Beethoven's First Symphony, movement 1 (part 1: intro and exposition)

This essay is the first part of my analysis of Beethoven’s First Symphony, movement 1. For part two, click the link above.

A public domain PDF of the orchestral score of this piece may be found here, and a piano reduction for ease of reference may be found here. Editions were chosen to prioritize PDF clarity and measure numbers.

Introduction: mm. 1-12 

Woodwinds, two horns, and pizzicato strings. 

Other symphonists, such as Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann, would take a different approach to the opening moment of their first symphony: drama. The first, a heraldic timpani-driven D Major ascent; the second, a frenetic and panicked C minor attack; and the latter, a powerful, noble trumpet call. But evidently, Beethoven had other ideas for his symphonic debut.

Beethoven’s cheeky opening is often interpreted as a “joke,” not least because the very first sonority—initiating the most venerated symphonic career in history—is not a member of the eventual key of C Major. From that tonic’s perspective, m. 1 contains two harmonies: V7/IV and its resolution, IV. On first listen, our ears therefore establish F, the “wrong key,” as the presumed global tonic by the end of m. 1. But the ruse continues in m. 2, which bears a similar chord progression: V7 – vi. By now, we have abruptly reoriented ourselves to the correct C Major, only to have our trajectory toward closure snubbed by the deceptive cadence. A third try, perhaps: mm. 3 and 4 present V7/V with a crescendo, resolving dramatically a full bar later to V in timpani-punctuated tutti. Indeed, a surprising formula for introducing the world of C Major.

However, in examining the opening four measures beyond their unorthodoxy and proto-narrative capacity, we find plenty of familiar and function-driven structure. By “zooming out” our perception, we can boil these three modules down to their arrival harmonies as seen in the context of the ultimate C Major: IV, vi, and V. In doing so, we gain more insight into Beethoven’s journey. These three opening harmonic trajectories perfectly bookend, and then establish, the dominant environment that goes on to underpin mm. 5-7. While the disorienting mannerisms Beethoven exhibits in achieving this effect may be unorthodox and perhaps even shocking, the near-glib label of “joke” falls short of capturing the phrase’s earnestly functional trajectory.

On the whole, this introduction, at merely 12 measures long, can hardly fill the substantial containers set forth in the standard Mozartean adagio introduction, still the reigning standard in 1800. But, unlike Mozart, Beethoven introduces himself as a master of thematic resourcefulness: the zones of introductory function remain intact, however miniaturized. Measures 1-4 represent the curtain rise, mm. 5-7 the dominant-pedal exploration, and mm. 8-12 the attempt (well, attempts—first subverted and then successful) at an extended cadential progression. Beethoven’s brevity and ease of arrival (no minor fall, for instance) offer a sense of assuredness to stabilize an otherwise curious introduction.

If anything about the introduction were to strike as a genuine, comedy-filled joke, perhaps it is m. 12 itself, with the presence of a completely uninterrupted G Major scale in strings against the G dominant seventh chord in woodwinds and brass. The audacious superimposition of F sharp (as a secondary leading tone in C) and F natural (from the dominant seventh) anticipates an idiosyncrasy of countless future composers, including Bruckner (c.f. Symphony No. 7), Sibelius (c.f. Symphony No. 4), and the likes of Bartok and Shostakovich. Less than a decade after the death of Mozart, the late master’s show-offy and rule-ignorant humor may well have still filled the air of Vienna and the lungs of his disciples.

Exposition: mm. 13-106

P: Primary Theme (mm. 13–32)

Beethoven’s first symphonic primary theme is so tonally stable that the first four measures contain nothing but a reaffirming cadential gesture, repeated incessantly (six times if you include the downbeat of m. 17.) We might picture a youthful, unfledged character in this opening gesture, somewhat facetiously reiterating this simple punctuation mark as if discovering its use for the first time. The woodwinds in mm. 17-18 use the familiar ascending I – V7/ii – ii chord progression to “notch” the tonicized center up to d minor—yet another punctuation mark, perhaps now the exclamation point, for our amused friend to spam. These first two 6-bar phrases—mm. 13-18 and mm. 19-24—serve as the two presentation modules of a sentential structure. 

Woodwinds and horns use the complementary descending ii – iiø42 – V65 progression to bring us to the dominant of C Major, where our friend discovers the question mark. This forms the continuation of the sentence, mm. 25-32, exhibiting melodic fragmentation and an accelerated hypermetric pulse. Measures 25-30 contain three two-bar pillars declaiming the dominant in higher and higher inversion, akin to the triple hammer blow native to early Classical form. Finally, mm. 31-32 take this maximally charged dominant and thrust it into a textbook extended cadential progression: I – IV – V864 – V753 – I. If Beethoven meant to propel us into this first symphonic sonata space with uncommon matter-of-factness and ease, he could not have done a better job.

TR: Transition (mm. 33–52) 

With the tutti affirmation in hand, and with the eighth note ostinato in violas, cellos, basses, and second bassoon, the transition is underway. The primary theme fell just shy of tonal overdetermination, since much of that time was spent exploring the realms of ii and V—so the transition space is Beethoven’s first exuberant confirmation of the tonic, C Major.

The transition is thematically independent from P, fixating on the new, ever-confirming gesture of do-mi-sol. Initially, we hear a 2-bar harmonic and motivic tempo. But by m. 41, the punctuation marks from P return. The harmonic tempo increases to every measure, and ultimately every quarter note, as our budding author begins to giddily compose a string of dashes and semicolons. The orchestra has switched to a completely monophonic push to the dominant lock arrival in m. 45. Up through here, TR might be seen as sentential, with the two do-mi-sol statements marking the two presentation modules, and the fragmented monophonic hike acting as the continuation.

In these final 8 bars of TR, Beethoven explores the orchestra with antiphonal dialogue over one harmonic subject: the V53 – V64 – V53 alternation that heralds the coming cadence, medial caesura, and secondary theme. The moving line incessantly traces G-G-G-G-F-E-D-C-G, descending a full octave over and over again as if to neatly bookend the rising monophonic sequence from m. 41. While many of Beethoven’s transition spaces display great drama or conflict (arguably, all of his symphonic first movement transitions except in the Sixth and maybe Eighth), this transition pushes toward the MC with such confidence as to seemingly outdo even the overqualified charm of P.

The medial caesura (m. 52) and follows a half cadence in the original tonic key of C Major (I: HC). While this means TR technically does not modulate to the secondary key and produce a half cadence there (V: HC), this option is still quite common. Generally, the nonmodulating option avoids dramatizing the rotational arc of the sonata—the need of one section to properly prepare and sensationalize another—by removing the preparatory modulation to the dominant. Rather, things are matter-of-fact and spontaneous, qualities that fit well with the foursquare, uncomplicated sonata so far.

S: Secondary Theme (mm. 53-87)

If P and TR were concise, S takes the opportunity to embellish the trajectory to the essential expositional closure (EEC). The G Major secondary theme zone can be split into three phrase structures: S1.1 (mm. 53-68), S1.2 (mm. 69-76), and the surprising S2 (mm. 77-87). The theme appears to be new, although it bears an uncanny connection to the G-G-G-G-F-E-D-C-G figuration that immediately precedes S. Indeed, the theme seems to carry over some of the affect of P as well: the sweet oboe and flute lines are frequently interrupted by sforzando energy, quite atypical of a secondary theme. These dynamic intrusions are critical to the character of S.

S1.1 is a 16-bar period whose antecedent (mm. 53-60) and consequent (mm. 61-68) are both sentences. The first of these ends with a reinterpreted half cadence, and the second points toward a V: PAC. But in the last moment—m. 68—the cello and bass descent to C indicates the PAC will be evaded. Sure enough, m. 69 begins not with the necessary I chord, but instead its unstable first inversion, I6, forcing S space to continue in search of the EEC.

S1.2 constitutes a single 8-bar sentence, with fragmentation again marked by sforzandi. This time, the entire phrase is marked forte, even ending fortissimo—as if the energy of the closing section was determined to enter right on time, despite the cadential failure that ultimately kept S open for business. One can also hear a sort of tutti affirmation, as if S1.1 was hoping for crowd approval by way of S1.2 before resting their case for G Major. With this endorsement in hand, the full homophonic extended cadential progression in m. 76 successfully summons the V: PAC we have been looking for.

Or so we think, until beat two of m. 77. Here, the G Major arrival collapses into the parallel minor, G minor, in subito pianissimo—hardly the tonality or dynamic we expect following the EEC. Indeed, as cellos and basses take the original melodic motive from S1.1 into the depths of the circle of fifths, we are forced to reinterpret the V: PAC in m. 77 as a failed EEC, and to label this new phrase structure as S2. With yet another thematic motive, oboe and bassoon take turns guiding us around the circle of fifths from this minor fall until we are aptly set on the dominant. The ensuing crescendo-fueled cadential progression in mm. 85-87 finally produces the requisite EEC.

C: Closing Zone (mm. 88-106)

With the somewhat surprising S-complications behind us, Beethoven manages to reassure with a no-nonsense closing zone. C1 extends to m. 99 and is proudly P-based, developed in canon with winds and violins against the low strings. The monophonic orchestra enjoys one more emphatic V: PAC in mm. 98-100, sending us into C2 (mm. 100-106). This light codetta is S-based, manipulating the scalar descent motive of S1.1 through diminution. This establishes the closing zone’s unique quality of referencing, in order, both part 1 and part 2 of the exposition. Thus, C behaves like a micro-rotation, allowing us to reflect and reset prior to the start of the developmental rotation.

In all, the exposition leaves us with few problems to task the development with solving. However, the unknown forces of development conversely have a blank check, a dangerous asset for notoriously nefarious territory. And it remains to be seen how the recapitulation will handle the S2 conundrum—will tonal resolution to C Major be enough to overwrite the minor fall, or will Beethoven have to handle the issue another way?