A Study Of Symphony No. 5 In C Minor Op. 67 Of Ludwig Van Beethovens In Classical Musical Genre

A Study Of Symphony No. 5 In C Minor Op. 67 Of Ludwig Van Beethoven's In Classical Musical Genre Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 in C Minor Op. 67 is one of the most well-known and performed compositions in the classical genre. The symphony is used throughout pop culture worldwide and is often played at inaugural concerts for new orchestras. The classic four-note ‘fate motif’ is one of the most recognizable openings in the history of music and is featured prominently in a variety of contexts throughout the piece. Although this symphony was not as influential to listeners during the time period as to which Beethoven was alive, the 19th and 20th centuries popularized the piece and has been deemed to be the epitome of Beethoven’s musical style during the height of his musical career among composers, music directors, and musicians alike. The form and instrumentation of this piece are vastly different than pieces prior to the symphony as a performance of this work can range anywhere from 30-40 minutes in length. Not only did this piece further expand the length of the symphony, but the demands placed upon the musicians to which Beethoven composed in the music were so demanding and dense that a performance of this symphony was considered to be quite difficult to achieve in the early 19th century. The first movement is in C minor, is marked Allegro con Brio, and is in a traditional sonata form which was influenced from Beethoven’s teachers and mentors Haydn and Mozart. If one were to examine the score of this movement, one would notice the development section is expanded through the use of several key increasing the section in length and tension before returning to the recapitulation and coda of the movement. The second movement is in Ab major, is marked Andante con Moto, and is in a double variation form. This i s where two differing themes are presented and are played in alternation as they are presented in contrasting styles. A lengthy coda is also presented at the conclusion of this movement. The third movement is a Scherzo and trio, and is in a ternary form. This movement follows the classical tradition of a minuet and trio, but replaces the minuet with the faster, and newer in style Scherzo. There is no pause as the third movement transitions into the triumphant and heroic finale of the fifth symphony. This finale is in C major, the parallel major of the original key of the first movement. Upon hearing this, one could suggest that this minor to major tonality could represent some sort of internal struggle which the fate motif clearly emphasizes. The finale displays the conquering of this struggle as the movement ends in a brilliant fashion of stating the tonic resolution for the last eighty measures of the symphony. The instrumentation consists of piccolo, two flutes, two oboes, two cl arinets in Bb and C, two bassoons, contrabassoon, two horns in Eb and C, two trumpets, alto, tenor, and bass trombone, timpani in G and C, and strings. However, the piccolo, contrabassoon, and the three trombones are only used for the fourth movement signifying another new trend as most pieces did not feature these instruments during the time period. What makes the fifth symphony different from the third of Beethoven is that the third symphony was increasingly popular throughout Beethoven’s lifetime. The fifth achieved the fame it has today until later into the 19th century. However, although the third symphony is referenced as the ‘Heroic Symphony,’ some scholars of Beethoven’s works suggest that the fifth symphony is more heroic in style and form than the third as once again there seems to be some type of overarching representation of a battle or struggle which is endured then overcome with success. With this in mind, the fifth symphony could be more programmatic in thought leading to more emotional output in composition from Beethoven throughout his middle/late periods and for the several composers to which this symphony will influence in a further programmatic sense of mind.

Charles Darwin's Work according to Popper, Kuhn and Van Fraassen Essay

Charles Darwin's Work according to Popper, Kuhn and Van Fraassen - Essay Example However, philosophers demonstrated interest in finding the truth in various components of life. Some philosophers have observed that Darwin arguments failed to provide concrete reasons while other believes that interpretation of the arguments should take their immediate context (Auletta, et.al.2011). Many philosophers have debated the views of Darwin pointing of the weaknesses as well as possibilities. The evolutionary biology has been subject to scientific tests and principles as well as theological thinking. This paper will explore the views of Popper, Kuhn, and Van in relation to Charles Darwin work on evolution. Karl Popper on Darwin Karl Popper viewed Science as a means of distinguishing theories from myths or traditional believes. The questions raised by people about aspects of life should be subject to scientific analysis. Darwin’s theory clashed with Biblical view of creation, subjecting it to Scientific proves. Popper observed that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not have components, which are subject to scientific measurement (Auletta, et.al.2011). For instance, the survival of species based on how fit they are, in relation to conformation to changes in environment does not contain any bit of science because no species can survive if it is weak. In Popper’s view, Darwin theory does not qualify as a science. Popper’s perspective of science in relation to Darwin theory appears in four steps; first problem selection, second creation of hypothesis in relation to problem solution, third is to test the theory presented, and lastly develop an argument about the result. The knowledge built through the scientific argument would eliminate errors created through criticism. This argument contends that knowledge does not occur through a single suggestion, but must command some universality on the theory introduced. In Popper’s view, the learning that the society acquires is through mistakes that people make. Thus, the separatio n of truth from myths in the scientific way must consist approving and disapproving the exiting view. Darwin’s theory argued that the emergence of creatures in the present world took place after other creatures suffered wastages of unimagined proportion. The theory does not explain the source of suffering thus subjecting it more questions based on scientific credibility. Popper argues that the purpose served by the creatures that led to their extinction must be provable. Popper believes that Darwin must have created a theological problem or unearthed an old problem that was not in focus (Radick, 2003). The outcome of suffering does not lead a viable species to overtake the present challenges, but the cause of the suffering must be evident. Thus, this argument proposed by Popper disapproves the work of Darwin on the following accounts: first, the argument does not contain any scientific element. That is a scientific element can be subject to test through comparison of the exis ting facts and the anticipated outcomes. Second, the argument put forward by Darwin refuted the ontological boundaries between the animal kingdom and humanity. Popper argued that the theory puts animals to appear more human while humans appeared more animal (Radick, 2003). The explanation of evolution as put by Darwin traces the beginning of life from scratches, which are not provable scientifically. The evolution of apes into human beings reduces science to myths. Critics have argued that Popper promoted non-revolutionary interests; however, his argument tends to demonstrate his feelings about the concept of evolution (Radick, 2003). Popper believes that a real world existed, independent of Darwin or human views. He

British History Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 2

British History - Essay Example The Seven Years’ War forced Britain to change its colonial policies in ways that helped drive the colonists to revolution. For the British, part of the significance of the Seven Years’ War is Britain’s emergence as the uncontested imperial leader in the New World. France and Britain had dueled for years as their empires expanded and collided. Armed conflict had been intermittent for decades. France gave its best effort against the might of the British, winning many battles and adopting successful alliances with Native American fighters, who offered support on the field and tutelage in woodland fighting techniques.1 When William Pitt reignited the British army, he also persuaded the Iroquois to ally with him and reduced the French advantage. The British whittled away at the French, then struck a terrific blow at the Plains of Abraham in Quebec in 1759, surprising the French and winning a short but awful battle. The French army would need years to heal after subsequent beatings on the battlefield left Britain victorious.2 Now, Great Britain had additional duties as a colonizer. As a result of the Treaty of Paris 1763, the French ceded land east of the Mississippi River to Great Britain. With larger land area to administrate, govern, protect, and defend, Britain placed additional strain on an already swollen fiscal budget. It would naturally expect the colonists, as British subjects to pay a proportionately higher amount of taxes to finance the new services.3 Victory in the Seven Years’ War impacted Britain’s attitude about how to treat opponents. It had not started winning the war until William Pitt began to use his bold, energetic, highly confident style to get results. Having sufficiently deposed the French with the heavy hand of its military, it now figured it could do the same to any colonists who were foolish enough to raise arms against