Beethoven: Sonata Op.

106
Schubert: Sonata D 960

A comparison between their first movements

David Beloved
Paper for Analysis of 19th Century Piano Literature
October 13 1998

Beethoven completed his Grosse Sonate fr das Hammerklavier, op.106 in 1818, when he
was 47. At that time he was at the transition from his second period to the third, a tough decade full
of personal crisis, like his deafness, which became total in 1812, the encounter with the Immortal
Beloved Antonie Brentano also in that year, or the death of his brother Karl in 1815 and the
litigation over the guardianship of his nephew. Op.106 sonata marks a triumphant emergence from
these critical years and it will open new ways of organizing material that broke some of the rules that
had been common practice in sonata form up to this point.
Schubert completed his B flat major sonata, together with the C minor D.958 and the A
major D.959 ones, at the end of September in 1828, and he would die on the nineteenth---- of
Novemeber of the same year. At the same time he was completing the C major String Quintet and
the song cycle Winterreise. That is quite a lot of intellectual work for a man who was going to die
in less than two months and was aware of this. In the case of Beethoven, he would live for nine
more years after the completion of op.106, and, despite all his problems. he probably wasnt even
thinking on the possibility of leaving this world soon. Therefore, there is no point to compare the
crisis Beethoven was having towards 1818 with the kind of desperation Schubert was probably
feeling in September of his last year.

3
It is well known that Schubert was a great admirer and worshiper of Beethoven, and one can
find lots of examples in Schuberts music that in some way or another bring to mind the music of the
older composer. In my opinion it doesnt diminish the value of his music at all, and can be
considered as a sort of homage to him (perhaps the best homage a man can receive). However, the
two sonatas that are the purpose of this study dont have that clear similarity and, at first hearing, the
only similar thing is the key, Bb major. The character is just different, even opposed. Beethoven
explores the dynamic possibilities of the new piano, the tempo is very fast, the level of virtuosity
goes to the extreme and the density of events is overwhelming. Rhythmic figures are of the most
diverse kinds and are supported by a very vertical structure throughout the movement, with a little
contrast in the second half of the first theme and in the closing section. As opposed to all this,
Schubert piece is more homogeneous in texture, tempo is much slower and theres practically no
element of virtuosity. Rhythmic figures are very simple and theres no big dynamic contrast.
Everything seems to be flowing in a continuous accompanied melody. The real contrast here relies
in the pitches, how they are organized harmonically and how magically they bring us to different
layers of unreality.

The first four measures of Beethovens first section are basically a Bb major triad, and the
following measures until the Bridge (m.17) form a progression, rich in chromatism, starting in V,
that takes us back to Bb. The bridge has a lot to do with this key too. In fact, instead of leading the
harmony towards a different key (theoretically the key of the dominant), it stays in Bb major for two
thirds of the duration of this section, until measure 37. Nothing has really happened harmonically up
#

to that measure. Then, and only by raising F to F , and no previous preparation, we find ourselves in

4
G major, ready to start the B section.
In Schuberts A theme everything goes around Bb major, but it is curious the use he makes of
the subdominant sonority. Eb major harmony coincides with the highest pitch of the melody and it
comes right on the beginning of the second half of the phrase (m.5). There is a lot of gravity put into
that direction during the previous four measures, and this is a characteristic that is present at the first
themes of his last three sonatas, and could be considered a typical schubertian sonority (which
doesnt mean exclusive).
Schuberts A section has a ternary structure a-a-a and the a part, starting at measure 20, is a
wonderful inflection to Gb major (bVI), which had already been announced by the left hand with a
trill over Gb in measure 8, as the only dark, mysterious moment in the clean, pure, lyric atmosphere
of serenity that the first phrase gives to the opening of this sonata. This trill will appear at the basic
columns of the movement: the exposition, the recapitulation and the very end before the last perfect
cadence, as if it were the only sign that brings us back to reality. The melody is transposed to Gb in
m.20 and there is a process of melodic variation that will take us back to Bb in measure 36.
Therefore, sub-section a acts as a long-scale embellishment of the Bb major key that predominates
#

in the A section. At the end of it, just a dominant seventh chord on C , and we are already in B
section. No bridge, no transition. The A section goes far enough by itself. We dont need
#

preparation of the key of the B theme, F minor: it has already been given at the opening with the
#

trill mentioned before (Gb= F ). This theme has a big tendency towards the subdominant, although it
never resolves to B minor. Measures 59 to 67 are a prolongation of the dominant of B minor, but
they finally resolve to a dominant pedal over C on measure 75, which prepares F major. This is the
beginning of the Closing section of the development, which stays in F major until the repeat sign.

5
Lets summarize up to this point: we have an Exposition in three section (A-B-Closing) with no
bridge; the dominant, supposed to be the key of B section, is not reached until the beginning of the
#

Closing section, so theres a distant key (F minor) between I and V. B section has double meaning
here: structurally, it serves as B theme; harmonically, it works as a bridge between tonic (A section)
and dominant (Closing section). This ambiguity is, on a large-scale view, one of the most expressive
achievements of this sonata. Charles Rosen, in his book Sonata Forms,1 calls it a three key
exposition and, regarding to the middle key, says the second key is not fully established, and it is
conceived above all in relation to the dominant that will follow. As an example, he gives the
exposition of Beethovens Emperor concerto, in Eb major, where the B section is first in B minor
(bvi) and then in Cb major (bVI), before it goes to the dominant, Bb major. Here the key of Cb can be
heard as an upper neighbor approach to the dominant. He also gives the exposition of Schuberts
sonata as an illustration, and its key scheme is almost the same than the previous example (Fig.1).

[Fig.1]

The middle key in Schuberts sonata is not as clearly an upper neighbor key to the dominant
#

as it was in Beethovens example. The key is not really established at all. The only F minor
#

measures are the first three bars of the B theme. After them there is an ambiguity between F minor
#

and A major, and it doesnt go back to F minor for the rest of the piece (except at the beginning of
#

the development, where it is also followed by the duality F minor - A major, in measures 121-131).

Rosen, Charles Sonata Forms (New York; Norton 1988) pp.247-261

6
That is why I consider B section as a transition to the closing section, which is tonally more stable
than the previous one.
In Beethovens Hammerklavier we also have a second theme in relation of third with the
tonic: It is the major parallel of the minor relative. But the most striking thing about this movement
is that G major is not only the key of the B section, but stays during the Closing section and the
beginning of the development, where the different sections go through Eb major, G major, B major
and the Recapitulation starts on m.227, with no dominant preparation!

[Fig.2]

Beethoven seems to be deliberately avoiding the dominant preparation continuously. The

only moment where we have a perfectly resolved cadence during the whole movement is at mm. 3435, when we are still in Bb major. It serves to reaffirm that key, to settle it against the distant keys
that are about to come. Where is the arrival of the dominant in the exposition? Where is the
dominant preparation for the reprise? One needs to understand and hear the section between
mm.201-226 as a half-step approach to the tonic: bII becomes a substitute to the dominant. That is
very common in music today, specially in jazz harmony (the so-called tritone substitute), but how
would have this been heard by peoples ears in 1818?

Development section in Schuberts sonata can be divided in four sections, which mark also
the main tonal regions. In fact, tonal regions are one of the factors that make every section different
#

to the others. The first section starts in C minor in m.117; the second one, in A major, starts at

7
#

m.131, with inflections to G minor, B major and Bb minor; the third section starts in Db major and
builds the climax of the piece towards a fortissimo in m.171; the last part of the development is a
magic prolongation of D minor which at the end will be chromatically transformed into the dominant
of Bb in a kind of re-transition, completed by the trill over Gb, before the recapitulation. All these
distant harmonies are held together by the uniformity of the textural material, like the use of
continuous obstinato eighth-notes or eighth-note triplets, and specially the omnipresence of the
rhythmic group

, which gives a special flavor to the development. However, the

biggest shock takes place at the beginning of the development. Schubert starts suddenly, with
#

absolutely no preparation, on C minor. Moments like these are the ones I would qualify as unreal,
and they succeed in different layers throughout the development. Keys are unexpected and have
apparently no relation between each other, taking us to different stages of unreality. In this ecstatic
state of sound, there is something uniform connecting each key change, and it is the melodic
uniformity, which helps to keep track of where reality is and gives peace to the inner struggle that
these key changes are producing.

Schuberts sonata is full of relations of third between keys, like theme A(Bb) - theme B (C ),
#

first section of development (c ) - second one (A), or Db section - Recapitulation. If we examine

Beethovens development well find out how all tonal regions are built by thirds: G major in m.124,
Eb major in m.130, the progression G-C / Bb-Eb between mm.177-190, and the B major retransition starting at m.201. They form a succession of major thirds, G-Eb-B. Also theme A and B
in the exposition are at a distance of a minor third, which intimately connects B theme to the
development by being in the same key. This is another way to give uniformity to the piece. It is

8
important to consider this correspondence of third in the two pieces we are analyzing. A composer
can use a succession V-I, and it is already more or less defined by common practice, but, when
employing keys in correspondence of thirds he is forced to invent these correspondences, and this
will give him a lot of room to creation. In other words, as Diether de la Motte says, Harmony,
formerly a simple instrument of craftsmanship with predefined materials, is turning into the field of
inspiration, an object of invention. 2

Beethoven, specially in his late period, used counterpoint as part of the formal structure in his
compositions. In Op.106 he composes a fugue section and he uses it to get to the climax of the
development. This is a characteristic of his style at that point and his music would get incredible
levels of tension thanks to this method. Counterpoint is precisely Schuberts weak point. Or maybe
it is one of the factors that make his music so different from that of his admired master. With this I
mean that perhaps the fact of Schuberts weakness in counterpoint made him look for other ways of
expressing himself and achieve a very personal style. Maynard Salomon writes:
Schuberts accommodation with Beethoven - if such it was - extended only to aspects of
Beethovens high-Classic and middle period styles. Perhaps Schuberts temperament did not permit
him to follow Beethoven into the world of the late style. He had not yet fully participated in
Beethovens rebellious expansion of the conventional conception of the sonata to its outer limits; nor
was he yet capable of expressing the broad range of emotional and affective states that necessarily
accompanied Beethovens ultimate adventures. That he wished to equip himself to pursue lastperiod Beethoven may, however, be the simple explanation for his seeking lessons in fugue from
Simon Sechter in early November 1828.

De la Motte, Diether; Romano, Luis, trans. Armonia (Barcelona, Labor 1989; original: Brenreiter 1976)
pp.155-156
3

Solomon, Maynard Schubert and Beethoven 19 century music, Vol. III/2 (November 1979) p.124-125

9
To this I must add a quotation by Alfred Brendel: He [Schubert] admired the master far too
much to challenge him on his own terms. And he must have been keenly aware of the basic
differences in their temperaments, minds and backgrounds. 4 Solomons commentary agrees with
the comparison Rosen gives between Beethovens Emperor and Schuberts sonata.

Key

relationships are similar and Beethovens concerto belongs to the second period. However, we
should not think that Schubert didnt evolve from what Beethoven had developed during his first
period. Id rather consider that Schubert, as a different human being than Beethoven, didnt find
himself in the need of going further from where he was (that is already far enough), because his
character, personal experiences, and state of mind, were just diverse. Beethoven was fighting with
earthly problems and, having a temperamental character, would front them drastically, with all his
fire. Schubert, as a shy and delicate man, would keep away of direct contact with trouble and stay in
another universe, where emotions are the rules, but theres still room for sophistication, and order is
not always necessary.

Brendel, Alfred Musical Thoughts and Afterthoughts (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1991)

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cone, Edward T. Schuberts Beethoven Musical Quarterly, Vol. LVI/4 (October 1970)
pp.779-793

Brendel, Alfred Musical Thoughts and Afterthoughts (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
1991)

Massin, Jean and Brigitte; Asumendi, Isabel, translation into Spanish; Ludwig Van Beethoven
(Madrid; Turner 1987)
Franz Schubert (Paris: Fayard, 1977)

Rosen, Charles Sonata Forms (New York Norton 1988)

Solomon, Maynard Schubert and Beethoven 19th Century music, Vol. III/2 (November 1979)
pp.114-125