The Form of the Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony James Webster usic-theoretical thought in this century has been dominated by paradigms and methods based on the principle of hierar chical reductionism. Whether the later Schenker interprets ‘every movement as the contrapuntal composing-out of a background tonal structure, or Schoenberg derives every idea in a movement from a Grund- gestalt, or Allen Forte analyzes all possible movements in terms of his sys- tem of interval sets —the most influential theories have tended to explain entire movements, and even whole works, on the basis of a single govern- ing principle. The underlying idea is the belief, derived primarily from Goethe and Hegel, in the organic nature of the artwork; the symptom of its presence is the search for unity.’ Theories of musical form have also ex- hibited this orientation, both in the tendency to interpret as many move- ments as possible according to familiar or privileged formal types (such as sonata form) and in the use of concepts like “symmetry” in analyses of what, afier all, remains a resolutely temporal art. Even if, as William Kin- ‘This essay is a revised and expanded translation of “Zur Form des Finales von Beetho- ‘ens 9. Symphonie,” in Probleme der symphonischen Tradition im 19, Jahrhundert: Intemationales musilewisenschafliches Colloguium Bonn 198, ed. Siegfried Kross and Marie Luise Maintz (Tutzing: Schneider, 1990), pp.157-86. I thank William Kinderman fora critical reading of this version, 1, See Ruth A. Solie, “The Living Work: Organicism and Musical Analysis,” 196M 4 (1980), 147-56,26 JAMES WEBSTER derman has recently argued, we should distinguish those more helpful “synthetic” or integrative unities that are said to be “transparent” to the work, rather than distortions of it, from the more dangerous “analytical” or reductive sorts, it remains the case that most twentieth-century analyt- ical practice has been beholden more to the latter type than to the former.? Today, however, opera research, such reductive theories are increasingly felt to be overly simplistic. As far as musical form is concerned, they seem to be yielding to what we may call “multivalent” analysis. Under this concept, a musical work is understood as encompassing numerous different “domains”: to- nality, musical material, rhythm, dynamics, instrumentation, thetoric, “narrative” design, and so forth. In a vocal work, one must add (at least) the verbal text, vocal tessitura, and relations between vocal passages and those for instruments alone. (A text-form is multivalent in its own right: meter, thyme scheme, stanza construction, lexical patterns, tone and especially in non-German-speaking countries and in voice, and ideational content.) The temporal patterns that arise in the var- ious domains need not be congruent and may at times even conflict. When “the” form can be said to exist at all, it necessarily arises from their combination—although how this happens, admittedly, often remains mysterious. On the other hand, the richness and complexity of the greatest music depends precisely on this multifariousness, to which an increased sensitivity can offer ample compensation for the abandonment of reductive unity. Pethaps the concept of multivalence will become a new analytical paradigm —not only for operas (where it seems almost inevitable) but for instrumental works as well.? 2. William Kinderman, this volume, and review of Beethoven on Beethoven by William S. Newman and Denken und Spiclen by Jargen Ubde and Renate Wieland, 19M 15 (1991), 64-68. 4. Admittedly, there has been no flldress presentation of this method so far. The tem “multivalence” was coined by Harold S, Powers in an unpublished study of Verdi's Otello, presented ata Verdi-Wagner conference at Cornell University in 1984. See Carolyn Abate and Roger Parker, “On Analyzing Opera,” in Anclyzing Opera: Verdi and Wagner, ed. Car~ ‘lyn Abbate and Roger Parker (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), pp.1~24; James Webster, “The Analysis of Mozart's Arias,” in Mozart Studies, ed. Cliff Eisen (London: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp-101-99. Although Carl Dahlhaus persuasively describes the inadequacy of the conventional for~ smal concepts used in Wagner analysis (e.., see his “Tonalitt und Form in Wagners Ring des Nibelungen,”” AEMw 40 [1983], 16573), he does so by opposing Wagnet’s music to the27 The Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony All this is relevant to the finale of Beethoven's Ninth. It was controver~ sial throughout the nineteenth century; the introduction of text and voices into a symphony was widely felt to violate the spirit of “absolute music” (whether as a dubious inspiration of Beethoven’s “difficult” late style or, as in Wagner, as a welcome harbinger of the impending demise of absolute music), And although since World War Beethoven's finale has never been seriously criticized, it has been relatively little analyzed. Given its continu- ing importance in our musical culture in the context of the explosion of analysis and theory as autonomous disciplines, this inattention can be un- derstood only as the result of the widespread prejudice against program music—the obverse of the prestige of absolute music.* (Only recently have Beethoven scholars renewed their interest in those aspects of his art that in- vite extramusical interpretation.®) A second obstacle lies in the complex, multisectional construction of Beethoven's finale. The profession has largely ignored works of this type (fantasies, through-composed works, multipartite vocal works), prefer- ring to move along well-trodden paths labeled “sonata form,” “rondo,” “fugue,” and so forth. And yet precisely its heterogeneous character sug- gests the pertinence of a multivalent approach.* I hear the finale of the straw man of an “architectonic” or “quadratic” concept of form, which he claims was char acteristic of Classical-period music, This is no less inadequate than the conventional notions he ridicules among Wagnerians. The concept of “paradigm” is of course drawn from the historiography of science (see Thomas Kuhn, The Sucre of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). 4. Suzanne K. Langer, Feeling and Form (New York: Scribner, 1953), chap. 10; Dahl- hhaus, “Thesen aber die Programmusik,”” in Beitrige zur musikalischen Hermeneutik, ed. Dablhaus (Regensburg: G. Bosse, 1979), pp.187-204, and The Idea of Absolute Music, tans. Roger Lustig (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989); Walter Wiora, Das musikalische ‘Kunstwerk (Tutzing: Schneider, 1983), pp. 124-56. 5. Owen Jander, “Beethoven's ‘Orpheus in Hades’: The Andante con moto of the Fourth Piano Concerto," 19¢M § (1985), 195-212; Peter Schleuning, “Beethoven in alter Deutung: Der ‘neue Weg’ mit der ‘Sinfonia eroica’,” AfMw 44 (1987), 165-94; Christopher Rey- nolds, “The Representational Impulse in Late Beethoven,” Acta 60 (1988), 43-61, 180-94; ‘Scott Burnham, this volume. The critical reception of these and similar contributions is not yet far advanced; for a preliminary response to one, see Edward T. Cone, “Beethoven's Orpheus—or Jander’?” 19cm 8 (1985), 285-86. 6. The finale of the Ercica is comparable in this respect. The most recent account of its form (including references to earlier literature) is Elaine R. Sisman, “Tradition and Trans- formation in the Alternating Variations of Haydn and Beethoven," Acta 62 (1990), 152-82.28 JAMES WEBSTER Ninth as through-composed: every section remains incomplete or leads seam- lessly to the next in such a way that no large-scale closure takes place until the end. (I make no pretense of having discovered the “correct” analysis. ‘A movement of this magnitude and complexity will always offer new per- spectives, sustain various interpretations.) In what follows I explore some implications of the multivalent method as it applies to this movement (Gec.n), discuss the principal earlier analyses (secs.1m-1v), and describe my own reading (secs.v-vi). In conclusion, I briefly discuss (sec.vn) some implications of this reading for our understanding of Beethoven's pro- gram, 0 ‘The sections and subsections of Beethoven’s finale are listed in table 1 (and will often be cited according to the boldface numbers in the left-hand col- umn: 1.1, 1.2, ..., 2.t). . ., etc,). The eleven main sections are de~ fined by ten major division points, which are created by changes in the ba~ sic rhetorical content, performing forces, and musical characteristics (listed in the remainder of the table). Because these changes take place in several domains simultaneously, the resulting division points are more or less “ob- jective”; indeed, every previous interpretation assumes these same eleven sections. On the other hand, the overall form is not thereby determined; rather, it depends on the individual analyst's interpretative decisions, in particular regarding (1) the groupings among sections, and (2) their functions in terms of a particular formal type.” Insofar as is possible, a multivalent analysis must proceed one domain at a time, with little attention to what happens in the other domains and without preconceptions as to the overall form. Of course, this ideal can never be entirely realized: we will always “know” something of what is going on in other domains, always have some advance sense of the overall form; the analyst's mind cannot become a tabula rasa. But this does not justify the all-too-comforting conclusion that, since we have lost our historical and theoretical innocence, we may +7. Formal types must be distinguished from schematic or “textbook” forms. Theit role in analysis, so far litle discussed inthe literature, is analogous to that of “ideal types” in his- torical investigation, whose importance for musicology has been emphasized by Dahlhaus in particular (ee Dahlhaus, Analysis and Value Judgment, trans. Siegmund Levarie (New York: Pendragon, 1983], pp. 43ff: Philip Gossett, “Carl Dahlhaus and the ‘Ideal Type’,” 1gcat 13 [1989}, 49°38, secs.1-2).29 The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as well be frankly biased from the beginning. To do this abandons all hope of seeing whatever it may be possible to see “in” the piece, before dialec- tically conflating this with our own views and desires. For these reasons, table 1 includes no brackets, indentations, labels, or other indications of groupings among the eleven main sections, and no implication of an over- all formal type. The larger units and their relations should emerge only later, on the basis of comparative analyses of the various domains.* ‘A sense of what this entails may be seen in table 2. (In principle, table 2 should list not merely the major sections but all ifty-odd subsections; this is obviously not practicable.) The table has three parts, each having as col- umn headings the boldface numbers 1-11, representing the eleven main sections listed in table 1. Table 2a (“Domains”) charts the major domains that contribute to the form, 28 (“Formal Interpretations”) summarizes the most important earlier analyses of the finale, and 2¢ (“Through- Composed”) is devoted to my own interpretation. Each horizontal row re- fers to a single domain or interpretation; the vertical alignment in columns permits direct comparison of them all. Methodologically crucial in a multivalent analysis such as this is the fact that the variables in any row are (or can be) independent of those in every other row. It follows that a given section is characterized differently in the various rows, and moreover is shown as resembling and contrasting with a different selection of other sections. For example, what is the relation be~ tween section 1, the search for the Ode to Joy, and section 2, its first, in- strumental, working out? In table 24, section 2 is shown as similar or iden- tical to section x with respect to “Voices vs. orchestra” and “Tempo” (the singers remain silent, and the tempo does not change), but as contrasting with it in musical topics (Joy is found), instrumentation, meter, and key. The same point applies on a larger scale to the opening pairs of sections 1-2 and 3-4. They are very much alike in their progression from dissonant rec- itative to consonant joy and from minor to major, in the construction of the two Joy sections as cumulative variations, and so forth. On the other hand, 1-2 are purely instrumental, while 34 are performed by singers—a 8. [ first adumbrated this method in “Brahms's Tragic Overture: The Form of Tragedy” (in Brahms: Biographical, Documentary and Analytical Sudies, ed. Robert Pascall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983], pp.99-124, esp. 110-11) and developed it at lengeh in Haydn's “Farewell” Symphony and the lea of Clasical Style: Through-Composition and Cyclic Integration in His Instrumental Masic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), intro duction and ptt.Table 1: Sectional Organization’ Sesto 1 2 ‘ensures? 129 276 2-207 ‘ee? ‘98-207 2on-se1-28 28-1679 217-3910-28 241-865-20 sr-eni-28 ‘6. 620-02 10-9639-60 -3005-04 sarah sore saano1-212 sv7-4an7-212 f0-04200-64 05-654-60 ‘5-6271-29 (47—5485-60 85-7427~108 1789-940N-80 769-004 4s s090t-88) 9-1689-06 2008-70 Tex Primary Comont eos Rect oy Adtran + Ra oy “Tome shade) Poaie + deeloant Dissonance "woth os" oy ' Var, a ate 15-8 Vana te Ponte Ponte extension Macs oy) Ineo + Var 7 aa) v Var ve (ame. vara Varga ost) Doubs hgue 2+ $9 Vv "Sea umsctingen” wrayer vise va1-s2_ fy soy-sosaey-deotan (oy mote) bie oy arta) i? Eesti saaten v ‘Uneciunor” ota) Pertorming Forest Kay tat tesa 1 a Wind p/Tnp: bass rou: base Verous (+ ahem) nee Bass Va. (+ Bon) singe (+ Bin) rl Ful cera ' Bartone slo Le ‘Barone sol (ens) “ ‘erone 28 ‘hos ATE Orbea wm AmB SATB < Chon Crus bys (ren wnss + sings SVM Cons loch: +1) MP "Te SATE (wie) we sare wi A= SATB(+ hghorh) VP cons (oon) wrT/arsar) my Sob-stane-aelo 1 ‘Orcheara -wev- Sob TBISA exchanges Sao-erone| rove ' ens (St. Tempo | Alope [2e) ‘Mego rodras.- Alegre ‘Ato asa Paco ada. Tonga loro aa ‘gr asa vac, Ata marca ‘Aran msaseo Nero eneico ‘eyo ma non tato Poco sole ‘renga ooo adage Poco ato. nao Prstsame31 The Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony 1. Te data 28 ob unto generaizaons,ocasingpany on Ihe oferences anang ne sectors Crain anstona nd tore changes of meter an tompo ae omit 2. From secon thea st fm bere based on ange mute ‘utr haere ea (5 uso ‘Ssowrare nates an examen he ‘aco ges thse found nthe Euen- ur mint sore 2. Staeas (man aren) a (Urabe numerals) Bastions a ‘angonent 6 ab 3 baow 4 or oral passage, n gant ony tte ong a nscale 7.0r meme” coon presen) (eee 96. 29-21, 98-90, 4-4), difference that might proveas important for the form as all their similarities taken together. In other words, section 2 must be both grouped with sec~ tion 1 and kept distinct from it; 34 should be interpreted both as a varied repetition of 1-2 and as something fundamentally new. These consider~ ations alone demonstrate that any characterization of a given section under a single formal principle—section 2, say, as “introduction” or as “exposition” is doomed to failure. Still less successful would be an at- tempt to thus characterize such complex later sections as the slow No. 8 (“Seid umschlungen”), the double fugue on this theme and the Ode to Joy in section 9, or the rich succession of ideas and contrasts in section 10. Examination of the text—an essential aspect of any vocal work, even if its composer is named Beethoven—reveals additional complexities. Al- though Beethoven had previously contemplated setting the entirety of the first version of Schiller’s ode (published in 1785), with its overt references to political revolution, when composing the Ninth he used the later and slightly shorter version (published in 1803 and reprinted in the collected works in 1812). From its ninety-six lines he selected and reordered thirty- six (adding three lines of his own for the baritone recitative in sec.3).° Schiller’s poem is constructed of stanzas of twelve lines, each stanza di- vided into eight lines for a (presumably individual) speaker and four for a “chorus.” Beethoven's arrangement is shown in table 3; the left-hand col- umn gives both Schiller’s and Beethoven’s ordering of stanzas, while the line numbers displayed with the text refer to Beethoven's alone (I will refer to these in the following). Thus musical section 4, the vocal working-out of Joy, sets the solo portions of Schiller’s stanzas, omitting their chorus passages; section 5 (alla marcia) is based on the chorus portion of his fourth stanza; and section 8 sets the choruses of his first and third stanzas. Sections 9-11 repeat and conflate portions of these passages. Beethoven's musical and ideational purposes led him to a different view of the text from Schiller’s. From the poet's potentially endless round of 9. Heinrich Schenker prints the tex in fallin Beethoven: Neunte Sinfonie: Eine Darstellung des musikaischen nalts (Vienna: Universal, 1912), pp.271~76. See Otto Baensch, Au tnd Sinn des Chorfnales in Beethovens neunter Symphonie (Berlin and Leipzig: W. de Gruyter, 1930), pp.22~44; Robert Winter, “The Sketches for the ‘Ode to Joy’,"in Beethoven, Perform es, and Cris, ed, Robert Winter and Bruce Carr (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1980), pp.200-07 (For Schiller’s earlier version and Beethoven's attitude coward it, cf pP-177-79)wi 7 cae P ae 4 7 ' er i 7 7 eH i i a — a L =n — = Sa wan Sie Ste ee afi “igi, es LL come Se See, eee, Se ee ey es mes seme Gana an ee nin a = ea a mi (ES pecs al eau nee a — ‘omer Sor eatany yong tr any my ar sceen)—fop Semen) eg Peis 5 jas i omeare wl oni 7 rc eT a1 9 996 "1.-51596 upton son ood a 04 (ee) HouNBueuesveegneg HH Bo SEIN 2 og es svonae wan aot Gapuodseues equ enaeau ey sso. a a ms Fue " © orton) sosooes 068 us iy oz we anmon secuepeo enna an x a x BOK Hate tat own ' m yn, w>dcu> o@ way a oe oo a we someuio (examo 20 evo 0 amu suHO~B1¥S me-sosseg 100) sg ‘winsmoy —~msog sa) HN ION. RENDI. AOR OGL —~BLONE OE MONEY — REID FEAR saa Copa ors wowonsa +) wononog safes 4 y 2 - wommanr2~ (hr) ‘fop-—pooyowor (0-105 «$= wo1e, sop $003 fepespmosy 0s ro uns 4 o * * , e 2 1 posodwocrtSnanus 9 secu BA O-PmA omy ns ou8M om ss 700 | orbnjonreG, | ow Many 20n, ay oman mn en mn roum wou ang, , REPRO, | ony oREG, wont, wepsony (21 souou) — (@ awouy) (oun) w (wa nouoas,, 1 n0u228, : re EEN mowtdin eae) Co eng noe) oa an omn , fo owners ua pue00g sum BH ony oumg ume om vpn os panusuor Z qe,34 JAMES WEBSTER Table 3: “Ode to Joy”: Textual Organization Schiller / Beethoven Text* ‘Musical Sections* Ia (solo) /1 1 Freude, schéner Gotterfunken, 407 2 Tochter aus Elysium, lines 14: 9.1 3 Wir betreten feuertrunken, lines 1-2: 10.1, 4 Himmtlische, dein Heiligeum. 113-4 5 Deine Zauber binden wieder, lines 5-8: 10.2-3 6 Was die Mode streng geteilt; 7 Alle Menschen werden Brider, 8 Wo dein sanfter Flugel weilt. Ila (solo )/ 1 9 Wem der grofie Wurf gelungen, 42 10 Eines Freundes Freund zu sein, 11 Wer ein holdes Weib errungen, 12 Mische seinen Jubel ein! 13 Ja—wer auch nur eine Seele 14 Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund! 15 Und wer’s nie gekonnt, der stehle 16 Weinend sich aus diesem Bund. Mla (solo) /II 17 Freude trinken alle Wesen 43 18 An den Briisten der Natur; Tine 24: 4-4 19 Alle Guten, alle Bésen 20 Folgen ihrer Rosenspur, 21 Kiisse gab sie uns und Reben, 22 Einen Freund, geprift in Tod; 23, Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben, 24 Und der Cherub steht vor Gott! IVb (chorus) /IV_ 25 Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen 5 26 Durch des Himmels prichtgen Plan, 27 Laufet, Broder, eure Bahn, 28 Freudig, wie ein Held zum Siegen. Tb (chorus)//V___29 Seid umschlungen Millionen! 8a, m4 430 Diesen KuB der ganzen Welt! lines 29-30: 9.1, 31 Briider! aberm Sternenzelt m2 32, Ma ein lieber Vater wohnen. Mb (chorus)/'VI 33 Ihr stirzt nieder Millionen? 8.2, 9.2 34 Ahnest du den Schépfer, Welt? 435 Such’ ihn berm Sternenzelt! 36 Ober Sternen mu er wohnen, 1, Orthography and punctuation as in Baensch, pp.26-38. 2. When the entire stanza is sung throughout one or more sections, the corresponding num- bers from table 1 are given in this column without indentation on the first line (thus, for stanza I, "4-15 7” indicates that all eight lines are sung in order in musical secs.4-1 and 7). ‘Underneath and indented appear the numbers of later musical sections in which fragments recur, identified by line number (thus, “lines 1-4: 9.1" indicates thatthe first half of stanza T returns in the double fugue)3 ‘The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony ecstatic exhortations inspired by the vine, he selected passages that he could order into a goal-directed progression: from joy, through brothethood and prayer, to their eventual combination. But it was presumably for musical reasons—the cumulative variations in section 4—that he set the “solo” sec~ tions of Schiller’s first three stanzas consecutively, while withholding the choral sections of stanzas 1 and mt (different from the solo ones but similar to each other) for the primary musical contrast in section 8. (The latter is sung by the chorus alone—but then so are secs.7 and 9, devoted wholly or in part to the “solo” stanza 1."°) Musical and textual form no longer coin- cide. A more obviously multivalent relation is seen in the alla marcia section 5. Textually, its somewhat unattractive image of male sun-heroes storm- ing through the heavens to victory is isolated both conceptually and for- mally: alone among the new poetic ideas introduced following section 4, it never returns. Musically, however, the alla marcia is multifariously related—to sections 2 and 4, as the next variation of the Ode to Joy; to 6 and 7, by tempo, meter, and run-on construction; to 11, by the “Turkish” percussion; and to the overall tonal disposition, by its composing-out of the sixth scale degree (see secs.v-v1 below). More important for the overall form—because more nearly congruent with events in other domains—is the complex textual content of sections 8-11. In section 4, the motif of brotherhood appears only in passing, that of prayer (stanza vi) not at all. However, both now come to the fore, not only in section 8 (“Seid umschlungen,” setting both stanzas v and vi), but in 9 and 11 as well (in conjunction with Joy and Elysium). Again, this sug- gests at least two possible formal interpretations: the entire succession 8-11 ‘can be understood primarily asa definitive turn to Feierlichkeit (see, in table 2A, the brackets above the row “Text: Form”), or section 8 alone can be heard as a temporary change of topic (as was the text of the alla marcia sec.§), with 9-11 a return to Joy (brackets under the row). Or, as I prefer (following Schenker), sections 9—11 can be heard as a combination of both primary motifs Alll this is correlated with similar processes in the music. Section 8 intro duces the slow, tonally ambiguous melody on “Seid umschlungen,” which in sections 9 and 11 is, again, combined with the Ode to Joy theme (as well as other musical topics). It also leads to the ecstatically prayerful to, Winter errs in asserting that the solo/choral distinction in Schiller’s poem, and Beethoven's treatment of it, has gone unnoticed ("The Sketches,” 200-01): Schenker dis- cusses both at length (Beethoven: Neunte Sinfonie, pp.271=76, 283, 322).36 JAMES WEBSTER high Eb triad on the line “Uber Sternen muB er wohnen,” which Leo Treitler calls “the denouement of the whole symphony” and which William Kinderman has cogently interpreted as Beethoven's symbolic rep- resentation of divinity.' Hence, we may also choose whether or not to hear the entire sequence 8-11 as a single large musical unit (more on this below). Indeed, the sequence of keys itself is ambiguous in this sense (see the last row in table 2a): it implies on the one hand a rondo-like alternation between tonic and nontonic (see the curved lines over this row) and, on the other, a series of more nearly separate units, especially clear at the sudden entries of Bb in the alla marcia and G at “Seid umschlungen” (brackets un der the row). Such observations could be extended at will. If then the individual parameters and domains are multivalent “horizon tally,” all the more so are the functions of the musical sections themselves. We have already observed the dialectic between continuity and contrast in the twofold progression from Recitative to Joy in sections 1-4. The alla ‘marcia is similar: the Ode to Joy theme and the principle of crescendo (solo, then chorus; soft to loud; etc.) remain, but text, tempo, meter, key, and the “Turkish” percussion battery are new. The climactic section 7, when the entire chorus sings the entire first stanza in powerfull homophony, main tains the same tempo and meter as § and 6 and enters without pause; yet the return to the tonic and to the Joy theme in its original form links it strongly to other passages, especially the last variation of section 4 and the beginning of the double fugue in 9. Even the unquestionably new section 8 relates multifariously to other sections (see above); one can equally well interpret it as an internal contrast or as a lasting change. The result is clear: “the” form of the finale of Beethoven's Ninth does not exist. m This conclusion stands in opposition to most earlier analyses of this finale, which by and large propose unidimensional solutions. (The most impor- tant are sketched in table 28.) To be sure, nobody has seriously proposed 11, Leo Treitler, "To Worship That Celestial Sound’: Motives for Analysis," 16 1 (1982), 169 (rpe, in his Music and the Historical Imagination (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1980}, p.64); Kinderman, “Beethoven's Symbol for the Deity in the Missa solemnis and the Ninth Symphony,” 19M 9 (1985), 115-17.37. The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony variations or the rondo as the sole basis of the form. In a variation form, the return of the Schreckensfanfare at the beginning of section 3, the large- scale repetition of 1-2 in 3-4, and especially the novelty of section 8 would be inexplicable; nor can the orchestral fugue section 6 be understood as a “variation” in the structural sense, even though it is based on derivatives of the Ode to Joy. Ifthe finale were interpreted as a rondo, the overall form of sections 1-4 would seem puzzling indeed, and the alla marcia would be ambiguous: insofar as it is a complete statement of the Ode to Joy it would bea main thematic section, but insofar as it is a stylistic and tonal departure it would be an episode. (In the row titled “Rondo in table 2p, the brackets above the line refer to the thematic succession, those below the line to the tonal one.) Nevertheless, both concepts are central. Both the internal con- struction of sections 2 and 4 and the sequence of sections 5, 7, and 9 are variations." And the alternation of sections presenting the Ode to Joy in the tonic and other sections based on contrasting material in foreign keys isrondo-like indeed; the effect is especially clear at the simultaneous returns to Joy and the tonic in sections 7 and 9, which function like climactic re- prises of the main theme in a rondo-like form. What these interpretations chiefly lack is a sense of the meaning of the movement—of the musical and psychological “problems” it poses and the solution it offers. Cited next in table 2 are four common formal readings of Beethoven’s finale. They are scarcely less reductionist. All four exhibit two opposed, and uncritically conflated, scholarly motives: a more or less unconscious reflection of dominant analytical paradigms of the time of writing, and a self-conscious attempt to claim as high a status as possible for the analysis, Thus, Otto Baensch, whose monograph offers the most comprehensive literary and philosophical account of this movement ever published, suf- fers from a “bar” ential Wagner analyses had appeared primarily in the 1920s." To be sure, he is more alert than most writers to different possible interpretations of individual sections (especially 9, which he analyzes as both a parallel suc- cessor to 8 and a rondo-like return). And he achieves a persuasive interpre- tation of the otherwise problematic twofold succession Recitative-Joy in form mania derived from Alfred Lorenz, whose influ- 12, As has often been noted, the construction of secs.2 and 4 resembles that ofthe ope ing sections of the Froica finale and the slow movement of the Seventh Symphony. 13, Baensch’s discussions summarized in ehis paragraph are found in. Aufbau und Sin, 1pp.6-22; cf. the formal table on pp.97-99.38 JAMES WEBSTER sections 1-4, which make up the first two Stollen of a large-scale bar form as naturally as could be. But the remainder of the analysis falls apart. Baensch must postulate not one but two Grofabgesiinge, sections 5~7 and 8-11. Admittedly, double Abgesdnge sometimes occur, but in this case they would have little in common either structurally or aesthetically. Even though the reprise in section 7 resembles that in 9, the former would be the culminating conclusion of the first GroBabgesang, while the latter would be merely the second Stollen of the second Grofabgesang—a grossly inadequate formal interpretation of this overpowering double fugue. Ie was apparently Ernest Sanders who first introduced the now com- monplace idea that the Ninth Symphony finale is based on sonata form. '* And it seems reasonable enough—notwithstanding the absence of a mean ingful tempo change—to hear the succession Recitative-Joy (secs.1—2) as analogous to the introduction and allegro of a symphony first movement. (One could also appeal to Beethoven’s other late movements that integrate introductory and “main” sections, such as the opening movements of three late string quartets, op.127, 130, and 132. On the other hand, such double functioning is less characteristic of introductions to finales; the only pos~ sible exception is the very different case of the Ab Sonata, op.110, in which the Arioso can scarcely count as an “introduction.”'5) The hypothesis soon breaks down, however: not only must the putative introduction be re- peated along with the repetition of the putative exposition (sec.3 leads to sec.4), but, even worse, the putative “second theme” (the alla marcia) ap~ pears only in that repetition. The hypothesis fares better with the orchestral fugue (sec.6) as development and the return to the Ode to Joy in the tonic (sec.7) as reprise, but in the sequel it fails again: the central slow section 8 is demoted to a mere “bridge” between two reprises (7 and 9). In addition, it egregiously ignores the lack of any recapitulation of the putative second theme (the alla marcia). The appeal of so untenable a hypothesis can be ex- plained only by the prestige of sonata form itself, which, ever since A. B. Marx, has been taken as the be-all and end-all of Beethoven's “absolute 14. Emest Sanders, “Form and Content in the Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Sym= phony," mg 50 (1964), 39°76, esp. pp.67~70 and the formal table on p.76. 15, On op. 110, sce Kinderman, this volume. The “Ouverture” to the Grojle Fuge in ts roles finale to the Bt Quartet, op.130 (interpreted by Richard Kramer, this volume) rep- resents a different case39. The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony A similar interpretation by Charles Rosen proposes the closely related variant of concerto form.® Compared to sonata form, this has the advan- tages of a distinction between a “first exposition” without soloists (the singers) and a “second exposition” that includes them, as well as the post= ponement of the structural modulation (to Bb in the alla marcia) to the latter place, But all the other defects of the sonata-form hypothesis remain. A symptom of this is that Rosen’s account ignores everything that follows his putative reprise (sec.7) An attractive hypothesis is that the finale represents, not any single for- mal type, but an entire “cycle” of four entire movements. Surprisingly, this notion was first adumbrated by the bar-form-oriented Baensch (if only in a note); recently it has been enthusiastically revived.%” It is attractive above all because the movement is after all a finale—and not just any finale, but one that unmistakably functions as the climax of the entire symphony, 4 context in which, more than any other, a synthesis of different formal principles might seem normal. Indeed Beethoven composed numerous other “synthetic” finales, of which the most prominent are those to the Eroica Symphony and the Groffe Fuge (in its original function as finale to the String Quartet op. 130). The interpretation is especially persuasive with re~ spect to the entries of the contrasting sections: in meter, key, and perhaps even style, the alla marcia resembles a scherzo (but whether this also applies to the tempo is problematic);*8 and section 8, “Seid umschlungen,” is even more effective as a notional slow movement, But the reprise of the Ode to Joy in the tonic in section 7 now seems unmotivated, standing as it must between a “scherzo” and a “slow movement”; problematic as well, admit- tedly toa lesser extent, is the use of the “slow-movement theme” with the Ode in the “finale” (secs.9-11). Indeed the votaries of this hypothesis have 16. Charles Rosen, The Clasial Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (New York: Viking, 1971), Bp. 439-40. 17. Baensch, Aufbau und Sint, p.20, n.t; Rosen, Clasical Style, p.440; Joseph Kerman, “Beethoven,” New Grove, vo.2, p-388. 18, Beethoven's metronomie indication applies without change to secs.§~7 and reads d. = 84 in §, i.c., notwithstanding the heading “Allegro assai vivace,” rather moderate than fast. Traditionally this has been taken as an error, under the hypothesis that 84 applies to the dotted half (the entire measure) .e., very fast indeed. Inthe lecture referred ton the initial note of this essay, the musical examples were drawn from the much-discussed re- cording by Roger Norrington and the London Classical Players (emi), which by and large follows Beethoven's tempo indications40. JAMES WEBSTER litele to say about this internal “finale within a finale” (but then, as we shall see, almost everyone underplays secs. 10-11). A more serious flaw is their failure to discuss the larger, and problematic, implications of interpreting the finale of a complete four-movement symphony as a “four-movement symphony” in its own right. Sonata form and four-movement cycle—the two most influential of these interpretations—each functions best where the other breaks down, The orchestral fugue section 6 and the reprise of the Ode to Joy 7, which are wholly out of place in a “cycle,” could make sense as the development and reprise of a sonata form, whereas the alla marcia § and the slow section 8, which no degree of struggle can fit into a “sonata form,” offer the most persuasive analogies to a four-movement plan. Hence it might seem logical to conflate these two formal principles, as has been suggested by Rosen and Treitler. ” But neither writer explains the notion in any detail—sensibly, as, afterall there is no reason to suppose that the mere superimposition of two opposed hypotheses will conveniently cancel out their respective failings (even if one called the result a “synthesis”). Moreover, we still have no vi- able theory of the relations among the four movements of instrumental works of the Classical period.” In the absence of such a theory, one can hardly expect success from ad hoc attempts in the analytical domain Vv The two remaining interpretations to be discussed here stem from Schen- ker and Tovey, arguably the two greatest analysts of this century. For both, Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time, the absolute center of musical aesthetics; each devoted his largest single study of a single 19, Rosen, Classical Style, p.440: Tretler, “History, Criticism, and Beethoven's Ninth Symphony,” 19cm 3 (1980), 197-98 (ept. in his Music and che Historical Imagination, pp.25~ 28). Treitler generalizes the notion to that of a conflation of genres, not unlike that often invoked with respect to the Eroica finale (see Sisman, “Tradition and Transformation,” 1pp.171~76), but in a sketchy and inconsistent fashion that leads to no overall view of the finale in these terms 20. Compare Wilhelm Seidel, “Schnell-Langsam-Schnell: Zur ‘klassischen’ Theorie des instrumentalen Zyklus,” Musiktheorie 1 (1986), 205-16, and “Die atere Zyklustheorie ‘tberdacht im Blick auf Beethovens Werk,” in Beitrége zur Beethovens Kammermusik: Sym- ‘posion Bonn 1984, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg and Helmut Loos (Munich: G. Henle, 1987), pp.273~82; Webster, Haydn's “Farewell” Symphony, pp.6~9. 174-224, 365-73,4“ The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony Beethoven work to the Ninth Symphony.2! Their analyses of the finale surpass all others in adequacy of overall conception, correctness of detail, and persuasive power—owing not least to their avoidance of unitary or re- ductionist approaches. (Schenker’s 1912 monograph long antedates his Ur- satz theory, which he developed only after World War 1.) This implies not that they do not want to explain the form as a whole, but that they resort to no preconceived models, invoke no formal types. Nevertheless, their analyses are remarkably similar; perhaps they were after all more or less “correct” —at least for the musical sensibilities of the first third of this cen- tury. Schenker’s overriding thesis is that, far from having wanted to compose program music, Beethoven was “guided only by the laws of absolute mu- sical structuring [Gestaltung].”’ In the case at hand, he specifies these as the “law of parallelism (repetition)” and as the following “manner of handling two themesf:] first, to treat them independently, and then, in the further course [of the movement], to develop them together.” Hence he asserts that Beethoven’s intention (Absicht) regarding the overall form was, first, to vary the Ode to Joy . . . in an independent section of its own; next, to compose the stanza “Seid umschlungen, Millionen” in a sec~ ond, equally independent section . . . ; in order, finally, in a third sec~ tion, to develop the initial ideas of the two preceding sections in a double fugue.” Thus he finds three large units, comprising, respectively, sections 1-7, 8, and 9(—11). His focus on only two main themes leads him to interpret sec~ tion 9 alone (the double fugue) as the focus of the third and last large unit; section 10 he calls a “concluding cadential section” (see secs.v—vi below), section 11 a “stretta.”” That is, he interprets 10-11 in a double manner: as, large units independent from and on the same “level”” as 1-7, 8, and 9; and asa “concluding chain” (Schlufkette), dependent on and clinching the cul- minating double fugue in 9. The “law of repetition” induces Schenker (alone in the literature) to in- terpret the two progressions from Recitative to Joy (secs.1-2 and 3-4) as 21, Schenker, Beethoven: Neunte Sinfonie; Donald F. Tovey, Essays in Musical Analysis, 7 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1935-44), vol.t, Symphonies, pp.67-83; vol.t, ‘Symphonies (n), Variations, and Orchestral Polyphony, pp.1—4. 22, The four quotations in this paragraph are found in Schenker, Beethoven: Neunte Sine foie, pp.248, 247, 246, 245, respectively,42 JAMES WEBSTER “antecedent” and “consequent,” -xcept that he extends the latter to include the entire sequence of vocal variations (Joy, alla marcia, orchestral fugue, and reprise), that is, sections 3~7 inclusive. Nor is he troubled by the ap- parent disproportion among his three large units (the first is much longer and the second much shorter than their putative average). This has been criticized by later writers,2* but on what would seem to be insufficient grounds. There is after all no law that the large sections of a movement must be comparable in length or in internal form, especially not in a free and climactic finale that sets a verbal text with evident extramusical intent. Sanders himself violates this very principle when he calls the orchestral fugue 6 the development of a sonata form: it is only approximately one~ third as long as each of the two expositions, an impossibly short proportion for late Beethoven. Notwithstanding its organicist orientation, Schenker’s interpretation of the double fugue in section 9 as a “synthesis” cannot be gainsaid. It not only encompasses the musical topics as well as the themes but is also con- firmed by the important passage 9.2 following the fugue proper, which re~ verts to the text, key (subdominant), and prayer motif familiar from 8.2. On the other hand (see below), it seems one-sided to elevate this event into the single determining formal feature of the last three sections as a whole. Elsewhere, Schenker's “absolutizing” orientation leads to dubious results. For example, he interprets the slow section 8 as “independent” because it introduces the new theme. Tonally, however, its bound to the larger con- text: it leads from the subdominant G to the dissonant V®, which in turn resolves into the double fugue. Even more troubling is his suppression of all comment on Beethoven's extramusical intent. That intent not only comprises philosophy, religion, ethics, politics, and art—no modest catalog—but, as we shall see, is essential for understanding the musical form itself. Only the resolutely empirical Tovey refuses to commit himself to a sum- marizing diagram of the overall form. (That given in table 2 represents my own interpretation of his various indirect indications.%) Nevertheless, his 23. Baensch, Aufbau und Sinn, pp.20-21; Sanders, “Form and Content,” p.so. 24. Despite an attempt to explain the inconsistency away (Sanders, “Form and Con- tent,” p.68, n.24) 25. See esp. Tovey, Essays, 1, 78 (“Instrumental Exposition .. . Choral Exposition and Finale"); m, 1343 The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony overall view is in many respects remarkably similar to Schenker’s. The chief difference is that he speaks of only two large units: an “exposition” (of the Ode to Joy, by means of variations) and a “finale.”’ Perhaps this no- tion was suggested by other nineteenth-century compound works like Schumann's Overture, Scherzo, and Finale, op. 2, the many works having the form introduction-allegro (or rondo), and of course Beethoven's own Choral Fantasy, whose theme resembles the Ode to Joy (and which Tovey interpreted as an “unconscious study” for it). Tovey’s first large section thus covers the same ground as Schenker’s: a chain of variations through section 7 in the tonic, subdivided as 1-2 and 3~7, whereby the orchestral fugue is a mere “episode” or “interlude,” analogous to Schenker’s “retran= sition.” But Tovey decisively (and in my view correctly) differs from Schenker in his interpretation of these two subdivisions: instead of a struc- tural relation (an antecedent-consequent period), he stresses the difference between instrumental and vocal music: The voice is the most natural as well as the most perfect of instru- ments as far as it goes; so that its introduction into instrumental music arrests the attention as nothing else will ever do, and hence must not be admitted without the intention of putting it permanently in the foreground. . . . There is no inherent impossibility in ing the claims of absolute music with those of the intelligent and in~ telligible setting of words. reconcil~ Ie is for this reason that he interprets sections 3~7 inclusive, which are de- voted primarily to the vocal development of the Ode to Joy, as the first large unit. In consequence, however, unlike Schenker, he relegates sections 1-2 to the implicitly subordinate role of an instrumental introduction. Given these interpretations, it is hardly surprising that both Tovey and Schenker felt a slight uncertainty as to the function of section 3, the rep- tition of the Schreckensfanfare and the vocal recitative. On the one hand, it is a new beginning, parallel to section 1 and having the same formal func tion (jt leads to Joy in sec.4, as 1 led to 2), and so Tovey described it in his famous précis; on the other, it is the last section of a preparatory process whose definitive goal is the vocal presentation of Joy (i.c., linking back to 1), and so he interprets it in his larger essay.2” Schenker went so far as to interpret the return of the horror and recitative following the achievement 26. Ibid., n, 3. 27. Ibid., 4 785 1, 13, 39.44, JAMES WEBSTER of Joy in 2 as a “logical lapse, . . .. which happily is rectified, again, only by Beethoven's absolute-musical instinct [Urtricb] for parallelism.” ‘Against such schematicism, only a multifunctional approach can help. ‘Thus although section 3 unquestionably rhymes with section 1, it does so in at least three different senses simultaneously: a rounding off (ofthe large~ scale preparation for the vocal Ode to Joy), a beginning over (vocal reci- tative parallel to instrumental recitative), and locally an introduction to sec tion 4. Since Tovey calls the entire span from 3 to rx “choral exposition and fi- nale” and runs the exposition through section 7, his concept “finale” must refer to all four concluding sections, beginning with 8. These he merely characterizes in sequence: “new theme” (here one feels a sense of underes- timation, which the later epithet “mighty” and other uplifting sentiments “coda,” and “final stretto."? ‘Again, Tovey's and Schenker’s interpretations of these sections’ formal cannot quite overcome), “double fugue, functions are similar; moreover, they are the only writers whose descrip tions of sections 10-11 are at all detailed and sympathetic. If Schenker’s musical absolutism often leads him astray, he penetrates more deeply into the musical substance; if Tovey often seems superficial or casual, his feeling for musical experience, especially in the temporal dimension, remains stronger and more acute, As so often, the analyses of these two great the~ orists ideally complement each other. v Each historical period, each observer, sees an artwork differently; new in- tellectual trends and analytical methods inevitably reveal new aspects of Beethoven's gigantic, complex finale. It is in this spirit, and not out of any belief in having “improved on” Schenker or Tovey, that I offer a some- what different analysis, Iam concerned not so much to assign the finale to this or that formal type—not even as an “exceptional” or “transcendent” example—as with Beethoven's use of the techniques of through-compo- sition to create a sense of process, to shape the finale as a progression, which points toward and eventually achieves its goal This goal is not merely the Ode to Joy as such, not merely the triumph 28, Schenker, Beethoven: Neunte Sinfonie, pp.268~69. 29. Tovey, Esiays, 1, 81-833 1, 41-43,45 The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony of D major over D minor; rather, it is what can only be called a new mu- sical state of being. This state does not arrive until the end, in the hitherto undervalued concluding sections 10 and 11, which form the climax of the entire finale. The through-compositional methods by which Beethoven achieves this include continuous progressions at the end of sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10, which lead to the next section rather than rounding off, avoid~ ance of closure and of structural cadences in the tonic; destabilizing offbeat motives at the beginnings of sections 1, 3, § (once the melody starts), 8, and 9 as well as run-on construction without pause at the beginnings of 4, 6, 7, and 11; continual development of important musical motives; crescen- dos on the largest scale, affecting not only dynamics but the performing forces and the phenomenon of synthesis (described below); and, last but not least, the use of all these means in the service of the program—which, following Maynard Solomon, I would describe as the search for Elysium. The finale avoids any sense of large-scale closure until the very end (see table 2c, “Caesuras” and “Structural cadences”).*" The final section (11) is the only one that ends with a full cadence in the tonic and a rest; nowhere else do we hear a caesura following a tonic in root position. Every chord that ends a section and is followed by a caesura is off-tonic: the remote F major (blll) on the end of section 45 the subdominant at the end of 7 and 95 the dominant ninth at the end of 8. Even though section 10 (called a “coda” by Tovey and a “‘cadential section” by Schenker)" ends on the tonic, it projects this chord in the dissonant six-four position and without 30. Maynard Solomon, “Beethoven's Ninth Symphony: A Search for Order,” 19¢M 10 (1986), 3-23 (ept in his Beethoven Essays Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp-3-32). 31. Tuse “structural eadence” as a variant of Cone’s concept of “structural downbeat’ (cee his “Analysis Today,” mq 46 [1960], 174=75, 181-83 [rp in his Muse: A View from Delft (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp.41—42, $0~33]): Cone’s concept is an unknowing but brilliant analogue of Heinrich Christoph Koch's principle according to which the lengths ofthe“ cadences are mutually determined. 32, Although Schenker unambiguously uses the German Kadenz in the sense of “ca~ dence,” his description ofthe solo passage in B major (Beethoven: Neunte Sinfone, pp.348, 4354) suggests the aura of “cadenza’” as well—a function certainly not absent from that pas~ sage, especially given its prolongation of the dominant in mm.836-40, over which all four sods” of a movement and the relative strength ofits structural soloists sing the same ornamental roulade in turn, Indeed, Tovey explicitly calls this passage a “cadenza” (Essays, 1, 83: 0, 44), although without implying this function for sec.10 as a whole46 JAMES WEBSTER functional dominant. Conversely, in every section except 1 and 11, the structural cadence arrives before the end and is then undermined by an elid~ ing transition or a surprise. This avoidance of closure is so important as to require closer examination. The initial “searching” section 1 admittedly cadences on the tonic (see ex.1a), Nevertheless, the melody avoids the tonic pitch-class D in favor of 3, Ft FLL, CLI, Hn.l); more important, this cadence leads (or should lead) without break or loss of momentum into the Ode to Joy—whereby Ft is again heard as the opening unaccompanied note of the melody. To be sure, in sections 2 and 4 the Ode to Joy cadences twice at the end of each state~ ment (mm. 107-15, 131-39, etc.). On the other hand, these cadences al- ways fall on the weak half of the measure (more on this below). I would also argue that, on the level of the section as a whole, the effect of so many similar cadences at such regular temporal intervals is more nearly static than climactic; none qualifies as a structural cadence Notwithstanding their cumulative increase in dynamics, performing forces, and rhythmic activity, both sections 2 and 4 subvert large-scale clo- sure at the end. Section 2, following the orchestral variations of the theme, modulates to the dominant (mm.188f.) and cadences there (mm. 199-203, 207). But this cadence is denied stability (another reason why sec.2 cannot be heard as a sonata exposition): the dissonant fanfare unexpectedly breaks in again (ex.1b), and the baritone recitative leads on to the vocal Ode to Joy, again without pause (ex.tc). The continuity at the join between sec~ tions 3 and 4 is powerfully enhanced by the entry of the new tempo and theme at the beginning of section 4 on the dominant (m.237/1);* only after four measures of dialogue between baritone and choral basses does the theme actually begin—and it again emphasizes Ff, not only in the melody, but in the orchestral bass as well. Since the entire first statement of the theme is in the bass register, all its tonic cadences (mm.248/12, 256/20, 264/28) are harmonically weak, with the dominant expressed as V4 rather than in root position, A measure of stability is provided only by the four~ measure orchestral postlude (mm.265~68/29~32). At the end of section 4, however, this same postlude becomes the basis of another modulation into the dominant (mm. 321-26/85—-90) and from there proceeds to the famous 433. Regarding the measure numbers, see table r, esp. n.2. Inthe ext, references to pas- sages from sec.3 on include both the overall measure number (from 1 0 940) and, following 4 virgule, the number as given in the Eulenburg miniature score47. The Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony a i—_ sy Be ac wv. - € Example 1.: Beethoven, _ ae “ “ climax on the words “vor Gott,” with the deceptive cadence onto the flat Symphony No. 9, finale: Run-on links between sec. mediant F (ex.1d). This F is immediately reinterpreted as the dominant of tions, a, Instrumental Bb, the key of the alla marcia. The music never comes to a stable resting search (section 1)—Ode t© point. The three sections 5-7 share a single tempo and meter, each join (5 ieee to 6 and 6 to 7) is rhythmically elided, and both § and 6 are outside the prise (3). c. Vocal earch tonic; by definition, there can be no closure at the end of either. (The tran- (@)—Ode 0 Joy (4). sition from 6 to 7 is shown in ex.3a and discussed further below.)48 JAMES WEBSTER 4 sais ssi3 sons Example 1 (continue), 4. Ode to Joy (4—alla marcia (8). ¢. Ode 0 Joy (7)—"Seid umschlungen” (8). £ Prayer (9)—Joy (10)49. The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony Sed ume shun gem Mi eo het Andante macstono (+72) of oo rs 2 | alo Aero ma won tanto (2120) > eae A Gener i) ———_v-so. JAMES WEBSTER Still more important is the lack of closure at the end of the following sec- tion 7 (see ex.1e), where one might most have expected the opposite. We have retumed to the tonic and to the first, triumphant statement of the en tire Ode to Joy by the chorus, in powerful homophony. A large unit has fandamentally new note is about to be struck, But al- though the cadence, as usual, is elided with the beginning of the orchestral postlude (mm. s90-94/260-64), the latter halts abruptly halfway through, on the subdominant. (If it were to be heard in toto, as it has always been come to an en up to this point, four more measures returning to the tonic would be re- quired.) This is hardly a stable ending. As noted above, the entire long sec: tion 8, notwithstanding its musical and programmatic importance, is ton~ ally unstable, moving from IV to V9, The next section in the tonic is 9, the double fugue; here too, however, the fugue breaks off in a manner some~ what reminiscent of section 7, and we revert to the topics of prayer (m.730/ 76) and the hymn (m.745/91). At the end of this hymn (see ex.1f), Beethoven suddenly modulates “modally"” away from the dominant and again closes in IV (mm.757~62/ 10308). Thus neither of the two climactic statements of the Ode to Joy in the toni Section 10 begins on the same subdominant chord heard at the end of section 9; asin the initial vocal Ode to Joy in section 4, the entry of the tonic coincides with the entry of the singers in the fifth measure. Although both 9and 10, as a whole, are in D, the join berween them is expressed as a con- tinuous tonal progression, IV-V-I. Indeed section x0 itself, belying its common description as a “‘cadential” section or a “coda,” not only does not follow a structural cadence (as a coda must) but, as we shall see, reaches no satisfactory closure in its own right. Even the famous cadenza-like con cluding passage for the four soloists not only modulates to the remote B + sections 7 and 9, effects closure. major (#VI) but ends on a dissonant, unstable six-four tonic chord, from which point yet another transition leads back to the tonic and the final ju- bilation, The astonishing result is that the only structural cadences with closure occur in the very last section. There is no more impressive example of through-composition in the entire literature. vw A second central aspect of through-composition in this finale is what we may call its gestural character: its constant urge to move forward, to avoid 34. As noted by Schenker (Beethoven: Neunte Sinfonie, pp.339~41) and, following, him, Baensch (Aufbau und Sinn, p.13).st ‘The Finale of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony coming to rest. Even the tonic and the Ode to Joy are affected (see table 2c, “Tonality"). Both D major and the Ode to Joy always enter as the result of a process, always function as a goal. In sections 2 and 4, they constitute that which is “found” and affirmed; in 7, they become the culmination of the preceding alla marcia and fugue; in 9, they resolve the dissonances and ambiguity, the fearful ecstasy, of the slow prayer in “Seid umschlungen” (sec.8). In sections 4, 7, 9, 10, and 14, the initial tonic is the cadence of a progression that has begun on a different chord or in the preceding section (Gee exx.1c, 3a, 2¢, 1f, 3b, respectively). No section stands alone; none is independent. Another progressive feature comprises the many large-scale crescendos. Many passages, sections, and even sequences of sections develop from soft to loud, from single parts to the full ensemble, from instruments alone to voices, and so forth. In sections 1~2, the basses are answered by the entire orchestra, in 4 the baritone by the remaining soloists and then the chorus, in 5 the tenor by the male chorus, and so forth; the cumulative variations in both 2 and 4 constitute a gradual buildup from a minimal beginning to agrand climax. The soloists themselves usually enter from lowest to high- est. Except for the opening fanfare, the normal full orchestra is never heard in 1-2 until the climax in mm.164ff. (the recitatives in 1 have no upper strings; the buildup in 2 is ex hypothesi a gradual one). The “Turkish” per- cussion is withheld for the alla marcia, the trombones for the overtly reli- gious 8-9. Indeed, the only place where all five instrumental groups play together is, again, the concluding section (see table 2a, “Instrumenta- tion”). Nor is this merely a matter of contrast as such: the larger, faller, more perfect condition always emerges gradually, as a climax. Such procedures affect the motivic content as well (see ex.2).2° This can be traced primarily in terms of two pitch constellations that are prominent throughout the symphony: the downward step 6-§ (j.e., Bb—-A or B-A) and the falling fifth A~D. Both function as motives not merely on the sur- face but in a structural sense as well. Indeed, these continuities reach back to the very beginning of the symphony. As is well known, the Allegro ma non troppo begins with the empty fifth A-E (ex.2¢), whose function as the dominant of D minor cannot be 435. In this context, itis possible to describe only a small proportion of these relations, ‘Much of what follows can be found in the earlier literature and differs here 0} ng only to its interpretation in a new context.52. JAMES WEBSTER Agro ma am oppo Exposition ist Group ms 5 Example 2: Beethoven, Symphony No. 9: Tonal motives A/D and D/Bb a, Overview. b. Finale: parallelism between sec~ tions 4-7 and 10-11. Dev. Recaption and Code 2nd Group ItGroup 2nd Group {compare Ex. 3a [compare Ex 361 wivih vit understood until the low D in the bassoons and horns (m.15) and the entry of the main theme. The entire crescendo/accelerando process is thus con structed of fifths (see the brackets in the example), not only motivically (mm.2-3, etc., as well as the theme, mm. 19-20) but also structurally, as embodied in the descent from dominant to tonic. (All this offers a context for the notorious nonresolution of the tonic six-four in mm. 3435: the leap from A to D inthe bass within a tonic sonority is itself motivic, as indicated by the x in ex.2c.) But the opening dominant A is also linked to the sub- mediant Bb (ex.2a): the repetition of the sequence preparation-theme falls from D to the key of Bb, and the gigantic second group stands in the same key, separated structurally only by the intervening prolongation of the dominant (mm.63/f). Thus by the beginning of the second group both motives, 6-§ and V-I, have been inscribed into the musical substance. As is well known, the recapitulation transforms the preparatory passage into a huge climax, fortissimo, Instead of sinking from A to D, it descends a half step from F# (I°) to F (i%; m. 315) —and these two gigantically prolonged so- norities are linked precisely by Bb (VI" in mm. 313~14; see ex.2a). The fur~ ther course of the movement and the coda, as well as the scherzo and trio, alternate D minor and major; the Adagio, again, is in Bb.33. The Finale of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony ‘Allegro ma non troppo s fa Ey Fine a iB oa oy ath 9 Bi as ° ais sae _exss—6s0i savers a 3 DF W but— ov». G r vib Example 2: (contined) For all these reasons, the Schreckensfanfare at the beginning of the finale «Allegro ma non troppo, (end of ex.2a and beginning of 2d) seems asif predestined: it transforms the Fone hein we inva linear/tonal relation between Bb and A into a shocking, painful dissonance, ers while the bass asserts the same F, following the same Bb, that we were forced to accept at the recapitulation of the Allegro. (One can also interpret this sonority as the simultaneous statement of both main chords, D minor and Bb, in first inversion; see the vertical brackets in ex.2a.) The fifth A-E with which the symphony began returns immediately, at the beginning of the instrumental recitative (mm.8-9; ex.2d) and still more insistently at the initial entry of the baritone on “O Freunde” (mm.216=17/9-10). Just as this fifth originally prepared D minor, so it now prepares D major, the tonal goal of the entire work. With the adumbration of the Joy motive in m.77 (and again in m.237/1) and, shortly thereafter, the arrival of this theme in proper form at last, the succession AD in the major becomes "s4 JAMES WEBSTER sounding reality in time. The Ode to Joy itself composes-out the fifth A-D: except for the single low A, the entire melody moves within the tonal space 5-i.* Motives and structure are mutually determinant. Fi- nally, at the expressive climax of the “starry vault,” on the excruciatingly high G/Eb at the end of section 8, the 6-3 motive and the fifth motive are poetically combined (see ex.2e): Bb, the ninth of the dominant-ninth chord, is still dissonant, but now it is transformed into the source of an overwhelmingly teleological resolution; the high bass Eb moves up to E, from which point it drops two fifths, E~A and A—D (compare the begin- ning of the Allegro ma non troppo, ex.2a). The second skip, V-I, engen- ders (at last) the appearance of A as the resolution of Bb within a root- position tonic triad. In this context, there is space to pursue only two further aspects of the de~ velopment of these motives. First, a form-generating similarity exists be- tween the retransitions to sections 7 and 1x (the music is shown in ex.3, the structural relation in ex.2b). The alla marcia and the orchestral fugue compose-out the submediant 6, in the varied forms Bb (}V1) and B minor/ major (VI*), lending yet greater weight to this tonal degree. The cadenza/ cadence for the four soloists at the end of section 10 is also in B major. The ensuing retransitions (from 6 to 7 and from ro to 11) are structurally iden- tical: B majors transformed into B minor by the substitution of D§ for D#; then the bass steps down from B to A, producing a tonic six-four; finally, with no explicit dominant to resolve the six-four, the bass A proceeds by step up to D, producing a root-position tonic as the opening sonority of the next section, (Both passages thus recall the first progression of this sort in the symphony, the nonresolving six-four in the Allegro, mm. 34-35; see ex.2c.) Both retransitions unite the two structural motives—the descend- ing step 6-5 and the fifth/fourth A~D—precisely at the entry of the most unmediatedly climactic statement of the Ode to Joy (sec.7) and of the con- cluding section, The motives here become generative clements of the form. 436. Linvoke “tonal space of a fifth” notwithstanding Schenker’s analysis of the theme 48 § line (Free Composition, trans. Emnst Oster [New York: Longman, £979]. 1, €x.109/e3): the two aspects are perfectly compatible, On the other hand, the pervasive importance of ‘A throughout the finale makes one wonder if the Joy theme itself ought not to be recon sidered as a 3 line