[ad_1]
Mr. Caeyers, could you explain to us why Beethoven’s music still speaks to us so directly after 200 years?
JAN CAEYERS: In my opinion, it has to do with the fact that Beethoven’s music combines two parameters that are normally mutually exclusive. So this is music that, on the one hand, has a lot of emotion, but no matter how extreme these emotions are, the musical construction remains intact. The compositions are high-level intellectual achievements, but they don’t sound intellectual. You can analyze a Beethoven piece for hours, almost all the notes are connected, but this construction does not destroy the emotional at all. The “Appassionata” piano sonata is incredibly beautiful music, even if you don’t understand its construction. This combination is unique.
What surprised you the most while working on your Beethoven biography??
Several things: the most striking thing is the talent of Beethoven. Today we can hardly imagine what he could do. He had an incredible imagination. And the ability to translate this fantasy into a high-level emotional and intellectual construction. To be honest, while working on the book, I was sometimes embarrassed to dare to say something about this extraordinary person. He is at a level where normal mortals can barely comprehend what he was able to do and how great his talent was.
And the other points?
His will to achieve the extraordinary was enormous. He felt a tremendous need to get the best out of himself. Anyone can try to achieve something extraordinary in life, but with Beethoven it goes to the extreme. He lived in a period of transition in which it seemed possible that each individual could do something for himself. That did not exist before, in the social fabric of the 18th century. There are some similarities to Napoleon. Let’s put it this way: Beethoven has something of the Napoleonic and Napoleon has something of the Beethovian. They are both people of simple backgrounds who have shown that everyone is capable of great things.
You write that before that, it would have been inconceivable for a musician to keep reworking and improving his works. With Beethoven, art becomes very individual, takes on the character of a confession. Beethoven, therefore, would be in favor of a paradigm shift in the relationship between artist and work of art.
That’s the way it is. Paradigm shift is the right word. Take the second piano concerto, of which he performed four versions. Maybe he worked so hard on it because he unconsciously felt that this music was still being played 200 years later.
There are many cliches about Beethoven, what bothers you?
I try to get angry as little as possible, but the myth of Beethoven bothers me as a sufferer, as an always severe, misanthropic and paranoid person. An unpleasant person to deal with. Old Beethoven was like that, but Beethoven was a fun and social person for most of his life, he had many friends, he was full of humor and he was popular. He was a fan of his art, but other than that, he was a nice, normal person. At the end of his life, his illnesses changed that. He was 56 years old, his numbness became apparent in his 30s and gradually worsened. He was only deaf for the last five years of his life.
Do you think the 19th century cult of genius with its exaggerations obscured Beethoven’s view a bit?
Not just a little bit. The image we have of Beethoven is shaped by the bourgeois ideology of the late 19th century, where it was all about achievement and struggles, in contrast to the life of the nobility in the 18th century. And Beethoven served as an example of this bourgeois ideology of struggle. That distorted the image of Beethoven.
How political is Beethoven’s music for you?
I am very cautious with that. In “Fidelio” and the end of the ninth symphony there are loose political undertones. But I don’t think his third symphony, the “Eroica”, is banally political, I think there is more.
But as a person he was very political.
Yes absolutely. And, of course, the background of his native Bonn plays a role. The enlightening atmosphere there shaped him greatly in his youth. But of course he was also pragmatic, negotiating with Napoleon’s brother, King Jérome Bonaparte, a job in Kassel. And he was a very bad guy.
In recent decades, the historically informed practice of interpretation and its ancient instruments have emerged. Beethoven’s music suddenly sounded very different, less heavy and pathetic. Has this improved understanding of Beethoven’s music?
I was able to closely follow acting practices in Belgium and the Netherlands, and I also worked with Frans Brüggen and Gustav Leonhardt. I loved it because it changed the way we think about sound, articulation and playing. Today’s younger orchestral musicians receive a much more flexible training and that means that it is no longer so radical. Old instruments have a certain simplicity and require a different articulation. This automatically has consequences for thinking about music in general.
But can you also do something with the old Klemperer to Furtwängler recordings?
Absolutely. Furtwängler had such flexibility in terms of speed that it is very authentic. In playing practice, there are many today who play very mechanically, while Furtwängler has a flexibility that we know was common in Beethoven’s time.
Now there were many new recordings due to the anniversary. How did you find them?
Many of these recordings, if they are original, are actually of little relevance. I don’t want to name names, but there are smart people among young people who are highly praised and who make spectacular recordings, but where depth is lacking, where cash dominates too much. I know the problem from my own experience: you think you have to do your own interpretation and then you go looking for ideas. So sometimes it becomes illogical. The funny thing is that the most interesting interpretations are those based on knowledge, on understanding the score. And that usually takes a long time.
Can’t get enough of Beethoven sometimes?
No way. It is such a rich world that you feel like you can always go deeper. For me, the confinement was a sabbatical year, in which I study Beethoven every day. One problem is that I no longer find most of the music interesting. Of course there is other good music, but also a lot of bad music. And I can hardly hear it anymore because it bothers me that there is so little in it. That’s a side effect when you hear a lot from Beethoven.
The biography of Jan Caeyers
Jan Caeyers’ recently published biography of Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) is a stroke of luck. Hardly anyone else has succeeded in placing the composer’s life and work so convincingly on the time horizon. From youth in Bonn to maturity and stardom in Vienna to the suffering of recent years: Caeyers illustrates the social and cultural framework of Beethoven’s vita.
The musical analyzes are developed without technical jargon and yet they are profound. But the great strength of Caeyers lies in its objectivity. Caeyers does not take sides with the problems of Beethoven scholars, such as the question of who is behind the “Immortal Beloved” or the evaluation of the exhausting process for the guardianship of Beethoven’s nephew, Karl, but considers the pros and cons. The thoroughness with which he worked on Beethoven’s relationship with Napoleon is worth reading this volume.
It is not a book for beginners, but for those who want to delve into the life of Beethoven and his time.
Jan Caeyers, “Beethoven. The Lone Revolutionary. A Biography”. CH Beck, 833 pages, 25.70 euros.
