serious music.
A discussion of music leads one sooner or later to a spiritual/religious level. Music is composed or extemporized, then played in the air, received by the ear, and distilled in the brain, so to speak. The composer writes down the music, as an architect would draw a plan, and the player makes the music. Music must be played and heard to be called music. (Of course, musicians can sight-read the score and approximate its result, but they’d obviously have to have heard and played “music” before) A good tune never dies, even more so, a great musical work. But the air must move, the ear must resonate, and the brain must rattle a bit — when people sing, these take place within the human organism. There is a pleasure of singing related to the music and the physical vibrations in the head. German researchers have found endormorphins produced only by singers.
Music is the only art which gives immediate pleasure. That pleasure is recalled by humming that tune. Not quite the same with poetry, prose, or paintings.
CORRECTION: In rereading my submissions I see that many ideas were not connected by proper links. Music is a subject I have studied for fifty years. As an opera singer, composer, and listener. Sometimes a qualifying thought is juxtaposed rather than obviously attached to another pontification nearby. Try to read between the lines and see how they should have been matched.
Fascination reflections and insights Prof. Hicks and Mr. Dahl.
I remember reading that in the wake of 9/11 a number of music directors changed their programs to Beethoven as he has always been an inspiration in difficult times. I’ve found this on a personal level too.
I’ve read Rand’s remarks about him before, yet could never agree whole-heartedly and decisively dismiss him. Though I would not want his to be the only ‘serious music’ I think serious music would be greatly bereft without him.
Perhaps I see him evoking the state of mind of an heroic, at times Promethean struggle when the end is not clear – as an uncouth battle scarred warrior not fully able to participate in the genteel life of freedom he fought for, yet nonetheless values. Too me “malevolent universe” seems too strong, at least to the extent I’ve thought about it, though I understand the elements that may lead to that evaluation. Perhaps those elements are not so much malevolence as ferocity in the midst of struggle.
I hasten to say these are groping, cursory thoughts only: I don’t feel I’ve sat with this long enough.
Music is one of my hot buttons, and Mr. Fox’s remarks prompt me to admit that I disgorged general thoughts somewhat heatedly and without cold-blooded precision. To review,
1. Music is an art based on the human voice and man-made instruments. Serious music takes itself seriously, it needn’t be dark and lugubrious. However music communicates deep emotions and spiritual truths without words. When it uses words, as in the 9th Symphony, the composer will have indicated his basic direction. Composing an opera, however, turns the power of music to move into a driving force for the drama. See Joseph Kerman’s OPERA AS DRAMA as one first rate perspective. When no words are present, no one but the composer knows whether it is ‘romantically fatal’ or whatever. It is music. Even the composer may have written music from his “heart” or inner self. We might quote Pascal’s insight that “the heart has reasons which reason cannot understand.”
2. The selection of music critics seem to have been chosen to confirm what Professor Hicks “feels” in listening to Beethoven. Some people, being told that Beethoven’s 5th symphony opens with “fate knocking on the door,” will hear it as such. These types buy recordings often enough from the copy on the record jacket. If a composer like Beethoven or Richard Strauss writes a “program music”, we should heed Beethoven’s remark that it “is a picture of the emotions.” You can imagine — I said, IMAGINE — the wanderer in springtime, the thunder storm, the peasants dancing, and his utter joy at being not only in Mother Nature’s bosom, but her cleavage. Richard Strauss himself designated the “program” of Till Eulenspiegel, and we can easily IMAGINE Till causing upsets in the market, and his final trial and drop from the scaffold. It’s still music but music “telling a story” like Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf. Hector Berlioz wrote Symphonie Fantastique and clearly said what it was about. The “fixed theme” held the movements together, and the piece is “classical”. Wagner used leitmotifs to unify his drama (and music). The “Sturm und Drang” movement of Herder and Goethe was not unlike the “Romantic” movement in England of Sir Walter Scott, Shelley, Keats, and Tennyson. “Romantic” music in musicology simply denotes the use of harmony that varies from previous and more strict “Classical” forms, but the serious music of the nineteenth century culminating in Richard Strauss, is all really “classical”. The most complex work of that era was Wagner’s Tristan in which the harmonies continually change without resolution until the end, which is a C major chord.
To enjoy the genius of Beethoven is much like enjoying the genius of Shakespeare : their works are sublime and not philosophical, certainly not didactic. The ability of a genius to soar does depend greatly on his subject matter. As Dr Johnson said, “Art is to please and to instruct.” It cannot be immoral although what is obscene often is determined by cultural norms. The weight of all musicology insists that Beethoven is a great composer. To say one hears some fatalistic oppression in his work is to second guess the composer — he had no such intention. Musicologists often point out that Beethoven’s happiest music comes from dark periods in his life. The Ayn Rand view suggests by its short vision that perhaps, Hamlet should not have died at the end — didn’t Shakespeare know better? Beethoven lost box office to Rossini, a composer of lesser ability and inspiration. When he died, Beethoven’s coffin was followed by 40,000 Viennese to the Zentral Friedhof. Now, those people knew a thing or two, a tritone from an augmented fourth, or a diminished fifth from a tritone.
Phew!
The Beethoven discussions have a long history, but I am intrigued by one pattern: Pretty much everyone will say that they hear the positive/heroic/struggle elements as well as the negative/doom/despair elements in Beethoven’s music; but some think the positive dominates while others think the negative dominates. The divide is found in both professional and amateur music enthusiasts. So my hidden philosophy-of-music agenda is to figure out how to advance the discussion: what facts about the music and human psychology are relevant to determining musical experience and interpretation?
1. “facts about the music” would I hope, include all of Beethoven’s work, which is varied, yet always embossed by his stamp. Beethoven is the most individualistic of composers, and the only one whose work shows continual improvement all his life. Most of his music is sublime in form and content. His only potboiler was “Wellington’s Victory” written for the Congress of Vienna circa 1815. Many Viennese found his music, like that of Wagner, “too heavy”. They’d prefer music with less intensity. At the end of his life Beethoven received a complete edition of Handel’s work and acclaimed this composer as “doing more with fewer notes.” Handel is also a deeply spiritual (The Messiah) and serious composer — his works are thorough and avail themselves of advanced harmony and counterpoint, much of it worked out by J.S. Bach. Beethoven developed things in symphonies like codas and codettas and used the utmost imagination in his rhythmic conclusions, as in the 3rd symphony. He said to friends his favorite composition was the 3rd Symphony, the most ground-breaking of all. Toscanini always studied the 3rd before each performance: “I am afraid I will miss something!”
2. We hear music through our ears and in our imaginations. Music speaks to the heart before the mind. That is, we intuit the meaning of a piece in general, but more to our personal benefit. No civilized person can hear the 3rd or 5th symphonies without being changed within, even if slightly. A weird example of Beethoven’s music is its spiritual power. In the various African wars in the mid 20th century, some mercenaries played the 5th Symphony from loudspeakers and the natives would throw down their weapons and run away! What was their psychology? Many people consider Beethoven as the most “Germanic” of composers. So, many Italian listeners will give him lip-service, but they’d sooner listen to Rossini or more “lyric” things. But Beethoven’s melodies are some of the most exquisite ever composed.
To conclude, the music is set down by the composer, created by the players, and heard by the listeners (which include the players). Each person takes from that hearing what he is able. The more we study a Beethoven piece, the more we appreciate its thorough and perfectionistic structure. Beethoven did not like to knock off quick things, yet, the 4th Symphony, composed within a month, is delightful. His scores, usually done in pencil, are often punctured with holes by his erasures. Beethoven believed that music was THE noble art, and could not be compromised by any conscientious performer. Frank Sinatra or Barbra Streisand could not syncopate their way through his music — it would be like the example of Ayn Rand who said that a “portrait of a beautiful woman…with an open sore on her cheek, is obscene.” He was serious in the way that Ibsen was, concerned with issues of the heart that at times, must be in the shadows or in Stygian labyrinths.
A few quick remarks as I have to run, but I believe Beethoven, though raised Catholic, refused a confessor on his deathbed. This would indicate a lot about his nature, his struggle and his view of life and man.
As he fell into suicidal despair over his impending deafness he wrote extensive journals expressing his feelings. A psychologist I read expressed the view that these may have saved his life, by articulating his pain and thereby helping him to process it.
This is a point where I may either differ with or not completely understand Rand: when she said pain was something to be fought against, not accepted as a permanent scar on one’s view of existence. I agree with the latter clause but think it is only by experiencing i.e. releasing and feeling our pain that we truly put it to rest, as releasing long pent up tears will restore us. A psychotherapist I read (can’t remember who) said that there is no way out of pain except through it. Perhaps it is this process Beethoven’s music often captures.
…similar to the appeal on a more superficial level of “hurtin’ songs.”
LAST COMMENT: This topic has exorcised many previous thoughts which should have been written in an essay by now. Mr. Fox has several good points above, but Beethoven was but partly “Romantic” and “fatalistic.” Prof Hicks’ mention of a divergent consensus I would discount, as Beethoven has been written about by many, many people. He believed that we must suffer (because of human mortality) but that a heavenly Father would eventually give respite. As for his music containing philosophical statements or ideas, allow me to offer the example of Sibelius. This famous Finn, despite his alcoholism, produced a number of symphonies, and these were recorded. He was at a party when one was being played. A devoted female admirer approached, and asked, “Mr. Sibelius, what does your symphony MEAN?” Sibelius scowled and said to the attendant, “Play the music again!”
FINIS
I appreciate your extensive and thoughtful comments, Stephen.
PS: There’s a difference between purposefully processing to restore oneself to health and circular wallowing in.
ADDENDUM
Ayn Rand on music is not extensive, as she recognized music did not present language-based concepts and was not subject to the same analysis she pungently performed on writers. To wit, the delightful book AYN RAND SPEAKS, which I just got from iBooks (it’s cheaper on Google, but I like iBooks format better). Her only other remarks on music simply recommend “Go buy some classical music records.” She claimed there wasn’t much music after that, deplored “modern music” and, though having liked “tinkly feel good music” (Ragtime, honkey-tonk?) when being courted by Frank O’Connor, this may have been a relief from her Russian captivity. Ragtime, in particular, is considered the first original American music, even though the deplorable idiom “jazz” might come from it. (One must remember the earliest big promoter of “jazz” was Al Capone, who insisted it be played in his bordellos). What a warm and cold fountain of good reading, common sense, and no nonsense this book is! I recommend it (discovered by following Prof. Hicks link to her Beethoven remark).
Once more, I would insist, the music of Beethoven is of the highest order, and does NOT contain hidden metaphysical notes of doom. Many people accept that mortal man is destined to suffer “the thousand different shocks that flesh is heir to” without letting this storm-cloud obscure their Sol. (pun not intended)
Read, and be refreshed!
CORRECTION : Book title is AYN RAND SPEAKS
CORRECTION ON CORRECTION (This is ridiculous!) Book title (shone ‘buff) is AYN RAND ANSWERS
(Having or having had a senior moment)
Don’t feel bad Mr. Dahl: Not everyone can be as perfect as myself (I thought I made a mistake once – but I was wrong).
I wonder whether you would agree how “German” your description of Beethoven’s music is. Historically, German much of culture has all been about Romantic Fatalism, including the Nazi movement itself. It is Nietzsche, ironically (given his numerous maladies) who was more affirmative than most German artists and philosophers. His formula of amor fati (love thy fate) is meant to help with acceptance the past so as to mold one’s future (no Fatalism here, in spite of the use of the word “fati.”) For Nietzsche, fate is a purely scientific concept as in one cannot change the past, though one can change one’s response to the past and thus change the course of the present and future. Beethoven believes this to be impossible, and German culture on the whole mirrors Beethoven’s romantic fatalism. This Romantic Fatalism isn’t exclusive to many Germans as one can also see this same kind of fatalism in the works of the English poet Lord Byron. Wagner’s music is another example of German Romantic Fatalism.–Stephen Greenhouse
It seems to me that a consistent fatalism would yield complete stasis and resignation and/or destructiveness. But that isn’t what one feels in Beethoven’s music. Even if often dark one doesn’t feel this cauldron of energy, struggle and aspiration to be consistently such.
I have a theory that many elements of his music can be ascribed to an unconscious, inarticulate, yet violently indignant rebellion against the nihilism of the Catholic church.
Another aspect of Beethoven to keep in mind (at the risk of psychologizing) is the fact that he was violently physically abused as a child by his father, who virtually beat him into playing the piano so that he (the father) could brag about having “fathered” the next Mozart. What an inner psychological contradiction and conflict this must leave in the mind of such a great composer.
This is a reply to something Stephen (Hicks) said in the original post:
“…Beethoven’s music engages with the great themes, and when we listen we too engage with those themes, which elevates us as humans. We respond positively to any profound statement or experience of the human condition, even if we do not agree with it fully intellectually or emotionally.”
I think this is quite an excellent explanation of why some music is powerful and moving. It rings true, through introspection. I suspect that music’s malevolence or benevolence is irrelevant to the depth of the response. I know it is so for me. I love Beethoven. Verdi. Lehar. Noel Coward (his ‘serious’ songs). Sousa. Some of the works I love are tragic. Some cheerful and gay. And everything in between. But what they all have in common is that they are saying, musically, “Something important is going on”
I think Stephen you have finally explained why I love – passionately – some Christmas music. Pavarotti singing Adeste Fidelis can thrill me to the point of sobbing. I am not a Christian. Yet since my Jewish childhood I have been tremendously moved by some Christmas music. And I think it is because religious music, especially Christmas music says “A powerful, important, profound event is happening.” I am not responding to the story being told; I am responding to the importance and emotional meaning being expressed.
Thanks for this comment, Cynthia. It’s good to know that your experience parallels mine.
What our commentators are missing, it seems to me, is the overpowering, transcendent joy and freedom in Beethoven’s music. Ayn Rand, in particular, strikes me as absolutely off the mark–though I confess that Ayn Rand strikes me as toxic from the get go. Nobody who has listened to the 7th or 8th symphonies even once with sensitivity and intelligence could deny the joy of the gods which Beethoven was uniquely capable of evoking.
What a splendid exchange of views! Perhaps — if Beethoven was the trigger for this — we can find a separate benevolence in him on that basis alone.
My knowledge of music is strictly as a listener, but I adore Beethoven because I hear challenge, struggle, and triumph. Not being religious, I don’t much care what he or others may have thought on that score, or what the dominant cultural religious norms were at any given period: the music rises far above any such factors for me.
Steve (Hicks), thanks for providing such a great forum. The absence of attacks is refreshing.
The impression I get is that people here discussed a handful of Beethoven’s best-known works — a few symphonies and little else, as if they encompass the whole of Beethoven. 32 piano sonatas, 16 string quartets, concerti, trios, apparently invisible or inaudible. Beethoven isn’t just Ode to Joy and the fifth symphony.
I’ve read what Rand has written about music, and the most generous comment I can make is that she had a blind spot (maybe a deaf spot) as far as “classical” music was concerned, for which she clearly had little patience and probably limited exposure. Her observations about the nature of musical response are interesting, but analysis does not apparently equate with esthetic discernment. The British music critic Neville Cardus (1888-1975) once noted that the music of Bach was unappealing to him, despite his realization of the technical mastery at work in the composition. One of Cardus’ journalistic friendly “rivals”, Ernest Newman, complained that Cardus was a “sensitised plate” in his responses to music — too subjective. I’m with Cardus.