A COMPARISON OF BEETHOVEN’S AND SCHUBERT’S COMPOSITIONAL PROCESSES

Kyle VanderburgBeethoven & Schubert - MUSC 5970

November 22, 2011

2

Introduction

Franz Schubert and Ludwig van Beethoven are composers that are

often compared and contrasted in a number of ways due to their proximity

to each other in the early nineteenth century. In addition to style and focus,

one such contrast is in the area of compositional process, with Beethoven

producing a large number of drafts and sketches, and Schubert seemingly

writing as quickly as possible without revision. While there is certainly no

single correct way to write music, the process by which composers compose

has great influence on their musical output. Perhaps the key to the

differences between Beethoven’s and Schubert’s music can be partially

explained by examining their composition processes. Once these processes

are determined and analyzed, it may be possible to use this information in

teaching composition.

Beethoven’s Compositional Process

The individual compositional process is a procedure that has as many

iterations as it has composers who compose.1 Of the composers with whom

we are generally familiar, Ludwig van Beethoven’s method of composition

stands out as being very methodical and structured. His extensive use of

sketches, sketchbooks, and drafts are starkly contrasted with other

significant composers of his time such as Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus 1 In-depth studies of compositional processes in general may be found in Stan Bennett, "The Process of Musical Creation: Interviews with Eight Composers," Journal of Research in Music Education 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1976); Mary A. Kennedy, "Listening to the Music: Compositional Processes of High School Composers," Journal of Research in Music Education 50, No. 2 (Summer, 2002), and Milton Babbitt, Pierre Boulez, Harrison Birtwistle, Brian Ferneyhough, Steve Reich, Franco Donatoni, Louis Andriessen, and Gyorgy Ligeti “Brave New Worlds: Leading composers offer their anniversary predictions and speculations…,” The Musical Times 135, no. 18 (Jun., 1994).

3

Mozart, and Franz Schubert. These three composers are usually regarded

as extremely prolific, seemingly writing entire works from beginning to end,

without drafts, and moving on to the next. Beethoven’s process, however, is

significantly different and prolonged.

The immediate first difference in Beethoven’s process is his extensive

use of sketches. Much of this information comes to us from Gustav

Nottebohm, who was the first to write extensively on the Beethoven

sketches. Unfortunately, recent scholarship has cast doubt on the

completeness of Nottebohm’s writing.2 Of the sketches Nottebohm

addressed, approximately 50 sketchbooks and about 350 other groupings of

papers exist today.3 Many of these drafts come from the five-year period

between 1798 and 1803, during which time Beethoven began composing in

significant genres.4 While there are no intact sketchbooks prior to 1798,

other sketches and portions of sketches date back to Beethoven’s time in

Bonn in 1790 and earlier. The inclusion of the Bonn sketches show that

Beethoven sketched continually, and with the move from Bonn to Vienna in

1792 he brought some of these sketches with him. While in Vienna, he

continued to sketch on individual sheets, switching to sketchbooks in 1798.

The early loose sketches were placed in a large portfolio for storage and

occasional consultation.5

2 Joseph Kerman, "Beethoven’s Early Sketches," The Musical Quarterly 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1970): 515.3 Ibid., 516.4 Works composed during this time include Beethoven’s first six string quartets (Op. 18) and his first three symphonies (Opp. 21, 36, and 55).5 Kerman, 516.

4

Beethoven’s change from loose drafts to sketchbooks enabled him to

“sketch more systematically and extensively.”6 It was during this change

that Beethoven seems to start becoming more self-conscious about his

attempts at composing, especially regarding those larger works, and

slightly altered his routine. Beethoven’s earlier sketches, those from Bonn,

are significantly neater and organized than the later notes from Vienna.

They seem less like working notes and more like preserved reminders.

Uncompleted works are found in these sketches, such as several

contredanses, allemandes, and variations on a theme by count Waldstein for

piano, four hands. With the exception of these few pieces, most of the Bonn

sketches are short, undeveloped sections of works.7 It is not until the Eroica

Symphony that we see longer drafts such as continuity drafts. After this

symphony, these drafts become more common.8

Analyses of these sketches show Beethoven’s compositional process

was surprisingly consistent. The method by which Beethoven composed in

Bonn was continued in Vienna. This process, as demonstrated through

various pieces, is a linear five-step model shown in figure 1.9

Figure 1

6 Ibid., 522.7 Ibid.8 Kerman addresses the issue of continuity drafts and their use further in Joseph Kerman, "Beethoven’s Early Sketches," The Musical Quarterly 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1970): 529.9 Barry Cooper, “The Evolution of the First Movement of Beethoven's 'Waldstein' Sonata,” Music & Letters 58, No. 2 (Apr., 1977): 171.

Preliminary Sketch

Complete Outline

Development

Continuity Drafts

Autographs

5

The work begins as a preliminary sketch, being created out of a motivic idea

or, in the case of the Waldstein sonata, keyboard exercises.10 After this

initial compositional kernel was established, Beethoven mapped an overall

outline of the entire work, followed by a variety of development on the

motivic ideas. This is followed by a series of continuity drafts, which allowed

the composer to see how well the parts fit together. Finally, Beethoven

would produce a finished autograph of the work.11

Schubert’s Compositional Process

This method is quite different from the procedure employed by

Beethoven’s contemporary, Franz Schubert. Schubert falls into the category

of composers mentioned earlier, a collection of prolific composers who

appear to work without drafts, having us think that writing music was easy

for them. This view of these composers, especially Schubert, has us believe

that they were prodigies, that they possessed genius. An early 20th-century

article says of Schubert “As a matter of fact, he had no methods. He was

entirely a creature of impulse, though that impulse was, without exception,

of the highest and noblest kind.”12

However, like we have seen with Nottebohm’s involvement with the

Beethoven sketches, years of history have painted a picture of Schubert’s

compositional process (or lack thereof) that is not quite true. The majority

10 Ibid.11 This process is outlined in great detail regarding the Waldstein Sonata in Barry Cooper, “The Evolution of the First Movement of Beethoven's 'Waldstein' Sonata,” Music & Letters 58, No. 2 (Apr., 1977): 171.12 L. Michael Griffel, "A reappraisal of Schubert’s Methods of Composition," The Musical Quarterly 63, No. 2 (Apr., 1977): 187.

6

of this idea comes from George Grove’s appendix to the earliest Schubert

biography where he “declared that the autographs of the symphonies were

indeed neat, without corrections, and fully dated and signed.”13 In hindsight

this was untrue, as nearly 3800 corrected mistakes were later found in

Schubert manuscripts.14

Recent research by John Reed paints a different picture. Reed’s

comparison of drafts of the “Sketch” symphony of 1821 and drafts of the

“Great” symphony clearly indicates a traceable working process, though not

one that is as clearly marked as Beethoven’s. Further analysis into

corrections made on Schubert’s autograph material indicates that many of

the mistakes in Schubert’s drafts and autographs were due to inattention,

such as differences in transposition and clefs. This seems to indicate that

Schubert was copying the material from another source such as an earlier

manuscript, which was then discarded.15

In analyzing the autograph scores of Schubert’s symphonies, a

compositional process can be discerned. First, Schubert would create a

sketched piano score, then map the melody-carrying lines to the full

orchestral score. He would then fill in the other parts, working one page at

a time, using different shades of ink for the melody and other voices. This

use of different colors of ink and the pace of one page at a time provides

evidence for Schubert’s workflow. Through this process, Schubert would

recopy the messiest pages and discard the originals, meaning that the

13 Ibid., 187. 14 Ibid.15 Ibid., 190.

7

cleanest pages in his manuscripts were the ones that caused the most

trouble.16

Once finished with copying a score, Schubert would create a title

page and then discard the originals and sketches. This was the custom

among composers (except Beethoven). Schubert’s process is hinted at in

many of his symphonic manuscripts, but perhaps it is the most apparent in

the “Unfinished” symphony. Smaller handwriting, different shades of ink,

mistakes in transposition, and a variety of other small mistakes suggest that

Schubert was working from an earlier draft. From this description of

Schubert’s compositional process, we see a linear four-step procedure, as is

diagrammed in Figure 2.17

Figure 2

Comparison of Processes

Comparing the compositional processes of Beethoven and Schubert

show a few similarities. Both composers had a set method of composition,

which is unsurprising.18 Both used drafts, though Beethoven kept his and

Schubert did not. Both composers started with a piano sketch, which was

16 Griffel, "A reappraisal of Schubert’s Methods of Composition," 190.17 This method was diagrammed using information from L. Michael Griffel, "A reappraisal of Schubert’s Methods of Composition," The Musical Quarterly 63, No. 2 (Apr., 1977): 186-210; and John Reed, "How the ‘Great’ C Major Was Written" in Music & Letters 56, No. 1 (Jan., 1975): 18-25.18 Music education research and interviews with composers indicate that the majority of composers have a set composing routine. For more information regarding this subject, consult the materials mentioned in footnote 1.

Piano Sketch Mapped Melody

Mapped Supporting

PartsAutograph

8

then orchestrated into a larger work. More telling, however, are their

differences.

Beethoven’s five-step workflow seems to be less streamlined than

Schubert’s four-step process. This makes sense considering the perceived

creative process of each composer, Beethoven with his methodical slow

plodding, Schubert with his carefree prolificacy. The largest difference

between the two workflows regards form. Beethoven’s five-step workflow

includes two steps dedicated to unity of form (namely, the “complete

outline” and “continuity drafts” steps), while Schubert’s workflow has no

mention of unity. It is instead assumed that Schubert addressed any major

questions regarding formal unity in the initial piano sketch stage, and used

the bulk of his compositional process for orchestration. Or perhaps

Schubert was more focused on melodic rather than harmonic motion, which

would free him from concentrating on form and allow him to primarily work

with melody-driven development.

Beethoven, however, takes the opposite approach, taking meticulous

care to see that his forms are unified, as seen by his “continuity drafts” and

“complete outline” stages. While formal unity seems to be missing from

Schubert’s process, Beethoven’s process is missing orchestration.

Beethoven’s process of orchestration is similar to Schubert’s process of

formal unity. Both composers come to these tasks with a sense of intuition.19

19 This intuition may be due to each composer’s other works. Schubert’s extensive experience with lieder may have honed his lyricism, while Beethoven’s work with large forms may have sharpened his orchestration skills.

9

Beethoven’s approach to orchestration and Schubert’s approach to form

seem to be holistic in nature.

Influence of Compositional Process on Music

Both Beethoven and Schubert’s music show direct and indirect links

to their compositional processes. As an overall example, Schubert’s

generally melodically-driven music resembles his streamlined workflow,

while Beethoven’s choppy workflow matches his motive-driven work which

often involves the sparring of opposing forces. This is not to say that

Schubert’s works are better-constructed or that Beethoven’s works are

segmented. Rather, each composer’s workflow accents the individual

composer’s mindset and attitude. In this way, both workflows are an

outgrowth of the individual composer’s preferences. Beethoven was

influenced significantly through and by struggle, and his music emulates

that struggle through primarily motivic means. The process by which

Beethoven achieves this is similarly marked by struggle (especially when

Beethoven’s process is compared to Schubert’s).

In contrast, Schubert’s lyricism is drastically different from

Beethoven’s confrontational style. In Schubert’s music we often find

unassuming, non-heroic, but perfectly fine melodies that may show struggle,

but not the sort of struggle on the level of Beethoven’s music. The majority

of Schubert’s early works are non-confrontational and unassuming, similar

to Schubert’s own personality. This is indicated by the composer’s

workflow, which focuses on the accumulation of melodic ideas.

10

There is a logical correlation between each composer’s composing

process and their musical output. However, it is unclear as to which way

causality flows here. Is Schubert’s music lyrical because his process is

streamlined, or is it because he thought in lyrical lines? Is Beethoven’s

music dark and foreboding because of his composing routine, or is his music

simply the result of his personality acting through his process?

Regardless of the influence each composer’s process had on their

music, the public’s perception of each composer’s process is powerful.

Beethoven’s process is well-known due to his large collection of sketches,

and partially due to that factor, Beethoven is viewed as a perfectionist

composer who meticulously worked out ideas. On the other hand,

Schubert’s perceived workflow is quite different from his actual workflow.

L. Michael Griffel writes

If Schubert had left the world with symphonies in autograph scores as grubby as the score of, for instances, his Overture in D Major, D. 26, posterity would have judged him as a very hard worker and perfectionist. Similarly, if he had left absolutely clean final copies, posterity would have assumed that he had done his hard work during some previous stage or stages of the composition. Because his practices did not run to either of these extremes, posterity has misjudged and misunderstood him.20

Due to this mismatching of Schubert’s actual and perceived composition

procedures, he is frequently considered a lesser composer than Beethoven.

Instead, Schubert seems to be as much of a perfectionist as Beethoven, but

rather than work through a number of sketches, Schubert instead would opt

to rewrite entire sections of his works, if not entire works.

20 Griffel, "A reappraisal of Schubert’s Methods of Composition," 210.

11

Applications in Composition Study

The study of Beethoven and Schubert’s compositional processes can

be quite useful for the developing composer. Comparing each composer’s

aesthetic and writing procedure can inform the developing composer about

his or her own music. An in-depth analysis of the student composer’s

writing process can be effective in determining whether there are steps that

may be added, omitted, altered, or streamlined. A composer-conducted

comparison of process and musical output can be useful in determining

style and identifying any allowances that should be made.

For example, the author attempted to complete such a comparison.

Based on the memory of past composition workflow, the procedure outlined

in Figure 3 was identified.

Figure 3

The author’s self-identified form shares attributes with both Beethoven and

Schubert. The orchestration process is the same as Schubert’s, while the

initial idea and continuity draft are closer-related to Beethoven. This

produces a musical style which is somewhere between Beethoven’s strict

adherence to form and Schubert’s lyricism.21

Such an experiment is difficult to conduct individually, as objectively

judging one’s own music is a problematic task that should be undertaken

21 Also note that the process is a 6-step process compared to Beethoven’s 5-step and Schubert’s 4-step.

Initial Idea Continuity Draft

Development

Mapped Melody

Mapped Supportin

g PartsAutograph

12

with the assistance of an instructor. The analysis of a composer’s style and

process is informative to the developing composer, but care should be taken

so that the information is used in development of style, and not as trivia.

Another useful compositional exercise is the act of emulation. Perhaps

asking the student composer to emulate either Beethoven or Schubert’s

process will allow the student to focus on form or harmonic design,

depending on which process is chosen. In addition to experimenting with

compositional technique, this exercise also informs developing composers

about the writing processes of Beethoven and Schubert, which may lead to

a better understanding of their music in history and theory courses.

Additionally, emulation of technique may also be useful in emulation of

aesthetic or style.

Conclusion

Despite being contemporaries, Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz

Schubert were vastly different composers. This can be seen through their

respective writing practices, with Schubert’s being more streamlined and

melody-centric, and Beethoven’s being more segmented and formal. The

study of Beethoven’s and Schubert’s compositional process may be useful in

musicology, theory, and composition pedagogy. The re-evaluation of the

evidence of Schubert’s process shows a different Schubert than what

history would have us believe. The investigation of both processes allow us

to see a different view of both composers, especially in regards to why

Beethoven and Schubert wrote music the way they did. A historically-

13

informed mindset on each composer’s process could be informative in

theoretical analyses of musical works. Additionally, the implementation of

composition-process study may be used with developing composers, either

in analyzing students’ individual processes, or by emulating the processes

of the great composers.

14

Bibliography

Babbitt, Milton. "On Having Been and Still Being an American Composer." Perspectives of New Music 27, No. 1(Winter, 1989): 106-112.

Babbitt, Milton. The Collected Essays of Milton Babbitt. Edited by Stephen Peles, Stephen Dembski, Andrew Mead, and Joseph N. Straus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Babbitt, Milton, Pierre Boulez, Harrison Birtwistle, Brian Ferneyhough, Steve Reich, Franco Donatoni, Louis Andriessen, and György Ligeti. "Brave New Worlds" The Musical Times 135, No. 1816 (Jun., 1994): 330-337.

Beethoven, Ludwig van. A Sketchbook from the Summer of 1800: Facsimile, Transcription and Commentary. Bonn: Beethoven-Haus, 1996.

Beethoven, Ludwig van. Klaviersonate in C-Dur Op. 53 (Waldsteinsonate). Bonn: Beethoven-Haus.

Beethoven, Ludwig van. Violin Sonata in G Major Opus 30, no. 3. London: British Library, 1980.

Bennett, Stan. "The Process of Musical Creation: Interviews with Eight Composers" Journal of Research in Music Education 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1976): 3-13.

Brown, Maurice J. E. “New, Old and Rediscovered Schubert Manuscripts” Music & Letters 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1957): 359-368.

Cook, Nicholas. “Beethoven's Unfinished Piano Concerto: A Case of Double Vision?” Journal of the American Musicological Society 42, No. 2(Summer, 1989): 338-374.

Cooper, Barry. “The Evolution of the First Movement of Beethoven's 'Waldstein' Sonata” Music & Letters 58, No. 2(Apr., 1977): 170-191.

Cork, Jim. "Society versus the Composer" The Antioch Review 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1951): 49-56.

15

Griffel, L. Michael. “A reappraisal of Schubert’s Methods of Composition” The Musical Quarterly 63, No. 2(Apr., 1977): 186-210.

Griffel, L. Michael. “Schubert’s Approach to the Symphony.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1975. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/pqdweb?did=759265731&sid=1&Fmt=1&clientId=41954&RQT=309&VName=PQD (accessed October 22, 2011).

Johnson, Douglas and Alan Tyson. “Reconstructing Beethoven’s Sketchbooks” Journal of the American Musicological Society 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1972): 137-156.

Johnson, Douglas, Alan Tyson, and Robert Winter. The Beethoven Sketchbooks: History, Reconstruction, Inventory. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

Kennedy, Mary A. "Listening to the Music: Compositional Processes of High School Composers" Journal of Research in Music Education 50, No. 2 (Summer, 2002): 94-110.

Kerman, Joseph. “Beethoven's Early Sketches” The Musical Quarterly 56, No. 4(Oct., 1970): 515-538.

Kramer, Richard. “Gradus ad Parnassum: Beethoven, Schubert, and the Romance of Counterpoint” 19th-Century Music 11, No. 2(Autumn, 1987): 107-120.

Kramer, Richard. “The Hedgehog: Of Fragments Finished and Unfinished” 19th-Century Music 21, No. 2(Autumn, 1997): 134-148.

Mann, Alfred. “Schubert’s Lesson with Sechter” 19th-Century Music 6, No. 2(Autumn, 1982): 159-165.

Marston, Nicholas. “Approaching the Sketches for Beethoven’s “Hammerklavier” Sonata” Journal of the American Musicological Society 44, No. 3(Autumn, 1991): 404-450.

Reed, John. “How the ‘Great’ C Major Was Written” Music & Letters 56, No. 1(Jan., 1975): 18-25.

16

Schubert, Franz. Piano Sonata in G Major Op. 78 (D. 894). London: British Library, 1980.

Schubert, Franz. Violinsonate D-Dur Opus 137 Nr. 1: Faksimile nach dem Autograph und einer Autographen abschrift. Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1988.

Solomon, Maynard. “Schubert and Beethoven” 19th-Century Music 3, No. 2(Nov., 1979): 114-125.

van Hoorickx, Reinhard. “Schubert’s Earliest Preserved Song-Fragments” Revue belge de Musicologie/Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Muziekwetenschap 36/38 (1982-1984): 145-161.

Winter, Robert S. “Of Realizations, Completions, Restorations and Reconstructions: From Bach’s The Art of Fugue to Beethoven’s Tenth Symphony” Journal of the Royal Musical Association 116, No. 1(1991): 96-126.