Form Function Theory and Beethoven’s Sketches: A Case Study of the Eroica First Movement Sketches
Introduction, Methodology, and Scholarly Contributions
Beethoven’s sketches to his Symphony No. 3 in E-flat (“Eroica”), Op.
55, have interested scholars since Nottebohm’s pioneering study of the
Eroica Sketchbook in the late nineteenth century. According to
Lewis Lockwood (1982, 119), “Nottebohm’s transcriptions and commentary
. . . opened up a larger body of genetic material for the Eroica
than anyone could have anticipated, and laid a basis that has yet to
be seriously challenged or drastically modified.” More recently Lewis
Lockwood and Alan Gosman published a complete transcription of the
sketchbook, which has led to a resurgent interest in these
sketches*.* Using these transcriptions, my dissertation
reconstructs Beethoven’s single-line sketches to the first movement of
the *Eroica* as piano reductions, then analyzes and compares the
reconstructions using William Caplin’s “theory of formal functions”
(Caplin 1998; 2013). What results is a new interpretation of the
sketches and a fresh perspective into Beethoven’s compositional
process.
The theory of formal functions has proven to be a powerful tool for
analyzing Beethoven’s published works. Until now, however, it has not
been applied to the study of his sketches. This dissertation adopts
this theory for three primary reasons. First, it prioritizes the
role of local harmonic progressions as a determinant of form. We can
realize the harmonies that Beethoven implies with his single staff
sketches with a high degree of accuracy. By contrast, other musical
parameters such as texture, dynamics, or instrumentation, which are
vital criteria for other recent theories of form (e.g., Hepokoski and
Darcy 2011), are very sparse in the Eroica sketches and therefore
difficult to reconstruct without substantial subjective
interpretations.
Second, form-functional theory minimizes motivic content as the basis
of formal function. This aspect is useful for describing how Beethoven
employs the same musical material for different formal functions in
successive drafts, and conversely, how he preserves functions while
changing the musical content that generates them. Third, the theory
establishes well-defined formal categories that can be applied
flexibly at all levels of analysis, including complete continuity
sketches and fragments of various lengths. These strictly defined
categories enable an analyst to elucidate Beethoven’s formal and
phrase-structural strategies in individual sketches and compare them
across drafts with firm theoretical foundations in an aesthetically
neutral environment.
Context and Scholarly Position
Gustav Nottebohm was the first to transcribe and study Beethoven’s
sketches to the Eroica and his widely respected monograph (1880)
greatly influenced modern perspectives on Beethoven’s compositional
process. These perspectives have significantly shaped our perception
of Beethoven’s so-called “heroic” period*.* In summarizing his
analysis of the *Eroica* sketches found in the *Eroica* Sketchbook
(one of Beethoven’s largest and most famous of his extant
desk-sketchbooks), Nottebohm characterized Beethoven’s first sketches
to the symphony as “very ordinary and conventional,” noting that they
“have in themselves little or even nothing at all of Beethoven’s
peculiar style and individuality” (Nottebohm 1979, 97). Study of the
sketches proved, he claimed, Beethoven’s labored compositional
process: “All those passages in the score which bear the stamp of
Beethoven’s own individual style. . . which, . . . inspire us, shatter
us, move us to tears—all of them were far from the creation of a
moment.” Beethoven was only able to bring forth his style “after many
repeated attempts and, for the most part, at the expense of
considerable effort” (Nottebohm 1979, 96). In brief, Nottebohm argued
that the *Eroica* did not emerge smoothly—Beethoven’s compositional
labor was as heroic as the symphony itself.
Following in Nottebohm’s wake, scholars have tended to view the
Eroica sketches through a heroic, evolutionary narrative. In this
account, the earlier sketches are laden with compositional problems,
which Beethoven revised or excised in successive drafts to transcend
the failings of his earlier musical experiments. This characterization
initially appears logical: it would make sense, that, if the composer
altered or removed a passage, he must have found it problematic in
some way. But while this reasoning appears sound, it can inadvertently
confuse our understanding of his compositional process, or worse,
mischaracterize it. To understand the problems that result from
analyzing the sketches through Nottebohm’s heroic narrative and to see
the benefits of adopting a more neutral, form-functional approach,
consider the following extended example.
In the analytical commentary to their transcription of the Eroica
sketchbook, Lockwood and Gosman explain that in the first continuity
sketch of the exposition to the first movement, Beethoven “seriously
disrupts” sonata conventions by introducing the opening theme six
times, which frequently suggest “keys that are out of place”
(Beethoven, Lockwood, and Gosman 2013a, 33) (Example 3). The most problematic
re-entry of the main theme material, one that Nottebohm (1880) first
identified, was the third entry, because it introduced the subordinate
key of B-flat major (Example 2) before the new subordinate theme
material (). According to Nottebohm, which scholars including Gosman
and Lockwood have recapitulated, Beethoven revised this passage
because it “would simply have weakened the ensuing entry of the second
group melody in the same key” (Nottebohm 1979, 54). In other
words, they hypothesize that Beethoven removed the dominant entry of
main theme material (Example 2) because he eventually recognized that
it was incompatible with the sonata form he worked to construct.
Example 1: Six entrances of the opening theme in the first sketch
Example 2: Dominant entry of main theme material
Example 3: Subordinate theme (first sketch, pg. 11, st. 4–5)
At first, Nottebohm’s explanation for Beethoven’s revision of this
supposed problematic entry of the main theme material seems cogent.
But further inquiry into subsequent sketches reveals that this
explanation twists Beethoven’s compositional process into something
more puzzling and mysterious. As Donald Francis Tovey observed,
“Beethoven wrote several sketches of this opening before he could get
rid of a tiresome tendency of the main theme to appear on the dominant
before its proper third statement” (Tovey 1941, 82). Similarly,
Lockwood and Gosman noticed that the “errant” entries of the main
theme were “not simply deleted from later drafts of the final version”
(Beethoven, Lockwood, and Gosman 2013a, 33), but rather, “A surprising
number of future drafts stubbornly maintain[ed] the opening theme’s
intrusion into domains typically reserved for other themes and other
keys” (Beethoven, Lockwood, and Gosman 2013a, 54). If Beethoven
removed the dominant entry of the main theme material and the other
“errant” entries because they violated sonata conventions, why was he
so adamant about preserving these supposedly problematic designs in so
many subsequent sketches? This perspective creates a serious quandary:
the explanation for why he revised the passage might make sense
locally, but then his larger compositional process becomes
inexplicable.
The insights we gain from studying Beethoven’s sketches are limited
fundamentally by the perspectives that inform our inquiries and the
types of questions we ask of them. To address the dilemma posed by the
example discussed above and many others like it, I reframe the
analytical focus from one that uses ill-defined sonata theories as a
type of procrustean bed to find the weaknesses in the sketches, to one
that uses the well-formed and aesthetically neutral categories of
form-functional theory to search for and explain the strengths. I
suggest, for example, that the dominant entry of the main theme
material (i.e., Example 2) was not a sonata problem but rather a
deliberate and remarkable solution to a larger compositional goal.
Example 4: Tonal Foreshadowing in the first sketch (pg. 11, st. 2–3 and
st. 5)
A closer, form-functional analysis suggests that he deliberately
obscured the beginning of the subordinate theme group. He may have
done this to motivate the new lyrical theme in E minor that he planned
to introduce late in the development, which he conceived earlier in
the sketchbook. Moreover, the B-flat major main theme material and the
chromatic sequencing that followed anticipates the tonal excursions
that occur later in the subordinate theme part 3 (i.e., in B♭ major,
D♭ major, and E♭ minor) (Example 4). In other words, the so-called
“problematic” dominant entry proves pivotal for unifying and
motivating the tonal design of the subordinate theme group. The entry
also contributes to to the composer’s larger compositional plans for
the complete movement
When we analyze Beethoven’s sketches to the Eroica with the theory
of formal functions instead of ill-defined sonata theories, we can
begin to understand unusual passages and their large-scale formal
implications in more productive ways. This new approach influences
profoundly how we understand the compositional genesis of the Eroica
and Beethoven’s compositional process more broadly. Nottebohm’s
pioneering work set the stage for Beethoven sketch studies, but with
new theories and new questions, the time is ripe for a reappraisal of
the composer’s compositional process and a renaissance of Beethoven
sketch studies.
Structure and Organization
This dissertation is organized into four parts (further split into
chapters). In the first part, I describe my theoretical approaches,
scope, and aims of the project. I then explore how Beethoven’s
single-line continuity sketches relate to what Leopold Mozart referred
to as il filo (Gjerdingen 2007, 369–97), what eighteenth-century
German theorists like Joseph Klein would have called the Melodie
(Bonds 1991, 91–92), what seventeenth and early eighteenth-century
Italian composers might have called partimenti (Sanguinetti 2012,
14); and what Lewis Lockwood has termed a “cue staff” (Lockwood 1970,
45). I use this historical framing to investigate how contemporary
theories of form—cast in the form of melodic theory, such as Anton
Reicha’s Treatise on Melody (1814)—relate to form-functional
theory.
In the second part, I develop the rational for using this theory to
analyze Beethoven’s sketches. I relate the theory’s distinction
between content and function to the division of anatomy and
physiology, which has its epistemological origins in Aristotle’s On
the Parts of Animals. This analogy places form-functional theory
within a long-standing intellectual tradition that recognizes the
symbiotic relationship between structures and their functions. I
explore how this perspective relates to other modern views on musical
form, such as James Hepokoski’s (2010) “dialogical form,” Mark Evan
Bonds’s (1991) concept of “conformation versus generation,” James
Webster’s “form and Formung” (Caplin, Hepokoski, and Webster 2010,
123–126), and other perspectives.
In part three, I develop an approach for identifying and diagramming
the sketches by drawing upon methodologies and systems developed for
complex software development. I organize Beethoven’s sketches into
meaningful “versions” in a hierarchical system that is analogous to a
“Semantic Versioning Control” protocol. With this system, I develop an
approach for diagramming formal functions and extend these graphs to
depict how Beethoven “transfers” functions from one sketch into
another. These diagrams, which draw inspiration from “directed acyclic
graphs” for depicting the history of revision-controlled software
development, allow us to rapidly compare and map Beethoven’s sketches
across various levels of the formal hierarchy.
Consider Figure 1. This diagram shows the relationship between the
continuity sketch that Beethoven wrote on pages 10 and 11 (continuity
sketch 1.2, i.e., “CS 1.2”) with the next continuity sketch that he
wrote on the following page 12 (CS 2.0). The schematic reveals that
Beethoven retained the main theme and transition from the previous
sketch but modified the subordinate theme in various ways. We
recognize, for example, that he merged two subordinate theme parts
from the earlier sketch to form a single theme in CS 2.0. For another
case, see Figure 2. This diagram depicts the evolution of the first
subordinate theme in the first five sketches. It is easy to see that
some functions are not transferred from one sketch into the next in a
straightforward, linear manner. Instead, Beethoven returns to designs
that he temporarily moved away from to integrate elements from them in
new contexts. With the theory of formal functions, these diagrams
offer a powerful way to abstract and visualize Beethoven’s
compositional process.
Figure 1: CS 1.2 and 2.0 Form Function Transfer Diagram
Figure 2: Phrase function transfer diagram of the subordinate theme 1 in
successive sketches from CS 1.0 to CS 2.1
Finally, in the fourth and most substantial part of the dissertation,
I reconstruct, analyze, and compare Beethoven’s numerous Eroica
exposition sketches using form-functional theory. I highlight how
compositional elements from one movement might influence those in
another and work to solve or re-contextualize the shortcomings of
prior approaches. I provide the complete, reconstructed, and analyzed
sketches in a second volume, and embed musical examples in-text to
facilitate rapid comparison between sketches. With the diagrams and
naming conventions developed in the previous part, this section of the
dissertation details Beethoven’s compositional process at multiple
levels of hierarchy in an accessible and new way.
Selected Bibliography
Beethoven, Ludwig van, Lewis Lockwood, and Alan Gosman. 2013.
Beethoven’s “Eroica” Sketchbook: A Critical Edition (Volume 1). 2
vols. Beethoven Sketchbook Series. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Brandenburg, Sieghard, William Drabkin, and Douglas Johnson. 1979. “On
Beethoven Scholars and Beethoven’s Sketches.” 19th-Century Music 2
(3): 270–79.
Buurman, Erica. “Beethoven’s Compositional Approach to Multi-Movement
Structures in His Instrumental Works.” Dissertation, University of
Manchester, 2013.
Byros, Vasili. 2009. “Foundations of Tonality as Situated Cognition: An
Enquiry into the Culture and Cognition of Tonality, with Beethoven’s
Eroica Symphony as Case Study.” Dissertation, Yale University.
Caplin, William E. 1991. “Structural Expansion in Beethoven’s Symphonic
Forms.” In Beethoven’s Compositional Process, edited by William
Kinderman, 27–54. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
———. 1998. Classical Form. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013. Analyzing Classical Form: An Approach for the
Classroom. New York: Oxford University Press.
Caplin, William E., James Hepokoski, and James Webster. 2010. Musical
Form, Forms & Formenlehre: Three Methodological Reflections. Edited by
Pieter Bergé. Leuven University Press.
Caplin, William E., and Nathan John Martin. 2016. “The ‘Continuous
Exposition’ and the Concept of Subordinate Theme.” Music Analysis 35
(1): 4–43.
Carr, Bruce. 1977. “Future Directions in Sketch Research.” In
Beethoven, Performers, and Critics: The International Beethoven
Congress, Detroit, 1977, edited by Robert Winter and Bruce Carr.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Churgin, Bathia. 1998. “Beethoven and the New Development-Theme in
Sonata-Form Movements.” The Journal of Musicology 16 (3): 323–43.
Cooper, Barry. 1990. Beethoven and the Creative Process. Oxford; New
York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
———. 2000. “The Compositional Act: Sketches and Autographs.” In
The Cambridge Companion to Beethoven, edited by Glenn Stanley, 32–42.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Drabkin, William. 1978. “Beethoven’s Sketches and the Thematic Process.”
Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 105: 25–36.
———. 1991. “Beethoven’s Understanding of ‘Sonata Form’: The
Evidence of the Sketchbooks.” In Beethoven’s Compositional Process,
edited by William Kinderman, 14–19. University of Nebraska Press.
Earp, Lawrence. 1993. “Tovey’s ‘Cloud’ in the First Movement of the
Eroica: An Analysis Based on Sketches for the Development and Coda.”
Beethoven Forum 2: 55–84.
Gosman, Alan. 2016. “Before Its Time: Beethoven’s Experiments with the
Dominant Key Early in Sonata-Form Movements.” Conference paper delivered
at the New Beethoven Research Conference in Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Gossett, Philip. 1974. “Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony: Sketches for the
First Movement.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 27 (2):
248–84.
Hepokoski, James A. 2016. “Sonata Theory, Secondary Themes and
Continuous Expositions: Dialogues with Form-Functional Theory.” Music
Analysis 35 (1): 44–74.
Hepokoski, James A., and Warren Darcy. 2011. Elements of Sonata Theory:
Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata.
Reprint edition. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Horne, William. 1992. “The Hidden Trellis: Where Does the Second Group
Begin in the First Movement of Beethoven’s Eroica Symphony?” Beethoven
Forum 13 (2): 95–147.
Jackson, Timothy L. 2016. “The First Movements of Anton Eberl’s
Symphonies in E-Flat Major and D Minor, and Beethoven’s Eroica: Toward
‘New’ Sonata Forms?” In Explorations in Schenkerian Analysis, edited
by David Beach and Su Yin Mak, 1st ed., 61–96. Eastman Studies in
Music. Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer; University of Rochester Press.
Johnson, Douglas. 1978. “Beethoven Scholars and Beethoven’s Sketches.”
19th-Century Music 2 (1): 3–17.
Kerman, Joseph. 1982. “Sketch Studies.” In Musicology in the 1980s:
Methods, Goals, Opportunities, edited by Kern Holoman and Claude V.
Palisca. New York: Da Capo Press.
———. 2017. “Tovey’s Beethoven.” In Beethoven, edited by Michael
Spitzer, 285–302. Routledge.
Kinderman, William, ed. 1991. Beethoven’s Compositional Process.
Vol. 1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
———. 2009. “Beyond the Text: Genetic Criticism and Beethoven’s
Creative Process.” Acta Musicologica 81 (1): 99–122.
Korsyn, Kevin. 2016. “At the Margins of Music Theory, History, and
Composition: Completing the Unfinished Fugue in <I Die Kunst Der
Fuge</I by J. S. Bach.” Music Theory and Analysis 3 (2): 115–44.
Kramer, Richard. 1975. “Notes to Beethoven’s Education.” Journal of the
American Musicological Society 28 (1): 72–101.
———. 1991. “The Sketch Itself.” In Beethoven’s Compositional
Process, edited by William Kinderman. North American Beethoven
Studies 1. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press in association with the
American Beethoven Society and the Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven
Studies, San Jose State University.
Lockwood, Lewis. 1970. “On Beethoven’s Sketches and Autographs: Some
Problems of Definition and Interpretation.” Acta Musicologica 42
(1/2): 32–47.
———. 1982. “Eroica Perspectives: Strategy and Design in the
First Movement.” In Beethoven: Studies in the Creative Process,
3:118–113.
———. 1991. “The Beethoven Sketchbooks and the General State of
Sketch Research.” In Beethoven’s Compositional Process, edited by
William Kinderman. Vol. 1. University of Nebraska Press.
———. 1992. Beethoven: Studies in the Creative Process. Reprint
edition 2014. Berlin, Boston: Harvard University Press.
———. 2009. “From Conceptual Image to Realization: Some Thoughts on
Beethoven’s Sketches.” In Beethoven and the Creative Process, edited
by William Kinderman and Joseph E. Jones, 108–22. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Morgan, Robert. 1993. “Coda as Culmination: The First Movement of the
Eroica Symphony.” In Music Theory and the Exploration of the Past,
edited by Christopher Hatch and David Bernstein, 357–76. The University
of Chicago Press.
Nottebohm, Gustav. 1880. Ein Skizzenbuch von Beethoven aus dem Jahre
1803. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
———. 1979. Two Beethoven Sketchbooks: A Description with Musical
Extracts. Translated by Jonathan Katz. London: Victor Gollancz.
November, Nancy, ed. 2020. The Cambridge Companion to the Eroica
Symphony. Cambridge Companions to Music. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, Mark. 2013. “Sonata Form and the Problem of Second-Theme
Beginnings.” Music Analysis 32 (1): 3–45.
Sipe, Thomas Owen. 1998. Beethoven: Eroica Symphony. Cambridge
University Press.
Stanley, Glenn. 1994. “The ‘Wirklich Gantz Neue Manier’ and the Path
to It: Beethoven’s Variations for Piano, 1783-1802.” Beethoven Forum 3
(1): 53–80.
Tovey, Donald Francis. 1941. “The Integrity of Music.” In A Musician
Talks. London and New York: Oxford University Press.
Vande Moortele, Steven. 2015. “The Philosopher as Theorist: Adorno’s
Materiale Formenlehre.” In Formal Functions in Perspective: Essays on
Musical Form from Haydn to Adorno, edited by Steven Vande Moortele,
Julie Pedneault-Deslauriers, and Nathan John Martin, 411–33. University
of Rochester Press.
Wade, Rachel. 1977. “Beethoven’s Eroica Sketchbook.” Fontes Artis
Musicae 24: 254–89.