Ludwigvan Beethoven’s cello sonata in F major Op. 5, No. 1 is the first true cello and piano duo sonata. Beethoven wrote this piece during his early Viennese period in 1796 and showed his emerging maturity by innovative instrumentation and technical virtuosity. This piece is, even now, one of the most prominent pieces in the cello music repertoire. In comparison with other Classical composers such as Mozart and Haydn, Beethoven gave the cello a more prominent role. He was the only composer who wrote cello sonatas among the First Viennese School composers. Beethoven’s cello sonatas also inspired the Romantic period’s composers to compose a great deal of cello music. This piece has a slow introduction and two fast movements. The slow
From Beethoven’s middle period come the works most often associated with Beethoven and with what is known of his personality: forceful, uncompromising, angry, willful, suffering, but overcoming extraordinary personal hardship, all of which traits are read into his music. The Romantic cult of the individual who represents himself in his music and of the genius who suffers for his art begins here with Beethoven.
In 1792, Joseph Haydn spent some time in the Redoute on his journey back to Vienna from London. Here, LudwigvanBeethoven presented him with one of his two “Kai- serkantaten”. Beethoven’s friend Franz Gerhard Wegeler recorded that Haydn was full of praise for the piece and encouraged the young composer to continue and inten- sify his studies.
abusive and young Ludwig bore the brunt of his anger. The rigorous yet abusive training by his father not only set him up to develop into the tremendously talented composer he is remembered as today but also most likely started his lifelong battle with mental instability. 9 By 1784,
Johann’s alcoholism had worsened to the point that he would no longer support his family. At this point, Ludwig formally requested a court appointment as Assistant Court Organist. Despite his young age, his request was accepted and he was put on the court payroll with a modest salary. Effortlessly living up to the early musical promise he showed, he was sent to Vienna in 1787 by the court in hopes of studying in Europe’s capital of culture and music. It is also recorded that the hope of the court was that Beethoven would study with Mozart. It is unknown whether or not these two ever worked together or even formally met during Beethoven’s time in Vienna. It is said that the first time Mozart heard Beethoven perform, he said “keep your eyes on him, some day he will give the world something to talk about.” 10 Whether this is fact or myth is unknown but Beethoven truly did give the world plenty to talk about. Most likely the two never actually met in person because Beethoven only remained in Vienna for a few weeks before receiving word that his mother had fallen ill. He returned to his home in Bonn to tend to his mothers sickness.
seriously for a wife. The fair hopes of this year were quickly dashed by the invasion of Vienna by the French that May, and the destruction and hardship they brought with them. Beethoven reportedly spent much of the bombardment with his head wrapped in a pillow in his brother’s cellar to protect what remained of his hearing. His no longer robust general health was shaken by the experience, and once it was all over and Vienna fell, he wrote absolutely no music for the next three months. When he did begin writing again, it was with the familiar and intimate form of the string quartet, in the form of Opus 74, “the Harp.” This piece can be seen as an attempt to return to normalcy, the recapturing of a happy dream; the form and length are very similar to the three Opus 59s of a few years previous, yet the general mood is more warm and gentle than these more heroic pieces. Beethoven no longer had something to prove; but
The historical narrative of this book is driven not primarily by Schubert’s biography, nor by a chronology of when Schubert composed which works, and thus differs materially from both strands of standard life and works narratives. Rather, my primary concern has been with Schubert’s public career, to which life and works are of course highly relevant, but which imposes a different emphasis, and poses different questions. The divide of 1824 and Schuppanzigh’s monopoly, for example, are hidden in plain sight within life and works narratives, but both spring into sharp relief when considered in the context of Schubert ’ s public career. While career consid- erations underlie the arguments of almost every chapter, they are the explicit focus of two chapters, one on his relationship to the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde (GdMf, or Society of the Friends of Music), and one on his publishers. Since Chapter 7 seeks to explain, among other things, why Schubert chose to give his “Great” C-major Symphony to the GdMf, it reaches back to Schubert’s ﬁrst association with the Society in 1818 and provides a bird’s-eye view of the whole sweep of his public career and the role the Society played in it. Chapter 10 recapitulates in brief Schubert’s publication history in order to explain why the publication in Germany of the E-ﬂat Trio was of prime importance both to his career and to his posthumous reception. Both of these career chapters thus also interrupt the chronological narrative with ﬂ ashbacks.
Example 6 – Beethoven symphony No.6, 2 nd mvt., mm. 99-100.
The third movement is a Scherzo that is filled with a sense of humor. Among all of his violin and piano sonatas, this is the only time in which a short Scherzo is added between the second and last movements. This quick and playful movement is in F major and in an ABA form. Most articulations in this movement are short and staccato, which is in contrast with the second movement. The descending staccato eighth notes from mm. 1 to 27, mimic the sound of birds singing (Example 7). The first section contains two parts—in the first section, the violin is always one beat later than the piano. In terms of musical dialogue, it sounds like the violin is always on the offbeat to create a sense of humor. Yet playing such an offbeat pace between the violin and piano parts is
58 Secondly, even if the Arbitral Tribunal decided not to change Art. 23(6) FSA into a bilateral option clause but to invalidate Art. 23(6) FSA, the Arbitration Agreement would still be valid when applying the standard of a reasonable third person in terms of Art. 3.2.13 UNIDROIT. In the case at hand, the Parties’ main interest lies in the dispute resolution by arbitration and not the unilateral option clause. R ESPONDENT ’ S as well as C LAIMANT ’ S intention to submit to arbitration did not depend on the inclusion of a unilateral option clause. Art. 23(6) FSA only provides an additional, but not an indispensable right for C LAIMANT . A reasonable third person would be aware of the fact that agreeing on arbitration was C LAIMANT ’ S primary intention since this intention was referred to in its standard terms [Claimant’s Exhibit No. 2, p. 13], the Parties’ negotiations [Claimant’s Exhibit No. 3, pp. 14 et seq.] and the contract [Art. 23(3),(4) FSA, Claimant’s Exhibit No. 2, p. 11]. Therefore, the invalidity of Art. 23(6) FSA would not affect the Parties’ agreement on arbitration.
Lemma 5 imposes three restrictions on the pattern of international specialization. First, the poorest countries tend to specialize in assembly, while the richest countries tend to specialize in producing parts. This directly derives from the higher relative productivity of the poorest countries in assembly. Second, amongst the countries that produce parts, richer countries produce and export at later stages of production. This result also held in Section 3, and the intuition is unchanged. Third, whereas middle-income countries tend to produce all parts, the richest countries tend to specialize in only the most complex ones. Intuitively, even the …nal stage S n of a simple part is su¢ ciently labor intensive that high-wage, high- productivity countries are less competitive at that stage. Viewed through the lens of the hierarchy literature, the …nal output of a simple chain does not embody a large enough amount of inputs to merit, from an e¢ ciency standpoint, leveraging the productivity of the most productive countries.
Nog geen twee dekades nadat die Gereformeerde Kerk in die O .V.S. met die hulp van Ds. D. Postma in 1859 ontstaan het1), moes dié Kerk ’n skeuring in sy geledere beleef. Hierdie afskeiding wat in November 1877 te Bethulie onder leiding van Ds. S. D. Venter plaasgevind het, word ook twee publikasies wat in die jongste tyd deur Gereformeerde kerkhistorici gepubliseer is, behandel2). Hoewel beide skrywers die historiese gebeurtenisse wat hiermee in verband staan, belig, is dit tog opmerklik dat die teologies-dogmatiese agtergrond van hierdie skeuring min aandag geniet. Dit is in hierdie geval wel van belang omdat die beskikbare gegevvens aantoon dat die Gereformeerde Kerk hier op ’n kruispunt gestaan het. Hier in 1877 is ’n bepaalde teologiese rigting in die Gereformeerde Kerk in die O .V .S. beslis afgewys. Die botsende teologiese rigtings word enersyds deur Ds. D. Postma en die meerderheid van die Gereformeerde Kerk en andersyds deur Ds. S. D. Venter en sy kring verteemvoordig. Hoewel die botsing tussen Ds. Postma en Ds. S. D. Venter nie dwarsdeur ’n botsing van teologiese insig en rigting was nie, was die teologiese rigting wat beide verteemvoordig het, tot so uiteenlopend dat dit in alle waarskynlikheid vroeër of later tog ’n botsing tussen hierdie twee persone sou moes afgee3).
T H E F I R S T BOSTON SYMPHONY PERFORMANCE OF BEETHOVEN’S B-FLAT PIANO CONCERTO was a single performance on February 17, 1948, in New Haven, with soloist Bruce
Simonds under the direction of Richard Burgin. Burgin also conducted the BSO’s first subscription performances of the concerto, in December 1953 with soloist Grant Johannesen. Subsequent BSO performances featured Theodore Lettvin (with Erich Leinsdorf conducting), Rudolf Serkin (with Max Rudolf and later with Seiji Ozawa), Claude Frank (William Steinberg), Jerome Lowenthal (Colin Davis), Vladimir Ashkenazy (Ozawa), Christoph Eschenbach (doubling as soloist and conductor), Emanuel Ax (first with Edo de Waart in July 1987 at Tanglewood; later with Kent Nagano in August 1997, Herbert Blomstedt in August 2006, and Jaap Van Zweden in February 2012 at Symphony Hall), Peter Serkin (Charles Dutoit), Alfred Brendel (Ozawa), Richard Goode (John Eliot Gardiner), Christian Zacharias (Leonard Slatkin), Leif Ove Andsnes (James Conlon), Andreas Haefliger (Robert Spano), Robert Levin (Ozawa), Christian Zacharias (the most recent Tanglewood performance, on August 11, 2013, with Zacharias doubling as soloist and conductor), and Yefim Bronfman (the most recent subscription performances, with Christoph von Dohnányi in March 2014).
Among Beethoven’s works with Hungarian references there is but a single piece that continues along the path signposted by Haydn. His Alla in-
gherese, quasi un capriccio (op.129) 37 is a swift rondo movement similar to
Haydn’s most Hungarian-like pieces, with the figurative elements playing the primary role. The theme itself is built from various figurations and the repetition of few-note motifs hence its structure assumes a folk-like simplic- ity. The stylistic play becomes indeed playfulness, if not parody. Perhaps be- cause Beethoven did not take this game so seriously as Haydn did, the Hun- garian character of his work is less unambiguous. The motif-repeating struc- ture of the theme does remind one of the verbunkos in some way, the motifs themselves, however, do not display the most typical patterns. Instead of the Haydnian principle “true because it’s like that” we have the principle of “it seems as if”. The Hungarian influence is even more vague in the episodes, especially at points where – as the musical process develops – the Beetho- venian virtuosity, his play with the space and potentialities of the piano co- mes to the fore. The first episode resists definition as Hungaricism because its figurations may just as well be Turkish as Hungarian, reminding one most strongly of Mozart’s Alla turca in his A major sonata (K. 331/330i), espe- cially its f sharp minor episode. The mixing of the “Hungarian” and “Turk- ish” elements warns that in the eye of western composers various exotic fea- tures did not become distinct and it was not always clear which moment of the music was taken for Hungarian and which for Turkish exoticism.