Beethoven Piano Sonata Op 10 No.1
An important part of the Beethoven myth is the idea that he was not bound to any one job or patron but rather wrote what suited him, when it suited. While it is true that he was not employed in the same way Mozart or Haydn were, Beethoven, especially in the early days, still wrote pieces for a purpose, namely money. His first two cello sonatas, Op.5 were composed on the occasion of a visit to Friedrich Wilhem II of Prussia, who fancied himself as a fine amateur cellist. As Beethoven became more established, he began to dedicate pieces to members of Viennese society that supported him much in the same way modern buildings or sporting events are named after those that provide funding.
The Op. 10 piano sonatas were dedicated to the Countess Anna Margarete von Browne, whose husband was Beethoven’s chief patron between 1797 and 1803. Their collaboration resulted in one of the more amusing examples of Beethoven’s scatterbrainedness. After the dedication, the Brownes gave Beethoven a gift of a riding horse, which he promptly forgot about. One of his more enterprising servants hired out the horse and it wasn’t until Beethoven received a large bill for fodder that he curtailed the servant’s illicit entrepreneurial activities and got rid of the animal.
During the late 18th century, it was customary for chamber works to be published in multiples of three. Mozart’s six Haydn quartets and Haydn’s Op 76 quartets are well known examples of this practice. Beethoven worked on Op 10 from 1796-1798. As a set, they are angular and experimental, moving farther and farther away from the influences of his Classical heritage. Despite his erratic behaviour and tempestuous personality, Beethoven made changes to his compositional style rather gradually. The bookends of his oeuvre are miles apart but still very much connected, with each piece representing an indispensable part of the whole.
Sonata in C minor Op 10 No 1 1796-98
Allegro molto e con brio
Adagio molto
Finale: Prestissimo
Often referred to as the Little Pathétique, Op 10, No.1 is appreciated more for its foreshadowing of subsequent compositions than a valuable sonata in its own right. The comparison between the two sonatas (the other is Op 13) doesn’t own anything to the thematic material but rather to the key structure and tempo markings. Pathétique was written in 1798, almost immediately following Op. 10 and it does seem as if Beethoven was using this sonata as a trial run.
The first movement is a fairly standard affair in sonata form. In the second movement, Beethoven is up to his usual trick of using harmony to create melodic tension, choosing rather to innovate in his choice of form. The sonatina form, ABAB, is a sonata without a development section and was quite a popular choice during the Classical period. It is not considered a serious form and indeed many an amateur pianist will recall learning works in this format in their early days.
[redacted to correct error. third movement returning soon!]
On this day..
- Schubert Mass In G Major D167 - 2010
- Sunday Links - 2010
thepilatesbiz on 
Aforpeace on 
Yvonne on 
Hello Bram! Thanks for taking the time to write. I can assure you that I have indeed spent several hours listen to each of the sonatas I’ve written notes for.
It is silly to think we can say for certain what would outrage Beethoven. One of my main objectives when writing these notes is to strip away the Beethoven myth. The idea that everything he ever wrote is a masterpiece and therefore fantastic in every way is simply ridiculous. Of course the flip side is that non-masterpiece status doesn’t mean the piece is useless.
I trained as a horn player and a good amount of our rep is not A-grade material when compared to the violin or cello but that doesn’t mean it isn’t enjoyable to play or listen to.
I plan to take as much care with the third movement analysis as I have with the rest of the notes.
But these pieces take a life-time to appreciate. I genuinely believe that although Op. 10 no. 1 may not be stucturally complex, the musical content is as exciting and beautiful as many other better-respected pieces.
Maybe not everything he wrote was a masterpiece (though I have yet to come across a mediocre work – and as a classically trained musician myself I’ve studied a lot!), BUT this piece really is great, and should not be used to destroy a myth that doesn’t apply to it!
P.s. yes actually the Dances and some of the songs he wrote are pretty ordinary!! Destroy the myth with them instead!
P.p.s also, surely if you’re writing programme notes you want to sell the music positively to the audience?! :P
Who asked you to “destroy the myth?”
Your pompous comments about the sonata don’t indicate that you have any special
insight into the piece. And the story about the horse is SO revealing.
No one asked me to, but why should I not? The Beethoven myth is one of the most crippling in all of classical music. Behind all the purple prose is a fascinating but flawed man who wrote fantastic music. What’s so disappointing about that?
I agree that nobody asked him to “destroy the myth”. But he did it so that people will understand the risks that Beethoven was taking when he wrote what he did. It is a NECESSITY to get that clear. Of course, he didn’t mean for callous people like you who don’t know a shit to read this. If you haven’t realised, your comments are so disjointed and without reasoning that I am wondering right now whether you have even reached your teenage years. So I really hope you can understand what’s about to come. And yes, what I just wrote IS a personal attack.
Have you even SEEN Beethoven’s Op.10, No.1? I doubt so. It is indeed called the Little Pathétique. It foreshadows the later Pathétique Sonata and the Fate Symphony with it’s nervous energy. I believe that you think this means that the Little Pathétique is not as beautiful as the other two pieces I mentioned. For goodness’ sake, one of my personal favorites is the Little Pathétique! The Little Pathétique is nicknamed so because it is somewhat recognised as an “ancestor” to the Pathétique. This brings me to an idea in the post that I find rather interesting – that “Beethoven was using (the Little Pathétique) as a trial run”. As far as I am concerned, this idea is an original idea. It has much room for controversy, but I agree with it. It has been proven that Beethoven tested his ideas before expanding them. Look at the Op.2 sonatas. Look at what came after that in Op.10. I dare say that the two opuses are similar and comparable. Why wouldn’t Beethoven try to transform the Little Pathétique into something he was more satisfied with (the Pathétique)? What was in the post, contrary to your juvenile believes, shows much insight on the part of the person who posted it. I assume from your defensive (though nonsensical) comments that you love both Beethoven the man and Beethoven the composer as much as I do. So, as a fellow Beethoven lover, I gently encourage you to learn both the Little Pathétique and the Pathétique simultaneously to bring yourself to the Great Enlightenment.
But at least you brought up something that I sort of agree with (about the horse), though you put it in such an unlearned manner. It shouldn’t have been put there because is served no purpose in the entire critique. However, it did serve as entertaining factual information that I bet you wouldn’t have known had you not read this. And, please learn to use your vocabulary appropriately – what was posted is not a STORY: THOSE ARE FACTS.
If you did not intent to be rebutted like that when you posted your comment, please explain and elaborate whenever you post comments that contrast the original post. This allows you to APPEAR rational, even if you are not.
Bye.
Sorry. I just realised that the original post was written by a lady. I apologise for that.
Bye again.