Here’s an article I wrote about Beethoven’s Appassionata a few years ago. Looking over it now, it seems a bit sentimental, but perhaps you’ll find it interesting:
At the turn of the nineteenth century, Ludwig van Beethoven started a revolution in the world of classical music. It's an old adage among musicians and historians that Beethoven's music functions as the bridge between what we call the Classical and Romantic periods in music. He grew up during the peak of Mozart's career - firmly and unquestionably in the Classical Period and died as the champions of the Romantic Period (Liszt, Chopin, and Mendelssohn) were coming on the scene. His 32 piano sonatas - spanning from Opus 2 to Opus 111 (almost his entire career) - carry us through a remarkable journey from one musical aesthetic to another. I can't think of any other composer in history (even among others considered to be transitional) who underwent as great a metamorphosis as Beethoven. I hear Opus 57 (the Appassionata) as a major turning point in his oeuvre. This piece - more than any other - is Beethoven searching for a new voice, paying homage to the classical world of his youth, and leaping boldly into a future that was to be dominated by figures such as Franz Liszt with his tempestuous virtuosity. And, let's keep in mind that this all happens in the span of about 25 minutes! The Appassionata is the work of a visionary composer at the height of his career. yearning to express something new but not prepared to completely dismiss tradition.
The first movement, while adhering quite conservatively to standard classical sonata form, is at the same time very daring. It is a movement of unanswered questions. The musical material presented at the beginning consists of short gestures which contrast wildly with each other. Some sound like questions full of intense longing, some are wild outbursts of defiance. This gestural music is juxtaposed with a long-phrased, lyrical second theme which seems to express a desire that cannot be fulfilled. The interplay of these elements and the ending which trails off mysteriously into silence give the impression of a troubled soul looking for some kind of answer. There is no repose in this movement. It is full of uncertainty and unrest.
The second movement forms a huge contrast to the first. It not only follows a classical form (the theme and variations), but it does so in a reverent, almost worshipful way. The theme itself is a hymn, with organ-like chords in a very mellow register. Each variation builds ornamentally on this theme but in a way that seems reluctant to stray too far. The movement seems like an homage and a farewell to the order of the classical period. At the end, after the theme has returned, the movement does not close and resolve. Rather than bring us home to the original harmony, Beethoven instead flings us into the last movement with one very reluctant and hesitant chord followed by a decisive and powerful cry.
In the last movement, Beethoven turns his back on the calm and order of the second movement and gives us an answer to all the uncertainty of the first movement. It is a relentless toccata - a whirlwind of sixteenth notes from start to finish - full of fury and abandon. Playing this movement is a tremendous physical feat. I feel the meaning of this movement to be that it is time to throw away the past and run headlong into the future. There is pain in this sentiment - it is not a happy movement by any stretch of the imagination - but nevertheless it seems clear to me that Beethoven is determined to make a leap. The only answer to such intense longing and uncertainty in the first movement and such reverence and reluctance to turn away from tradition in the second must be an enormous, virtuosic, completely unfettered dash into whatever the future brings. As painful as it might be, it is necessary.
The idea of considering the piece in this way first came to me as a simple, intuitive thought. After all, if Beethoven bridges the divide between two periods and Opus 57 falls right about in the middle of his career, it seemed a natural enough way of looking at it. But, the more I considered the piece from this perspective, the more sense it made, and the more meaningful it seemed. There was a moment when I found that these ideas I had been stirring around were becoming clearly audible in my performance of the work. I had built an interpretation around the premise of the piece as a bridge between two worlds. Articulating my thoughts on the piece in writing has been a useful exercise in clarifying my ideas to myself, and I present them here for anyone who might be interested.
On the [Audio Page] you can download or stream my performance of the entire piece.