Transcendental Beethoven

Introduction

Beethoven’s biographers and commentators have long been divided on the importance and signification of the 33 Variations on a Theme by Diabelli. No valid argument has been put forward to refute its place as a masterpiece of its kind and one of the supreme productions of his last period. The opponents of this work have provided, however, some rather amusing examples of music criticism. One such authority decried the work for its lack of humility and its conception as an overblown “pièce de concours”. Another assures us that “nothing of greatness can be born of such a mean intent that of putting an ignominious amateur in his place”.

Actually it would be incorrect to call these variations a commissioned work. Antonio Diabelli (1781-1858), music publisher and a minor composer, following the fashion of the day, invited a number of composers, Beethoven included, to contribute a variation on a waltz theme of his own composition to be published for the benefit of sufferers in the late Napoleonic wars. The venture was a musical publicity stunt, the idea being to promote the fame and prestige of the publishing house of Diabelli and Co. At first Beethoven refused and labelled the tune a “Schusterfleck” or “cobbler’s patch”. Later on, however, obviously struck by the skeletal framework and innocuous prettiness of the waltz, he offered to write a whole series of variations, which Diabelli accepted and published apart; a second volume being set aside for more modest efforts from composers such as Hummel, Moscheles, Czerny, the young Liszt and Schubert. The two volume opus was published under the pompous title of “Vaterländischer Künstlerverein” – Variations for the Pianoforte on a given Theme, composed by the foremost Tone-poets and Virtuosi of Vienna and the Austrian States.

Structure

No one can divine the intentions of Beethoven in the creation of this work so it should be accepted on its own merits barring all metaphysical speculation, but it is obvious that such an extensive opus was not conceived as a collection of bagatelles. There are two striking features that distinguish these variations from others by Beethoven, namely the length and imposing structure. In all his last, large-scale productions he aimed for a greater unity and structural cohesion in which separate movements were no longer conceived as individual parts but served more as building and binding elements. A sense of direction was therefore heightened and strengthened by new devices of compositional technique that Beethoven evolved. These variations are made constantly engrossing by the sensation of tension and release over clearly defined periods within the whole work. For this reason the variation of tempi is more complex and subtle than in most of his variations.

The number of 33 variations gives a hint of the general organization of the ensemble. The very last variation is quite distinct from the others and can be considered as an epilogue, especially in view of the emotional peak reached in the preceding fugue. If we count the number of measures of the theme, we find there are 32. Beethoven had already written a well-known series of 32 variations (those in C minor composed in 1806), and one can imagine, to avoid confusion, he preferred to compose 32 variations plus 1. Following the Baroque practice, he often repeats the theme at the end of a series of variations; but In this case it would have been impossible to repeat Diabelli’s I and rollicking waltz after such a magnificent demonstration of genius. The supplementary variation is a spiritualized version of the theme to which Beethoven makes an allusion in the last 16 measures.

In a final analysis of the theme, one notes two sections of 16 measures each, which correspond more or less symmetrically. This crucial point should be borne constantly in mind and we will see how such an important factor as this influenced Beethoven in the organization of the whole work. In the same manner as the theme consists of 8 phrases of 4 measures each, the entire set of variations forms 8 groups of 4 variations each. The first in each group almost always presents an important innovation, and the last variation can be considered as a sort of conclusion.

Group 1 (I-IV) Already the first variation is a novel departure from the norm. Usually this is a prolongation of the spirit and rhythm of the theme, a practice that Beethoven regularly follows. However, here he throws down the gauntlet with a 4-square March-Maestoso, in violent contrast to Diabelli’s waltz. Thus the epic tone of the variations is immediately established. An enigmatic second variation follows, but calm returns with the third and fourth.

Group 2 (V-VIII) Beethoven heightens the rhythmic tension in variation V with accents on weak beats which leads directly to the imposing VI (with trills), and VII (with triplets and left hand sforzandi). The concluding VIII, marked “dolce con tenerezza”, is captivating.

Group 3 (IX-XII) Here, the first variation, resolute and ironclad is in C minor, which is followed by a rapid variation X. XI is a play on the upbeat of Diabelli’s theme, as XII is a slow, inverted transformation of the same upbeat.

Group 4 (XIII-XVI) The opening variation gives the group an explosive and amusing beginning – Haydn would have been proud of this! Variation XIV, Grave e Maestoso, is a rare inspiration and prefigures the great slow variations at the end. XV is a rapid Scherzando and XVI provides a fiery conclusion to the group and the first half of this work.

Group 5 (XVII-XX) Beethoven opens the second half as he concluded the first variation XVII is the sister of the preceding; the difference is that the right hand has to work more here. XVIII is an enigma because of its particular dynamics and phrasing. XIX explodes with syncopated joy. The concluding XX is, in spite of its brevity, one of the most poignant.

Group 6 (XXI – XXIV) This group, of an episodic character, is a fine illustration of how Beethoven generates tension within single variations. XXI offers two sections of different tempi and moods – one rapid in 4/4 time, the other somewhat more languorous in ¾. XXIII offers quickly alternating pianistic textures on different dynamic levels. In between these two variations there is a witty reference to Leporello’s famous aria “Notte e giorno faticar” from Mozart’s Don Giovanni. Perhaps Beethoven had to work night and day to compose these difficult and complex variations… The beautiful and cool fughetta in C major (XXIV) prefigures the big final fugue in E flat.

Group 7 (XXV-XXVII) This can be considered as an extended scherzo group – rapid, charming and playful.

Group 8 (XXIX-XXXII) This last group is the crowning glory of the entire set – three slow variations in C minor and a mighty fugue in Eb major. If we consider Group 7 as the scherzo group, then Group 8 must be considered the slow movement. Of the three slow variations, XXXI is the most interesting – almost a free improvisation. The powerful fugue at the end recalls those of Händel in grandeur and hammering articulation. After a sweeping cadenza and mysterious coda, we are led back to C major for one last dialogue – luminous and humane. Beethoven takes his departure in a whimsical manner – he has deified Diabelli’s little waltz.

Glancing through the score one might be puzzled by the great variety of tempi changes. Should not such proceedings produce a sensation of nervous agitation and/or disrupt the musical form? Beethoven’s intentions, however, are clear and exactly the opposite occurs. In seven of the eight groups the base of the variation pair offers a uniformity in the acceleration and the slowing down of the various tempi. The table, on page 8, will illustrate this: ↓ meaning accelerando, ↑ signifies slowing down. Only in Group 6 does this not apply.

The last section (Groups 7 and 8) offers contrasting sequences that correspond to their functions within the structure of the variations – scherzo group and slow movement group. This interior Contrast / Discord finds its solution in the “peace made in heaven” epilogue. This last section is also a mirror-like reversal of the first section (Groups 1 and 2). Groups 3 and 6 both have an episodic character. The middle section (Groups 4 and 5) and the heart of the work, contain the variation sisters XVI and XVII and correspond exactly.

Thus Beethoven’s structural organization becomes perfectly clear in its strict symmetry.

The table, on page [XXXX], reveals the overall structure of the work.

Karl Geiringer’s “The Structure of Beethoven’s Diabelli Variations” has been the basis of this study – The Musical Quarterly, October 1964, New York.

For those interested in further material I can recommend:

Hans von Bülow‘s Briefe und Scriften, Leipzig, 1896-1908. IV, 221, or the same author’s preface to the Diabelli Variations, Cotta Ed. N. 166. August Halm’s Beethoven, Berlin; 1927, pp176 ff. and 263 ff. Donald F. Tovey’s; Beethoven; London, 1945; pp. 45 ff and 98 ff. William Yeoman’s “Problems of Beethoven’s Diabelli Variations” in the Monthly Musical Record, LXXXIX (1959).

William Grant Naboré