Notes on the Ninth

It’s not every day that you hear musicologists speaking on radio talk shows.

NPR’s On Point with Tom Ashbrook did a show on Beethoven’s Ninth yesterday afternoon (with guest music historian Harvey Sachs) that is well worth checking out. Sachs recently published a new book on Beethoven’s controversial masterpiece that goes into some social detail about the 1824 debut of the work and what it meant in the context of the composer’s Vienna, a place that was rapidly turning into, as Sachs puts it, the “first modern police state.” Although Beethoven doesn’t have a lot to say on politics, it’s hard to discuss the “brotherly union” of the Ode to Joy without looking into the political and philosophical underpinnings of the composer’s massive symphony. The work has simply been used for too many purposes over the years to ignore it, a fact highlighted by audio clips from both Hitler’s birthday in 1942 and Bernstein conducting the Berlin phil on the occasion of the destruction of the Wall in 1990. Indeed, the Ninth is a Protean piece that can used to “mean” just about anything.

For all of its canonical power, Beethoven’s final symphony is a deeply ambiguous work. As Maynard Solomon points out in his 1986 article “Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony: A Search for Order,” the composer wanted us to search for grand meanings in his music; however, the codes he employs are simply too heterogeneous to be read in any one way. (This is evinced by the sheer number of explanations provided for the work over the years. It reminds me of what James Joyce said about Finnegans Wake – “I’ve written a book that will keep the scholars guessing for generations.”) The one thing people can agree on is the symphony’s unprecedented scope and extremity of expression, what Solomon calls its “profoundly modernist perspective.” Solomon adds that “Beethoven’s music sought to disrupt,” concluding that the disruptive force of the symphony and its irreconcilable ambiguities have allowed it to mean vastly different things to different people over the years.

Taruskin weighs in on Solomon’s argument in his 1989 article “Resisting the Ninth.” (This unique piece – well, not unique to RT – begins as a record review and spirals into a provocative meditation on the 9th symphony, only to return to the record in question at the end. It’s a tour de force of critical/scholarly amalgamation in the style of his Berkeley colleague Joseph Kerman.) Building on Solomon, RT argues that the “disruption” at the heart of the symphony presents us with something fundamentally dangerous – it promises sublimity and universal brotherhood, and if you believe yourself to be on the side of such Big Ideas (as did Hitler), then it can be used to justify anything. However, neuter the work of this potent danger and you risk neutering everything powerful (and historical) about it. Indeed, some modern conductors white wash the uncomfortable elements of the Ninth by eschewing the fundamental (and subversive) vagueness of the work by specifying every detail. This, in effect, “defangs the beast.” (It also destroys it.)

Solomon’s article can be downloaded here; for the Taruskin, go here.

3 Comments

  1. Thank you for the link to the Sachs interview, and for including two of the important scholarly articles on the Ninth. Solomon, of course, has much more to say about the Ninth in other essays and in is biography of Beethoven.

    I also want to bring to your attention a documentary about the global impact of the Ninth that I’ve been working on for a few years. Following The Ninth: In The Footsteps of Beethoven’s Final Symphony. The trailer is here: http://www.followingtheninth.com Thank you for allowing me to post.

    Sincerely,

    kerry candaele
    venice, ca
    kcandaele@gmail.com

  2. Once again Taruskin’s explanation fails. Although superficially convincing, Taruskin’s claim cannot be correct that we are uneasy with Beethoven’s Ninth because its boundless utopian optimism reminds us of the promises made by the utopian ideologies of the 20th century that ended with gulags and gas chambers.

    Taruskin’s claim can’t possibly be correct because the grand utopian vision had already been shattered in Beethoven’s time by the failure of the French Revolution. In fact, the Grand Terror into which the French Revolution disintegrated serves as the historical model for the collapse and degeneration of the Soviet effort at utopian social engineering in Russia.

    So Taruskin’s explanation simply doesn’t wash.

    An alternative explanation once again centers on the growth of technology, which Taruskin systematicaly ignores in favor a much weaker alleged driver for musical history — politics.

    As technology advanced, problems that once forced people to their knees in prayer could be solved by science. No need to pray for a cure when the vaccine prevents your kid from getting the disease in the first place. And no point in supplicating heaven to help the starving when Norman Borlaug’s green revolution fills their bellies courtesy of modern science.

    Taruskin’s preferrred explanation for music history is remarkably weak. Politics depends on the thesis that special people in special circumstances make all the difference. But as musical history shows, the efforts by all sorts of special people to derail musical history in one or another cul-de-sac or serialism or atonality or gesamtkunstwerk have all failed. These trends remain niche interests with no fertile offshoots. Technology has caused the big changes we’ve seen throughout music history, from the continual expansion of pitch resources made possible by metalworking technology that gave us keyboard instruments, to the very recent explosion of unprecedented rhythmic complexity made possible by the introduction of machines like the player piano (Nancarrow) and the tape recorder (Reich’s Piano Phase) and the computer.

    Taruskin’s failure to admit the huge role played by technology in music history represents and enormous drawback in his scholarship.

Leave a Reply to mclaren Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s