Okay, here's some of my random, unstructured thoughts on this, coming to it as a complete beginner. Some of this overlaps a lot with what others have said but you’ll have to trust me when I say that it’s a case of me having these thoughts more or less independently and then realising on coming to the thread again that it’s similar to what others have said. Anyway:

* I'm sure that this particular point is at least partly influenced by what I've read about the piece as much as the piece itself (although I do think this contextual information really helped my appreciation of it so I make no apologies for that) but, as WoE also intimated, even to a neophyte there's a real sense of boundary-pushing to this piece, giving it an exhilirating rush that pervades throughout. It sounds as heroic as its title suggests it should, and revolutionary, and bracing.

* The second movement: Primarily it seems to contemplate mortality and the sacrifices and struggles to be endured in times of revolution. However, what I really like about it is that there seems to be a real note of defiance there too. It’s not really dwelling upon the “misery” aspect, and seems much more positive, inspiring and uplifting than you’d expect a funereal piece to be.

* The first movement is my favourite, I think. It’s so exuberant and rousing. As Andy said, a real call-to-arms. I love it.

* My enjoyment and appreciation of the final movement has been greatly enhanced by Bruno’s comments on it. The thing that gets me about it is that it’s constantly engaging and interesting (sorry, Andy) and enjoyable to listen to, but there’s nothing there that I would really call its main melody. It just goes from one place to another over and over again and there are various mini-themes but nothing over-arching. When it finishes, I think ”I enjoyed that, but I’d have difficulty humming much of it back to you”.

* The piece as a whole seems (and of course is) so much more complex than the music I’m used to listening to. At times, it reminded me a bit of the time I read a popular account of the Rieman hypothesis: there’s pleasure to be gained (a great deal in this case) and interest to be had from what by necessity is a fairly superficial exploration, but in each case it’s blatantly obvious that there are complexities and depths here that are way beyond my ken, and which I will almost certainly never fully understand. The difference for me, however, is that while it’s incredibly unsatisfying to read about maths that I know I’ll never fully understand, the opposite is true for music.

Overall, this strikes me as being a really great, fascinating first choice for exploration, and I hope future pieces prove as rewarding. I’m interested in the statement that this piece is the bridge between Classicism and Romanticism. Is it possible to expand on this? What are the defining features of each, and are there any particular features of the Eroica that illustrate its bridging nature?

Excellent contributions from WoE and Hof, I reckon.

To try and answer Hofzinser- Beethoven composed the Eroica symphony from the absolute depths of depression (he'd recently discovered he was losing his hearing). We tend to remember Beethoven as a kind of superman so it's worth remembering that initially, the hearing loss really did him one. There's a diary of that time, the so-called 'Heiligenstadt Testament', that goes on for page after distraught page, he just pours his soul onto the page. I've dug up a quote:

Oh you who think or say that I am malevolent, stubborn or misanthropic, how greatly do you wrong me. You do not know the secret cause which makes me seem that way to you...Ah, how could I possibly admit an infirmity in the one sense which ought to be more perfect in me than in others, a sense which I once enjoyed in the highest perfection, a perfection such as few in my profession enjoy or have enjoyed" etc

The point being it leaves no one in doubt of how highly he appraised his worth. I personally think it's clear the hero of the Eroica is Beethoven himself.

As for what makes Beethoven the bridge between Classical and Romantic music, it would require a lengthy answer. Obviously he came of age when Haydn and Mozart were the two leading composers in Europe and his early works are inevitably influenced by them. He took a few lessons from Haydn and possibly even Mozart but was - surprise - impatient of being taught by anyone. His early music does not essentially stray very far from their mold but all of it shows a distinctly more robust and rugged personality capable of being both more playful and more serious. It would have been clear early on that he was going to go in a very different direction, as his first two symphonies had already pushed boundaries in length and, well, timbre. They're both 'bigger sounding', more forceful, than any of Mozart's late symphonies, although Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony (his last) would still fairly tower above them in stature.

Defining traits of Classicism- much as with the other arts, Classical period music was a reaction to Baroque music - a new preference for leaner textures, simpler harmonic language (less 'chromaticism' or fewer harmonic changes and colorations), a greater emphasis on melody, sectional contrasts, and regular phrase lengths. (And much, much more!)

With Romanticism you get all the esthetic things that had already captured the imagination of the Romantic poets and authors finding their musical outlets. Mood swings, the Byronic concept of hero, nature and the supernatural, elevation of the individual, etc etc. Purely musical developments involved expanded length, expanded performing forces, greater technical demands on players, increased dissonance, increased harmonic complexity, straying farther from the home key.

The Eroica exhibits pretty much all of the above characteristics. Apart from the obvious strictly music-theory type advancements which you as a neophyte could already sense, the notion of a symphony about a 'great man', whoever that man might be, was a clear break with Classicism. Mozart's last symphony was nicknamed 'Jupiter', so there's your descent from white marble Classicism to black earth Romanticism right there.

That all barely scratches the surface and poorly at that. It's worth remembering that Beethoven wasn't himself the most Romantic of composers - not as Romantic as his contemporaries Schubert and Weber (though he broke ground for them and they were in his shadow) and not as Romantic as the true-blues like Berlioz, Schumann, and Chopin. Beethoven never entirely lost his Classical roots and never gave himself over entirely to the hyper-sensitivity and rhapsodical fancy of the latter mentioned composers.

To quickly expand on that last point, another feature of Romanticism was the invention of new forms, many of them short - things like the Nocturne, Rhapsody, Ballade, Fantasy, Etude, the Romantic art song a la Schubert - many of which were meant as musical poems or mementos of pure expression of feeling, none of which had any precedents in the Classical period. Beethoven didn't really write any of those sorts of things and tended to stick with and expand upon existing forms (symphony, string quartet, piano trio, overture, fugue, piano sonata, concertos, etc.)

And, here's a contemporary review by a critic from the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung:

This long composition, extremely difficult of performance, is in reality a tremendously expanded, daring and wild fantasia. It lacks nothing in the way of startling and beautiful passages, in which the energetic and talented composer must be recognized; but often it loses itself in lawlessness...This reviewer belongs to Mr. Beethoven's sincerest admirers, but in this composition he must confess that he finds much that is glaring and bizarre, which hinders greatly one's grasp of the whole, and a sense of unity [i.e., Classical unity] is almost completely lost.

It had the whole town talking, really. Beethoven replied "If I write a symphony an hour long, it will be found short enough."

That's great stuff again, Bruno - thanks for that.

Thanks, any time. I enjoyed reading your reactions and have a couple additional responses.

One, on the funeral march I think you're right on - there's a clear note of defiance along with what I think of as belief in the eloquence of tragedy, which is what makes a funeral march a funeral march. It's written 'to the memory of a great man' (Beethoven's substitution for the Bonaparte dedication) so by necessity it's a celebration of his greatness, which his death affords the opportunity to sort of put a bookend on.

The opening bars of the second movement have a quite Classical feel to them to my ears - a good example of Beethoven's continuity with the preceding era. It reminds me a lot of this famous funeral chorus from Rameau's Castor & Pollux (1737) for example; beautifully restrained, dignified mourning. Where the defiance comes in is the stunning fugue section later in the movement, which just paralyzes you with, for that time, an unprecedented level of intensity.

Second, on your notion of the forbidding complexity of classical music, I'm never sure what to think about that. I suppose some of it comes down to how acute one's hearing is - one may just always miss certain subtleties; but I think this music appeals overwhelmingly to the emotions and is therefore pretty universally accessible, and that the cerebral aspects aren't normally so complex that they're 'beyond the ken' of any intelligent, engaged listener. (By the 20th century of course, this prospect gets well put to the test.) Would learning some music theory help and enhance the experience, of course, but that's really only a matter of a) not being tone deaf and b) putting in a little time.

So I don't tend to think it's much different from something like difficult philosophy or literary fiction, but I could of course be wrong about that.

Today I finally had time to give this my full attention. These are pretty much stream of consciousness notes:

First movement:

Opening power chords that would do credit to Pete Townshend. The fifth has them too, a Beethoven signature? This is anxious, edgy music. It sounds as if it's running away from itself. The repeated clashes of percussion at around five minutes are too long a sequence, they're straining so hard, trying to force the issue (I don't mean they are too long, I mean they're suggestive of stress or maybe obsessiveness.) The violins are harsh, skitterish, tumbling over themselves. Something isn't right.

Second movement:

Deeply dark. Somewhere way past the intersection of melancholy and gloom. This music is barely breathing at times. It seems undecided as to whether its existence is even worthwhile. Then at about 22 minutes it flickers into life, only to retreat into despair again a couple of minutes later. This pattern repeats itself with different modulations until the end of the movement.

Third movement:

Signs of playfulness perhaps? The flute melody (which I recognise) suggests optimism, or at least something positive. For the first time confidence, even assertiveness are present but there are still occasional lapses into darkness but that melody remains, something hopeful to hang on to.

Fourth movement:

The running violins from the first movement are back but now they're more co-ordinated, less fretful and the percussion less neurotic. Delicacy, subtlety and grace appear, so does something like triumph — is this the "heroic" part? Am I convinced the music has recovered/been saved? Maybe, but the violins a minute or so before the (overly?) persuasive finale contain fear. Of remission perhaps?

I need to process some more.

[BTW: I deliberately didn't read anyone else's contributions before listening, or writing. I shall now go and do so]

Boy, I'm really on my own with the first movement aren't I?

I'm less surprised that your reading of the first movement is different from that of others than I am that you managed to write all that without referring to Delacroix.

And now I'll take my tongue out of my cheek.

I briefly considered writing about it as different values of colour — possibly blue — but, then thought nah, Andy will take the piss out of me. I should have known better eh?

Well, we could always do some Messiaen next.

Or Bliss.

Andy C wrote:
Righto. We'll start off with something in the canon.

February's piece is Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 ("Eroica").



That was James Ellroy's first piece of music on 'Desert Island Discs' a couple of weeks ago. Now that was good radio. Ellroy's a bit of a Beethoven fan.

Thought I'd just manhandle this back into the visible region to remind those who haven't got around to it that it's still here. And it would be good to know whether what's been posted so far has been useful to those who have been a biy passive so far.

When do you propose we begin with the next piece? I know it was only supposed to be one per month but I reckon there would be scope for a couple a month if the interest's there.

Morning all, really enjoyed reading this thread. Very thought-provoking. I've long listened to the classics only in bite-sized chunks on R3 and on compliation albums, but having started to learn an instrument recently I'm getting much more into it.

Hofzinser wrote:
When do you propose we begin with the next piece? I know it was only supposed to be one per month but I reckon there would be scope for a couple a month if the interest's there.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I guess we're still in a sort of trial phase, and if people think that a greater frequency would be better, I've no problem with that.

I arbitrarily hit on a month as the periodicity of this because (a) it's what book clubs do, (b) because it gives a memorable date for each piece to kick off and (c) listening to a classical piece may be difficult to fit into ones schedule. I think the last of these three is the most important: not all the pieces will be as long as the Eroica, which is north of fifty minutes, but most will need people to set aside half-an-hour or so, I guess. I think it's certainly pushing it to expect people to do this on a weekly basis, and fortnightly feels like it might be an imposition. But if people want to go over new pieces more often, I'd be delighted.

Do we think that we should have a new thread for each piece or continue to build on this one?

There are a number of people who indicated interest but have yet to pipe up on the Eroica Symphony. Of course some of them may have only wanted to lurk. But I think we would need to hear from some of them whether they'd not gotten time to listen critically yet. Everyone who's held forth so far would likely be okay with a 2-week course instead of a month.

I think we may as well leave it all in this thread but I suppose it makes no real difference.

Yeah, I'm fairly neutral on the question of whether to continue in this thread or start a new one for every piece. Although now that I think about it a fresh thread each time might be better for tempting in new recruits so I'd maybe suggest it on that basis.

I could comfortably do a piece every fortnight but I think the key thing is wide participation so whatever's most likely to encourage that, I suppose.