Programme sheets and recording booklets often count three movements in Beethoven’s 30th piano Sonata in E Major, regarding the Prestissimo section as a second movement — despite the obvious parallel to Sonata no 32 with its two movements, also sonata form plus variations. This might be due to the fact that some rather substantial connections between the first section (Vivace ma non troppo – Adagio espressivo) and the second (Prestissimo) have not yet been fully appreciated. In fact, the Prestissimo turns out not to be a new movement at all, but a complementary reworking of the material of the first section.
Both first subjects take their start from the same idea: The first section’s first subject opens with the pitch sequence G#–B–E–B–B, or a tonica triad sequence 3rd–5th–1st–5th–5th (first beat plus following note, both hands). The Prestissimo simply turns this motive into Minor key, replacing the first of the 5ths by a lengthening of the preceding note: GG–E–B–B, or 3rd–1st–5th–5th (first bar plus following note). The bass progression in the beginning is: E–D#–C#–B–A–G#–B–E, basically the descending tonica scale, with 5th instead of 2nd. The bass progression in the Prestissimo’s first subject is virtually identical; just that in two bars a passing tone and an “appoggiatura” respectively are added in half values: E–D–c–(a)–B–A–G–(f#)–b–E (passing tone and appoggiatura in brackets, half values in lowercase letters).
The beginning of the second subject in the first section is harmonically interesting, exploring in (initially descending) diatonal steps the space between fifth and minor ninth in what sounds like a double dominant — it is in fact a double dominant, but to F# Major which in turn is double dominant to the basic tonality E. Now, if we were to describe the Prestissimo’s second subject in comparable terms, we would find that it is exploring in (initially ascending) diatonal steps the space between fifth and minor ninth in the double dominant F# Major to the basic tonality E …
Taking each of these similarities by itself, one might be tempted to ask whether they could be just coincidental, given the simple diatonal or triad structure of the motives. Seen together, however, I think there can be no reasonable doubt that Beethoven purposefully used the basic musical ideas from the first section as starting point for the second. So let’s have a look at what he actually does with them.
What strikes listeners easily most in the beginning is the complete change of tempo, metre, and character after only eight bars. In fact, people interested in sonata form aspects will probably have looked very closely at motives, tonalities, and progressions in the whole section to make sure that it really is a complete sonata form, not just a free fantasy preluding to the Prestissimo as a real first movement — and to ascertain that the first eight bars are in fact the first subject, and the Adagio the second. In other words, Beethoven for once completely exaggerated the canonical contrast between first and second subjects. In the Prestissimo then, no contrast at all. Not only are tempo and character in the second subject seamlessly continued from the preceding bars, even its opening motive (bar 33sq) is no more than an inversion of an earlier transition motive (bar 9sq).
Both ways of introducing a second subject – radical change of basic parameters here, continuity and recurring to already introduced material there – are not only opposite to each other, but also hardly compatible anymore with the basic ideas of organising thematic material in a sonata form. Beethoven seems to try to knock down opposite walls of the architecture built not least by himself.
Finally, a glance at development. When I first came across op 109, I was startled by the fact that the development in the Prestissimo section just used the bass line of the first subject, but neither the first subject itself nor the second. For a self-standing sonata movement, this omission would hardly be explainable; the thematic material is characteristic enough to allow for interesting treatment, and there is little point in writing a sonata form with exposition and development if both do not share more than just a rather elusive feature.
The answer, however, comes as soon as we accept that it is not a self-standing movement but a part of a larger structure. The development in the first section uses exclusively, and extensively, the triad motive; when Beethoven started the second section with yet another reworking of that very same triad motive, there was no way of reworking it for a third time in any sort of development. The second subject on the other hand is less idiomatic and, moreover, itself a reworking of earlier material. So the last (but brilliant) resort was to concentrate on the third element common to first and second sections, the first subject’s bass line (which luckily in its embellished form proves sufficiently characteristic) — and otherwise to keep the whole development thing as short as possible.
To my best knowledge, in Beethoven’s œuvre there is no second example of a single sonata form movement consisting of two sections of substantial length, both attempting different solutions for the same task. My personal impression is that Beethoven’s whimsy took him to a highly unusual sonata form in the first place (our Vivace – Adagio section) — so unusual that, when he was to use the piece inside a piano sonata, he felt safer adding a second part drawing on the same material, to contrasting effect, creating a fairly obvious sonata form, but no bar longer than was necessary to complete the appropriate statements. (There is in fact external evidence pointing at the first section being written independently and incorporated into a Sonata only later.)
Certainly, this experiment is the widest Beethoven ever bent the conventions of sonata form (note that also the form of the second movement, a series of variations, could hardly be less sonata-like). Further development (which in this case is nearly identical with further deconstruction) was not to be reached until late Romantic period.
Both first subjects take their start from the same idea: The first section’s first subject opens with the pitch sequence G#–B–E–B–B, or a tonica triad sequence 3rd–5th–1st–5th–5th (first beat plus following note, both hands). The Prestissimo simply turns this motive into Minor key, replacing the first of the 5ths by a lengthening of the preceding note: GG–E–B–B, or 3rd–1st–5th–5th (first bar plus following note). The bass progression in the beginning is: E–D#–C#–B–A–G#–B–E, basically the descending tonica scale, with 5th instead of 2nd. The bass progression in the Prestissimo’s first subject is virtually identical; just that in two bars a passing tone and an “appoggiatura” respectively are added in half values: E–D–c–(a)–B–A–G–(f#)–b–E (passing tone and appoggiatura in brackets, half values in lowercase letters).
The beginning of the second subject in the first section is harmonically interesting, exploring in (initially descending) diatonal steps the space between fifth and minor ninth in what sounds like a double dominant — it is in fact a double dominant, but to F# Major which in turn is double dominant to the basic tonality E. Now, if we were to describe the Prestissimo’s second subject in comparable terms, we would find that it is exploring in (initially ascending) diatonal steps the space between fifth and minor ninth in the double dominant F# Major to the basic tonality E …
Taking each of these similarities by itself, one might be tempted to ask whether they could be just coincidental, given the simple diatonal or triad structure of the motives. Seen together, however, I think there can be no reasonable doubt that Beethoven purposefully used the basic musical ideas from the first section as starting point for the second. So let’s have a look at what he actually does with them.
What strikes listeners easily most in the beginning is the complete change of tempo, metre, and character after only eight bars. In fact, people interested in sonata form aspects will probably have looked very closely at motives, tonalities, and progressions in the whole section to make sure that it really is a complete sonata form, not just a free fantasy preluding to the Prestissimo as a real first movement — and to ascertain that the first eight bars are in fact the first subject, and the Adagio the second. In other words, Beethoven for once completely exaggerated the canonical contrast between first and second subjects. In the Prestissimo then, no contrast at all. Not only are tempo and character in the second subject seamlessly continued from the preceding bars, even its opening motive (bar 33sq) is no more than an inversion of an earlier transition motive (bar 9sq).
Both ways of introducing a second subject – radical change of basic parameters here, continuity and recurring to already introduced material there – are not only opposite to each other, but also hardly compatible anymore with the basic ideas of organising thematic material in a sonata form. Beethoven seems to try to knock down opposite walls of the architecture built not least by himself.
Finally, a glance at development. When I first came across op 109, I was startled by the fact that the development in the Prestissimo section just used the bass line of the first subject, but neither the first subject itself nor the second. For a self-standing sonata movement, this omission would hardly be explainable; the thematic material is characteristic enough to allow for interesting treatment, and there is little point in writing a sonata form with exposition and development if both do not share more than just a rather elusive feature.
The answer, however, comes as soon as we accept that it is not a self-standing movement but a part of a larger structure. The development in the first section uses exclusively, and extensively, the triad motive; when Beethoven started the second section with yet another reworking of that very same triad motive, there was no way of reworking it for a third time in any sort of development. The second subject on the other hand is less idiomatic and, moreover, itself a reworking of earlier material. So the last (but brilliant) resort was to concentrate on the third element common to first and second sections, the first subject’s bass line (which luckily in its embellished form proves sufficiently characteristic) — and otherwise to keep the whole development thing as short as possible.
To my best knowledge, in Beethoven’s œuvre there is no second example of a single sonata form movement consisting of two sections of substantial length, both attempting different solutions for the same task. My personal impression is that Beethoven’s whimsy took him to a highly unusual sonata form in the first place (our Vivace – Adagio section) — so unusual that, when he was to use the piece inside a piano sonata, he felt safer adding a second part drawing on the same material, to contrasting effect, creating a fairly obvious sonata form, but no bar longer than was necessary to complete the appropriate statements. (There is in fact external evidence pointing at the first section being written independently and incorporated into a Sonata only later.)
Certainly, this experiment is the widest Beethoven ever bent the conventions of sonata form (note that also the form of the second movement, a series of variations, could hardly be less sonata-like). Further development (which in this case is nearly identical with further deconstruction) was not to be reached until late Romantic period.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen