But the scope of the work gives plentiful occasions for stylistic contrast : there is a deep blend of chamber music’s intimacy in the woodwind section, of serenade-like simplicity with the string harmonies and colors throughout the slow movement, crowned by a manuscripted by canceled ‘uno violino’ in the last soft utterance of the dotted rhythm. More generally there is a great deal made by Beethoven in this work about contrasts : since the violin cannot ‘equal’ the orchestra the way a piano may, there is a formal imbalance, a constraint out of which Beethoven made a character : mainly represented by the snake-like, richly ornamented solo part : this new genre of virtuosity devoid of power and punch in many spots of the first movement and throughout the slow movement shows Beethoven’s deep concern with orchestral tone and construction through many softer sections (and their inevitable link/antagonism to louder ones).
This aetherial quality is, on a historical side, mainly due, and here we agree with R. Kolisch and R. Leibowitz, to a grave misconception of character and tempo, fallacy that can be pointed out by looking at the manuscript, where the first movement is indicated as ‘Allegro’, not ‘Allegro ma non troppo’, even before looking at the musical material. In that same line, Kolisch writes:
"In op. 61, as in other instances, Beethoven violates his system of tempo notation by leaving out the alla breve sign. I hope that its phenomenological identity with op. 69, which does bear the alla breve sign, is adequate proof of the identity in character and tempo of the two pieces." (Kolisch 1993: 272)
This formal softness is also due to a newfound richess of structure : the introduction of the soloist is not preceded by silence, but on the contrary is a mirrored version of the descending arpeggios, uniting soloist and orchestra within the same phrase – as we will see. This constant search for links, within a phrase, of different sections of the orchestra, is what makes up the main body of the work, and especially of the work made in the manuscript before the revision that we know of today. The material of the concerto is mainly diatonic, of simple rhythmic nature.
What’s up with the concerto ?
These plurimusical dimensions (symphonic, chamber, and solo-inspired) of a single work are also much present in the violin concerto – despite the aetherial quality often given to the work, quality which is often leaking into all parameters of the work (https://houstonsymphony.org/beethoven-violin-concerto/ where 'lyrical', 'serene', 'transcendent' are some of the words used to describe the solo part)
The textual history of the concerto abounds in missing links, a truncated form that is left unresolved by Beethoven, a generosity of tone tamed by ascetic melodic invention.
Leaving the general presentation of the study, we must develop some formal and textual aspects of op.47 and 61 that make them unique before looking at what their respective manuscripts bring forward for the interpret.
Sonata for violin and piano in A major, opus 47.
First of all, both works are imbued with a complex relationship to genres of music : as with many middle-period Beethoven works, the Kreutzer sonata is imbued with a more conflictual sense of form and relationship between instruments, more akin to the concertare than the sonare. Even further than the simple subtitle of « scritta in uno stilo molto concertante, quasi come d’un concerto », the formal double exposition of the first and second movements provide information enough about the titanic dimensions of especially the first movement. But there are also hints of other musical styles, which were more or less innovative as a disturbing agent in a sonata : fugal writing, « symphonic » introductions, the imitation of orchestral textures, and even opera (in a great example of internalized energy : the recitativo at bar 192 of the second movement). The sonata is much more varied than its predecessors in terms of dynamic range and contrast : further study of the dynamic system used by Beethoven will help emphasize this conflict within the structure of the work. Also, it's the only sonata for violin and piano that wasn't written for an amateur (the 10th is also a special case), and the only one that bears the appelation 'for violin and piano' instead of 'for piano and violin'.
I also have to point out that Beethoven in his relationship to his publishers often had a certain approach of falsifying documents and manuscripts : while he was promising several editors exclusivity for certain single works, he would therefore produce one manuscript for each of them, therefore multiplying the sources that we now have : but his restless mind interfered in this copying process, adding changes in dynamics, and even notes, from one copy to another.
This, to my opinion, gave way to many non-readings of the work, missing the mark of its character – there has been a flattening of character, tempo, and vision of the work since, I’d estimate, the 1944 live recording of the concerto by Erich Röhn, with the Berliner Philharmoniker led by W. Furtwängler. This, once more, is my opinion, and I think there are quite a few works in the symphonic and operatic repertoire which have lost their power ever since Furtwängler performed them.
The concerto as form takes on a new meaning with Beethoven, because it becomes an heroic act to perform one : this wasn’t the case before him, this is due to the fact that the soloist has to unite a world larger than him (the orchestra) to his vision of himself.