|
| |
|
|
|
Review Summary: One of the commentators on my last review asked if I might write about a classical piece with some analysis. This isn't a review at all, but more so an experiment, just to see feedback/responses/etc. This Review is actually just an example of analysis/interpretation regarding the first movement of Beethoven's First Symphony.
The first movement follows sonata-allegro form, hence, our “road map” shall consist of an introduction, which is usually slower than the rest of the movement, the exposition, where the major themes are presented,(and note that the exposition is often repeated as if to engrave the themes in our minds), development, where those themes are expanded into different shapes and forms, the recapitulation, which is quite like the exposition, but mainly in the home key of the piece, and the coda, the finishing touches, the “tail piece,”in a sense.
Introduction(eighth note_88)
The Symphony begins on a C dominant seventh chord which resolves to its natural target of F major. Why should we take note of this? Well, the symphony is written in C Major, and the first sound we hear, this C7 chord, is not in the key; Beethoven begins the symphony in F, the key of the related IV Major of C. The audacity of this opening cannot even be expressed because today's listeners would think nothing of it; but, imagine sitting the audience on that April day, 1800; one must remember that people were used to things doing and being as they were supposed to. People of that time period also had extremely quiet lives compared to modern times, where there is no real “quiet” anymore, where there is always a noise. Whether it be a plane in the sky, or the radiators in homes, people today lead incredibly noisy lives. Now, getting back to the symphony, we advance to the second measure; a G dominant seventh chord , which is supposed to resolve to the tonic, C, but Beethoven tricks us; instead, he creates a deceptive cadence and resolves to the related VI minor, A; the tonic has yet to be heard. Now the third measure, where again another dominant seventh chord is played, D7. Where did this D7 come from? Ah,but of course, Beethoven goes to the dominant of the dominant, meaning he hits the related dominant of the key of the dominant of the home key. (G=dominant of the home key, D=dominant of G) We are now on the key of the dominant, G major, which quickly develops into another G7, and then finally, we hear our tonic, C, six measures after the beginning! Other things to notice on this first page of the score are the articulations; the opening chord is instructed to be played FORTE, while its resolve piano. One can understand how deliberate Beethoven was in his boldness here. The introduction continues; a thematic element of half steps from G# to A, then another from F# to G, and then one from C# to D, starts to form. We go on, the introduction is coming to a close, with the horns spelling out a C major triad with then the strings caressing a G7 that will lead us into the exposition.
Exposition(half note_112)
We now hear the first motive, or theme, which is, rhythmically, dotted half note to dotted eighth note to eighth note back to the same dotted half note; in terms of a key, the tonic(dotted half note) down to the dominant(dotted eighth note) up to the leading tone(eighth note) then back to the tonic(half note). The motive continues, but then the winds stop it and play an A7, and the motive restarts except now in what seems as a literal transposition into the key of D Major, but we see that before the winds intercept again, that it is not quite a literal transposition due to an f natural. The motive once again goes on, this time in the key of G, and whilst the harmonic theme changes, the rhythmic theme dictated before stays very much alive until the end of the exposition. This first motive expands into a very lively setting in which the strings and winds duel each other with this thematic movement. Then they join together for a short while only to duel again, only this time the winds face the violi, celli, and contrabasses, while the rest of the strings/horns/percussion hit continues V to I chords in succession until the end of the “duel” in the key of the dominant,G. Now, the second motive begins, in G major; it is an incredibly lyrical and beautiful melody. The oboes ask a question to which the flauti respond, and they continue to have this “conversation.” ( I like to think of an English tea party or French salon as the setting of this “conversation.”) Now the strings join into the talk, and Beethoven develops this theme beautifully. (this first symphony is incredible in the sense that in his first finished/full composition, Beethoven exhibits such a mastery of the orchestra, it's quite enlightening.) We suddenly reach this climax at DOUBLEFORTE which suddenly dies down into minor at pianissimo, the modulations consisting of G minor, Bflat Major, E minor, and G Major. There is an incredible effect given off this sudden change and contrast. Beethoven goes even farther into this beauty and adds the oboe playing alone; then the moment strengthens and the oboe repeats itself in another key, this time with the Bassoons for even more dramatic effect. The strings now start a great crescendo back into the first them, but in such a grand way that another incredible effect is created by it, this time from pianissimo to FORTE. Now, we are back to the first motive and then the second, both in grandiose manner, getting ready to close the Exposition.
Development(112)
The Development continues the first motive and does everything imaginable with it. He ends up merging the previous conversations in the winds(2nd motive) with the first motive, in rhythmic terms. What were first simple and lyrical staccato thematic movements in the strings for the second motive are now incredibly lively, and the conversation in the winds is made of an almost exact variation of the rhythmic sense of the first motive. Then, we are suddenly hit with this DOUBLEFORTE in the strings, which is then answered with a similar phrase in the winds; it is as if the conversation has turned ugly, as if into an argument; but, its incredibly enjoyable in a listener's sense. “Fair is foul and foul is fair.” The battle between winds and strings while being so fierce for them, is so enjoyable for us. The intensity enhances until, the winds intercept and drive the articulation into piano and slow down the roaring of the previous measures, much like a diplomat.
Recapitulation(112)
Now, we enter the Recapitulation. It starts off exactly as the exposition, but then the instrumentation greatly changes, and we hear repercussions from the opening measures of the symphony. C7to F major, then D7(dominant of the dominant) to G, but now E7 to A, which would be the vi minor once again, and he continues to F7 which resolves to Bflat, and then to G7 resolving to C, which finally allows us to hear our tonic once more; but, it is not over; we now go out of the key into A7 to D minor, and then we hear our favorite dischord, C7, and we enter this sort of cycle again. What is highly interesting is the movement in the flauti during all of this; A to Bflat to B to C to C# to D to E to F to F# and then finally to the dominant G. We get this almost exactly chromatic structure leading us to the dominant, telling us that the purpose for that whole cycle was to lead us away from the dominant, but in fact leading us straight to the dominant, G. Beethoven plays with this and then brings us back to the beautiful 2cnd motive. we descend into that minor again, where the conversation began, and as it develops, it leads us to the end of the Recapitulation.
Coda
We have about forty measures to go before the end of the first movement. Beethoven begins the coda in the tonic and builds off a phrase in the first violins which was previously played in the winds in a different key. We start to hear thematic elements from the second motive which build up to a succession of chords in all instruments for the purpose of reentering the first motive and we are finally at the end in our home key, ending on three chords, all being C Major triads.
| other reviews of this album |
|
Being a theory nerd, I love this personally and I could read something like this on the whole thing.
Unfortuantely I think you're going to lose a lot of people with this, if not by the first paragraph the second one at least. I also think you may have misinterpreted or over-accentuated the analysis you were referring to. Even so, you could turn this into a really great review if you gave it a little revision.
Aside from the content, the format of the review just looks like it needs to be segmented a bit more. Also, trim a lot of this down... you can talk about the analysis all you like but pick specific examples that fascinate you personally and convey why. Your first paragraph showed some real promise, in that regard.
Lastly, while you don't have to cover everything, I'd talk about more than the one movement. The way you had it written now would make it a chore to do the whole thing, I know, but its definitely doable if you condense it. I'm not going to lie, this isn't a very good review but I'm not interested in negging it because I can see what you were trying to pull off. I'd really like to see you pull this off in the way you intended, classical needs more attention.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Well,
I'm glad that you think that this is a bad review, because this isn't a review at all. It's more of an experiment. You see, I have made it my goal to bring classical music to everyone, and I just wanted to see what would happen. It is also very difficult to choose specific examples without posting the score along with the review which I still have to figure out how to do. I will be back later today to finish up this comment.
| | |
I think doing an overall would be better, this is a lot like a track-by-track but with real long descriptions. Personally I don't think it's a good review, but I certainly won't neg it either.
| | |
This looks like DFelon's muse article about Bartok.
| | |
I understand a lot of what you wrote - I study classical guitar, so Im aware of theory. When you capitalize FORTE and DOUBLE FORTE it gives the reader a good idea of the dynamics of the piece, so try to incorporate more layman's terms I guess you can say. If you listen to any modern bands you can attempt to draw similarities, I guess.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Response to Jom.
Like I said before, this was an experiment, I just wanted to see the feedback. Next time I do some reviews, they will be strictly reviews, and I'll probably highlight major motives that enhance the drama of the music. Thanks for all your comments though, I love reading this feedback. As an interpreter/ and future conductor, I'm delighted to see so many responses to this truly immortal music.
| | |
It's a good and in depth analysis, however it doesn't really apply to 95% of this Sputnik. It seems rather pretentious to do a review like this, but I don't think that was your motive. I think there was also a bit too much theoretical analyzing. Needs more pathos(but I understand that wasn't your intention)... Anyway, an enjoyable read, and I commend you for taking the time to write all this out. It's a strong analysis, but as a review....not so much.
| | |
How is it possible to have pathos in a review?
Your review here and your last one are both quite well done respectively, but they don't seem to meet your goal of bringing classical music to the "masses." The review is really clunky and dense to a casual reader, and that will turn them off immediately and entirely. Analytically sound, though.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
hey guys,
I just wanted to say that I just love the responses that this "review" provoked.
My thought is that if it can invite you, it can invite others, regardless of being unable to understand theory,etc. Think about it. Would you have talked about this kind of stuff in different situations.
The symphony(sym-together, phony-sound, hence sounding together) brings together not just the musicians, but also the listeners. It's an incredible effect that Music, esp. Classical, has, the ability to bridge the spiritual gaps between people, which is one of the many reasons why I refer to it as immortal. A great conductor once said, "we must not forget how powerful we are, we musicians; we have the whole world in our hands. We can enroll people in anything.”
I think that I'm just going to leave this "review" as it is, so that it might invite others to speak, and start thinking on a new more exciting review.
I have just one more thing to add: as a response to Serpento: in this way, I think that for now, Classical music is having its effect on people on this website, but I hope to include all of sputnik in the future when I say that again.
| | |
@ Serpento
Idk, I'm an idiot. I was trying to make a stupid joke because this review was so analytical, and it clearly didn't work. I thought it should have been have focused more on the emotional side of the Symphonies but yea....it was dumb.
Again, it was a strong analysis, but I don't see much appeal as a review. But hey, as an experiment, I'd say way to go.
| | |
Well, realistically, classical has been having its effect on the responders in this review for quite some time now. Still, I see where you're coming from.
| | |
I always figured that a good portion of the Sputnik community was fairly well versed in Classical. It certainly seems like it.
| | |
[quote="GrandMaestro30"]I'm glad that you think that this is a bad review, because this isn't a review at all.[/quote]
I never said I thought it was a bad review. I said that I, personally, love it. What I did say is that this isn't a very good review, but that it could be shaped into one.
Experiment or no, I do have to agree that you are coming off as a bit pretentious. It seems more like you did this review in spite of being asked to add a little more and decided to go to the other extreme. Granted, that's just my opinion.
But the fact remains that this, as it stands, is not a review. Not to mention that, as a review, it should be negged... regardless of your "intention" here. You aren't a poor writer, your last review was quite good even. But really all you did here was overstate what one could plainly read in but a fraction of the score.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
hahaha, I wasn't trying to be pretentious, I'm not like that, I wouldn't do this out of spite as well, that just insults me, hahaha. This "review" is actually a part of a paper that I recently wrote on the First symphony. I couldn't really keep the language the same, so that's why it seems like an overstating of what could be plainly read, except for some thematic elements that I chose to include. Please don't ever think of me as pretentious or as doing things out of spite, I can assure you that I would never do anything like that.
To many points, I agree with you, this website is a review website, and this isnt a review, and in that manner, this "review" should be negged; I completely agree with you on that point. My last review was so short because there was really nothing more to say, I couldn't include even small harmonic points because they all lead to greater ones, and the meaning is too important to not write, but yet it would be too long in my opinion. That's why I avoided adding analysis before. I also tried to bring out the major themes in ways that anyone could understand, without analysis. One can't just add a little point or two of analysis, because its just not worth it, it wouldn't get the point around in time. I'm very sorry if I seemed like I wrote this out of spite.This Message Edited On 01.16.08
| | |
I'm not presuming anything, I'm just observing. Oddly enough, I was contemplating how it seemed more of a lecture from a music history class. It makes sense that it's a paper, though.
Don't misinterpret my tone, either. I think I may be coming off as cutting, but I'm really only confused as to what you were trying to achieve. Truthfully, within this review and its collective comments here this is the most I've seen you write yet... so don't feel insulted, I'm not putting you down. I just don't get this.
| | |
I thought it was a good review. You've done a simple review before, and now you've done a complex review, so your goal now should be to try and find a balance in between the two extremes.
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
hahaha, do it the aristotle way? definitely, I'll be doing one soon, this experiment is over. Forgive the inconveniences.
| | |
Unfortunately I don't understand much theory. Any recommendations for books/sites etc?
| | |
Unfortunately I don't understand much theory. Any recommendations for books/sites etc?
Take piano lessons!
| | |
hahaha, do it the aristotle way? The best way 
| | | |
|
| |
