# JS Bach and Beethoven



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Yes, apologies if this has been done before. I have been listening to Beethoven's late string quartets and those along with the late piano sonatas and the Diabelli Variations. Surely these works are insurmountable and music could never be improved on after these were written? The pinnacle of all music. 

Although, I regard JS Bach as equally important as Beethoven with his Mass in B minor, WTC, and the chaconne in D minor. 

Let's be honest, no other composer comes close to what these two achieved. I love other composers and find Haydn and Mozart's symphonies intriguing and enjoyable but alas they don't reach the levels that Bach and Beethoven peaked at. They are contemporary forever. 

PS

The last minute of the 1st movement of the 15th String Quartet is not of this world.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

They are alright.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Didn't we have a poll, no so long ago about this composers?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

beetzart said:


> I have been listening to Beethoven's late string quartets and those along with the late piano sonatas and the Diabelli Variations. Surely these works are insurmountable and music could never be improved on after these were written? The pinnacle of all music.


It's your personal taste, that's fine. It's not therefore _objective truth_ however. Because there's no such thing.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

There is, but not in matters of taste.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sorry OP, but Mozart's achievement was just as great. Just think of Figaro, the Don, Cosi and Zauberflote. The last three Mozart symphonies. They are truly stupendous works, as great as Lud and JSB achieved but in a different sphere of music. I just can't see why you write things like this frankly.


----------



## Schumanniac (Dec 11, 2016)

I agree but music is a far too vague experience for truths. Make a worldwide poll of greatest musicians who ever lived, and im not even sure they would make top 10 as these greats have largely faded from popularity, being ousted by the likes of... Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson *shudders*.

Ps
C'mon, man, get a grip! 7th movement of Ludwig's 16th quartet is whats out of this world


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Beethoven was just, no is, amazing. How did he write music so special with his profound deafness? Could he actually hear the music in his head like an hallucination? Or did he just use logic, what with his advanced knowledge of harmony and counterpoint, to know where to put the notes. I followed the score of the C sharp minor quartet earlier and I was blown away. Beethoven seriously is not of this world. They say that when people heard the quartets they didn't know how to interpret it. And still today I don't think anyone understands just what Ludwig did in the last 10/12 years of his life. To me it is mind blowing at least, I humbly say.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

They're indeed not of the same category of let's say Clementi ;-)

And when it comes to LVB's string quartets, nothing will ever come close. And all the reasoning of the world about Mozart being an equal genius won't change a thing about that (for me)

And Bach.....wel yeah, he's ok I guess


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

beetzart said:


> Beethoven was just, no is, amazing. How did he write music so special with his profound deafness


I never got what people found so amazing about it. He wasn't born deaf.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Animal the Drummer said:


> There is, but not in matters of taste.


is there?

I am aware of the dangers of maybe slightly getting a bit off topic when asking this question :devil:


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Chronochromie said:


> I never got what people found so amazing about it. He wasn't born deaf.


Sorry, but I don't think it makes any difference. To be able to hear for 25 odd years then gradually lose it but as it worsens the music gets better is quite incredible don't you think?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

beetzart said:


> Sorry, but I don't think it makes any difference. To be able to hear for 25 odd years then gradually lose it but as it worsens the music gets better is quite incredible don't you think?


Most composers get better as they age.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

That is true, yes. Beethoven got better exponentially off the scale though. I love how simple Beethoven's motifs are. I think of the appassionata sonata that opens with such a simple idea for example and he turns it into a 10 minute movement.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

beetzart said:


> Surely these works are insurmountable and music could never be improved on after these were written? The pinnacle of all music.


I think it's a mistake to view music as something that is "improved on". It simply changes over time.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Is there a piece of Western Art Music written after the Late Quartets that surpasses them? When the last cadence strikes in the 16th SQ is that the end? I struggle to think of anything better. Schubert's last SQ or his quintet maybe? Bruckner's 5th? Mahler's 1st and 2nd? Of course there are endless pieces to name. If it is all subjective then that puts everything on par with everything else. Haydn's 1st symphony is not on par with the 9th symphony for example. How you objectively rank music? I don't really know. Ingenuity? Creativity? Originality?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chronochromie said:


> Most composers get better as they age.


It is known that Beethoven tried using various devices and methods to try to hear his piano while he was composing as his hearing deteriorated: If his hearing was such a discretionary requirement while composing, why did he bother?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

DaveM said:


> It is known that Beethoven tried using various devices and methods to try to hear his piano while he was composing as his hearing deteriorated: If his hearing was such a discretionary requirement while composing, *why did he bother*?


Well. let's see. A human who cannot hear trying hard to regain his hearing. Hmm, I can't think why he would want that.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> Most composers get better as they age.


Or die. Whichever comes first.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

beetzart said:


> Is there a piece of Western Art Music written after the Late Quartets that surpasses them? When the last cadence strikes in the 16th SQ is that the end? I struggle to think of anything better. Schubert's last SQ or his quintet maybe? Bruckner's 5th? Mahler's 1st and 2nd? Of course there are endless pieces to name. If it is all subjective then that puts everything on par with everything else. Haydn's 1st symphony is not on par with the 9th symphony for example. How you objectively rank music? I don't really know. Ingenuity? Creativity? Originality?


I think Beethoven's late quartets are among the best music ever written (certainly among my very favorite). The problem you're faced with, if wanting to make objective statements, is that most (all) of the words used to describe music are very subjective by nature. I am content simply enjoying them and not worrying too much about their relative rank.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

beetzart said:


> If it is all subjective then that puts everything on par with everything else. Haydn's 1st symphony is not on par with the 9th symphony for example. How you objectively rank music? I don't really know. Ingenuity? Creativity? Originality?


There isn't an objective way to rank music. This doesn't mean that "it's all subjective", though. Clearly large majorities of people think that Beethoven's 9th symphony is better than Haydn's 1st symphony (I'm one). Ultimately it comes down to what people value in music, which will always be subjective, but there can nevertheless be a collective agreement, which is a quasi but not universal objectivity.

It's possible to imagine a world with different priorities regarding what can or should be said in music - for example, where brevity is valued very highly, and choral singing regarded as out of bounds for a serious work, in which case that world's TC would be filled with people shaking their heads sadly at how Beethoven's 9th is just embarrassingly inferior to Haydn's 1st!


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

The thing with Beethoven admirers is that they not only find his music "better" then that of a bunch of other composers but often expressions are used like "best music ever written", "beyond words", "no one ever comes close", "hors-catégorie" "no par", "totally beyond any other music" etc etc....

I think it would be possible to do a survey determining for which composers these kind of expressions are used most and I think Beethoven would possibly be no1. And that's not because I'm a fanboy but because that's simply the impression I get when I read the views of other composers/musicians/musicologists/t.c. members....about Beethoven.

BUT I do think there are post-Beethoven works that challenge him.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think if you were to ask, "Who is the greatest English language playwright?" you would also get a similar broad consensus. But if you were then to ask, "And why is he the greatest?" you would immediately be launched into a blizzard of individual subjectivities, with very little that is provable.

And of course there are people on these forums who dislike Beethoven's music. Are they wrong?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I think if you were to ask, "Who is the greatest English language playwright?" you would also get a similar broad consensus. But if you were then to ask, "And why is he the greatest?" you would immediately be launched into a blizzard of individual subjectivities, with very little that is provable.
> 
> And of course there are people on these forums who dislike Beethoven's music. *Are they wrong?*


Yes, they are. Very, very wrong


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

KenOC said:


> And of course there are people on these forums who dislike Beethoven's music. Are they wrong?


No they're not wrong, they're deaf :lol:


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I have to admit I am one of those 'fanboys' when it comes to Beethoven and Bach. I got into classical music at age 10 because of Beethoven and it started with Fur Elise and Moonlight Sonata. I always had the impression from a young age that he is simply the greatest. I don't know why. What does he do that makes his music what it is? The only suggestion I can make is he uses very simple and obvious ideas or motifs and then develops the f*** out of them. Perhaps it is that, again I don't know. Still I'm glad he wrote what he did because I enjoy it very much.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Or die. Whichever comes first.


Even if they die very young their later works are usually their best, so...


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> It is known that Beethoven tried using various devices and methods to try to hear his piano while he was composing as his hearing deteriorated: If his hearing was such a discretionary requirement while composing, why did he bother?


I didn't say it didn't help him at all or that it was unnecessary or that he didn't care at all about hearing music.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

beetzart said:


> I have to admit I am one of those 'fanboys' when it comes to Beethoven and Bach. I got into classical music at age 10 because of Beethoven and it started with Fur Elise and Moonlight Sonata. I always had the impression from a young age that he is simply the greatest. I don't know why. What does he do that makes his music what it is? The only suggestion I can make is he uses very simple and obvious ideas or motifs and then develops the f*** out of them. Perhaps it is that, again I don't know. Still I'm glad he wrote what he did because I enjoy it very much.


Yes, the motivic development is exactly what I love about Beethoven's music! He treated motives like characters in a novel or play...his motives undergo many transformations as they move through different contexts and interact with other themes. His music strikes me as being very much about evolution (anticipating Darwin by a few decades! )

Of course, this type of style is not to everyone's taste--Beethoven's music generates a strong sense of linear progression through time and that doesn't appeal to some people. Indeed, some TC members have expressed a preference for music that has a calmer, more centered feel. I wouldn't necessarily say that they're missing out on anything. They simply have different aesthetic orientations.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

beetzart said:


> Is there a piece of Western Art Music written after the Late Quartets that surpasses them?


As much as I love the late Beethoven quartets, there are dozens of works composed after them that I prefer. For me, Mahler alone has composed at least eight works (Symphonies 2,4,6,9; Das Lied von der Erde; Kindertotenlieder; Rueckertlieder; Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen) that I prefer over anything Beethoven composed - and for Beethoven, the best for me would be the 6th symphony rather than his quartets. It's all subjective, so let's not state a personal preference as if it were reality.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Chronochromie said:


> I didn't say it didn't help him at all or that it was unnecessary or that he didn't care at all about hearing music.


But you were very dismissive in response to _"Beethoven was just, no is, amazing. How did he write music so special with his profound deafness"_, as if it was no big deal. I would not be so amazed at the feat if Beethoven was simply recycling chord structures and thematic elements from past compositions, but, on the contrary, his final compositions when he was profoundly deaf were often extremely original: case in point, the way in which the double & triple trills are used at the conclusion of Op. 111.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

To me Beethoven sounds clearly the lesser composer compared with Bach and Mozart and I don't feel his music reached greater heights than composers like Brahms, Debussy or Wagner. 

When I listen to Bach and Mozart there is a certain 'shimmer' of perfection there, a crispness. Beethoven sounds lumbering and boorish in comparison. He sounds like a composer who couldn't compete with his predecessors so decided to make things longer and louder to compensate. Listening to the textures in something like Bach's Mass or Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe, they make the textures in Beethoven's 9th sound very amateurish and ugly.

I think of Beethoven and Schoenberg in similar terms. Innovative composers that do have some real depth and genius, but composed for the most part ugly music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I think if you were to ask, "Who is the greatest English language playwright?" you would also get a similar broad consensus.


I'm not sure about that Ken. It could be a tossup between De Vere, Bacon, and some illiterate actor whose name I am currently forgetting. :devil:


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

tdc said:


> To me Beethoven sounds clearly the lesser composer compared with Bach and Mozart and I don't feel his music reached greater heights than composers like Brahms, Debussy or Wagner.
> 
> When I listen to Bach and Mozart there is a certain 'shimmer' of perfection there, a crispness. Beethoven sounds lumbering and boorish in comparison. He sounds like a composer who couldn't compete with his predecessors so decided to make things longer and louder to compensate. Listening to the textures in something like Bach's Mass or Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe, they make the textures in Beethoven's 9th sound very amateurish and ugly.
> 
> I think of Beethoven and Schoenberg in similar terms. Innovative composers that do have some real depth and genius, but composed for the most part ugly music.


I agree and yet prefer Beethoven over Bach, Mozart, Brahms...Maybe partly because of the things you mentioned. I tried to point out some of Beethoven's ugly sides here on T.C. but mostly you get attacked by fanboys when trying that. To me Beethoven sometimes feels a bit clumsy compared to Bach, Mozart or Haydn but he makes up with interesting, beautiful tension between the notes. Beethovens' silences are the most beautiful.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Razumovskymas said:


> ... Beethovens' silences are the most beautiful.


Indeed. If Beethoven had written 4'33" it might be quite a popular piece.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Comparing the textures of a Bach mass, Ravel ballet with a Beethoven symphony seems pretty pointless to me. If Ravel had re-orchestrated anything by Beethoven it would sound terrible. Of course one can spin all these comparisons and even the strengths of Beethoven's music and make them look like weaknesses instead of acknowledging that one doesn't find appealing the things that Beethoven was interested in doing.

As for me, Beethoven is one of my favorites, but I consider several other composers (from both before his time and after) to be on his level,


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

For classical music in general you only have to marvel at its longevity. And not just for the big names like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart. There is still a market out there for lesser known composers like Clementi, Hummel, and say Ries. I managed to get all Ries' symphonies off Amazon for about £20. They aren't bad pieces either. I have most of Hummel's work and my favourite is his Fantasy in E flat Op. 18. So powerful. Pity he never wrote some symphonies. If these composers can still be played and appreciated after 200 years then I think classical music will still be going strong for another 200 years. Dipping off the topic but I wonder what pop music will still be around in 2200, say? The Beatles? The Rolling Stones will still be alive and performing to sold out venues! 

Needless to say I hope Naxos have blasted a copy of their library into space and buried another copy in that seed depository in Svalbarg! I jest.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

tdc said:


> I think of Beethoven and Schoenberg in similar terms. Innovative composers that do have some real depth and genius, but composed for the most part ugly music.


Beethoven & Schoenberg in the same sentence. Hmm. But Beethoven and 'ugly music' in (almost) the same sentence: I think the earth just temporarily spun off its axis.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

tdc said:


> To me Beethoven sounds clearly the lesser composer compared with Bach and Mozart and I don't feel his music reached greater heights than composers like Brahms, Debussy or Wagner.
> 
> When I listen to Bach and Mozart there is a certain 'shimmer' of perfection there, a crispness. Beethoven sounds lumbering and boorish in comparison. He sounds like a composer who couldn't compete with his predecessors so decided to make things longer and louder to compensate. Listening to the textures in something like Bach's Mass or Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe, they make the textures in Beethoven's 9th sound very amateurish and ugly.
> 
> I think of Beethoven and Schoenberg in similar terms. Innovative composers that do have some real depth and genius, but composed for the most part ugly music.


I don't buy any of the above. I do prefer Bach and Mozart to Beethoven, but that's just based on my personal preference as to what I want from music.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> But you were very dismissive in response to _"Beethoven was just, no is, amazing. How did he write music so special with his profound deafness"_, as if it was no big deal. I would not be so amazed at the feat if Beethoven was simply recycling chord structures and thematic elements from past compositions, but, on the contrary, his final compositions when he was profoundly deaf were often extremely original: case in point, the way in which the double & triple trills are used at the conclusion of Op. 111.


I didn't mean for it to come across as dismissive. Obviously I won't deny that his late works are great and highly original. What I said was a reaction to something I've seen before, a sort of fetishisation of his deafness.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

beetzart said:


> Dipping off the topic but I wonder what pop music will still be around in 2200, say? The Beatles? The Rolling Stones will still be alive and performing to sold out venues!


I noticed in the latest Star Trek movie, they play the Beastie Boys, and I think it's Spock who calls it classical music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> I don't buy any of the above. I do prefer Bach and Mozart to Beethoven, but that's just based on my personal preference as to what I want from music.


You don't buy my personal reactions to Beethoven's music?

That is all I'm saying here - _to me_ he sounds clearly the lesser (not saying he isn't still great). If I thought he was as great but simply didn't like his music as much that is what I would have stated.

When I first started listening to classical music I just accepted the idea that Beethoven was on the same tier as Bach and Mozart because that was the commonly held idea. I assumed that through repeated listening I would come to see this as clearly evident. The opposite happened, the more I listened to Beethoven the more it became obvious to me that (to my perceptions) he was the lesser composer of the three.

I'm not claiming this to be an objective fact, but an honest opinion held after many years of listening to all three composers. Sure a lot of music is subjective, but not everything.

My guess is in time Beethoven will be seen as lesser (but still great). His music is seen as so special in the western world because we are a self-centered society and we worship the individual, and that is what Beethoven gives us in spades. I think as society evolves Beethoven's music will be downgraded a little in ranking.

Do I think this is an objective fact? No. It is a guess. I certainly could be wrong but all I'm talking about here are my impressions.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

I'll add in my wishful thinking: Bach will not be seen as less great, but will stop being seen as _the_ Baroque master that no other composer from that era can touch, and the popularity of Rameau, Monteverdi and others grows and the overblown claims of Bach's influence on music history stop being fed into the public consciousness, as well as the end of that stereotype about Baroque music in which the most worthy way of composing seems to be Germanic counterpoint and everyone else at the time was just writing tea party music in comparison, including Handel and Vivaldi apparently.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

John Ruskin: "Beethoven always sounds to me like the upsetting of a bag of nails, with here and there an also dropped hammer."


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

tdc said:


> To me Beethoven sounds clearly the lesser composer compared with Bach and Mozart and I don't feel his music reached greater heights than composers like Brahms, Debussy or Wagner.
> 
> When I listen to Bach and Mozart there is a certain 'shimmer' of perfection there, a crispness. Beethoven sounds lumbering and boorish in comparison. He sounds like a composer who couldn't compete with his predecessors so decided to make things longer and louder to compensate. Listening to the textures in something like Bach's Mass or Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe, they make the textures in Beethoven's 9th sound very amateurish and ugly.
> 
> I think of Beethoven and Schoenberg in similar terms. Innovative composers that do have some real depth and genius, but composed for the most part ugly music.


"Lumbering and boorish." Putting aside the fact that I (and likely few others) agree with anything you've said here and that you likely said it to exaggerate your point, I would just like to isolate that description. If Beethoven is "lumbering and boorish" then why is it that his melodies are the ones that have entered the public consciousness? More than Mozart and _much_ more than Bach.

Whistle some of each for a layman and I'd bet you'd get a blank stare in response to anything by Bach, maybe Eine Kleine Nachtmusik or 40th symphony's first few bars or _maybe_ something from the overture of Figaro and that's about it for Mozart. But Beethoven? Almost any layperson over the age of 20 or 30 will recognize Moonlight, Fur Elise, 4th movement of the 9th and very possibly the scherzo too, the 5th, very likely the 3rd movement of the violin concerto, and probably at least two melodies from his violin sonatas (I would guess 7 and 9 but others contend as well). Expand this exercise to casual classical fans and I don't see how anyone could argue the results are different.

So if it's "lumbering and boorish" then why exactly has his music penetrated the public consciousness more deeply than perhaps any other composer? Please note I'm not saying this makes him better or that being memorable in the public consciousness is an indicator of greatness - merely pointing out that it's difficult to imagine a composer being "lumbering and boorish" while simultaneously being (likely) the most recognized in all western music.

And for the record, Bach is my favorite of the 3 but I'll be the first to admit his style does not lend itself to particularly memorable melodies. The "lumbering" moniker would much more adequately describe high baroque aesthetic than it would Beethoven's late classical leanness.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Of course lumbering and boorish are subjective adjectives and could very well reflect someone's view of Beethoven's music. And of course, the vast majority of people who know Beethoven's music would not use these adjectives to describe his music. I almost feel like saying "are you sure you've actually listened to Beethoven's music" but then I remember that people can have all sorts of opinions about music and that is alright.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

tdc said:


> My guess is in time Beethoven will be seen as lesser (but still great). His music is seen as so special in the western world because we are a self-centered society and we worship the individual, and that is what Beethoven gives us in spades. I think as society evolves Beethoven's music will be downgraded a little in ranking.


I worship the individual and feel that the "herd" mentality will eventually leave us all in the gutter. However, none of that has anything to do with my views on Beethoven's music.

How long will it take for Beethoven to slide down in reputation? Being 69 years old, my expiration date is a lot sooner than most other members here.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I remember when I was 8 or 9 maybe younger and I knew the opening 4 bars of the 5th symphony. I remember telling my mum about it and she said it gets more complicated then that. I was convinced that I was born with the 4 bars in my head. Obviously I know that to be false now but there is something quite special about Beethoven. 

'Lumbering and boorish' fair enough if that is your opinion. I like many other composers apart from Beethoven but I rank him the highest with Bach. He was probably composed the most original music. The Eroica seemingly came out of nowhere. The 2nd symphony is good but not memorable, it is a transition symphony, but gives no indication of what was to follow. Yet the main theme of the Eroica is stupidly simple. The BBC TV film about the Eroica tries to show the disbelief with which the performers and audience display when the piece is played. At one point the Dame whom Beethoven wants to marry says his music scares her. He says to the orchestra that he doesn't want a beautiful sound like they are trained to give. At the end Haydn says everything is different from today. Whether those comments were actually made I can't know for sure. 

The Andante from the Archduke Trio is a good example to counter the 'lumbering and boorish' comment. Quite a sublime theme of which again Beethoven wrings out every last possible variation.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

beetzart said:


> I remember when I was 8 or 9 maybe younger and I knew the opening 4 bars of the 5th symphony. I remember telling my mum about it and she said it gets more complicated then that. I was convinced that I was born with the 4 bars in my head. Obviously I know that to be false now but there is something quite special about Beethoven.
> 
> 'Lumbering and boorish' fair enough if that is your opinion. I like many other composers apart from Beethoven but I rank him the highest with Bach. He was probably composed the most original music. The Eroica seemingly came out of nowhere. The 2nd symphony is good but not memorable, it is a transition symphony, but gives no indication of what was to follow. *Yet the main theme of the Eroica is stupidly simple. * The BBC TV film about the Eroica tries to show the disbelief with which the performers and audience display when the piece is played. At one point the Dame whom Beethoven wants to marry says his music scares her. He says to the orchestra that he doesn't want a beautiful sound like they are trained to give. At the end Haydn says everything is different from today. Whether those comments were actually made I can't know for sure.
> 
> The Andante from the Archduke Trio is a good example to counter the 'lumbering and boorish' comment. Quite a sublime theme of which again Beethoven wrings out every last possible variation.


People keep repeating this but it is quite wrong. The opening theme is some 40 measures long, it is quite complex, and it contains in microcosm the conflict that drives the whole movement. That is part of the essence of Beethoven, writing complex multidimensional themes. What you are describing is the opening _motive_ or phrase, not the main theme.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> People keep repeating this but it is quite wrong. The opening theme is some 40 measures long, it is quite complex, and it contains in microcosm the conflict that drives the whole movement. That is part of the essence of Beethoven, writing complex multidimensional themes. What you are describing is the opening _motive_ or phrase, not the main theme.


Some people have a very narrow definition o what a theme is and Beethoven wrote many, many themes that don't fit that narrow definition, which I think is also the origin of the myth that Beethoven was not a good melodist.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Some people have a very narrow definition o what a theme is and Beethoven wrote many, many themes that don't fit that narrow definition, which I think is also the origin of the myth that Beethoven was not a good melodist.


Actually, calling the opening phrase the main theme doesn't conform to any recognized definition. It is just a terminological error.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

beetzart said:


> The Andante from the Archduke Trio is a good example to counter the 'lumbering and boorish' comment. Quite a sublime theme of which again Beethoven wrings out every last possible variation.


In my opinion the Archduke Trio is an excellent work.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bulldog said:


> I worship the individual and feel that the "herd" mentality will eventually leave us all in the gutter.


This sounds political, my statement was spiritual.

I don't worship the individual or the herd.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> Actually, calling the opening phrase the main theme doesn't conform to any recognized definition. It is just a terminological error.


If I may I will claim the technical error here and should have stated motive instead. I meant the opening five bars of the theme that rests uneasily on C sharp. Then he develops the hell out of it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

beetzart said:


> If I may I will claim the technical error here and should have stated motive instead. I meant the opening five bars of the theme that rests uneasily on C sharp. Then he develops the hell out of it.


I knew what you meant because there are many commentators, critics and experts who say this. And there is a kernel of truth in it. As you point out, the basic motives in those measures are exhaustively developed. The problem with this perspective (beyond the basic analytic mistake) is that it obscures two important aspects of Beethoven's music. First, he is sometimes portrayed as an inferior melodist, in part because of his "incredibly simple main themes." What this description actually demonstrates, however, is that people are just failing to understand his thematic structures, which are often quite long and contain opposing elements and internal conflicts. The other problem is that the main subject of development in the first movement of the Eroica isn't the opening motive, it is the developing dramatic relationship between that motive and the opposing arm of the theme, the one with the rhythmic displacements. As one grows stronger, the other is diminished in a systematic, zero-sum way. That evolving relationship is what holds the movement together, and in Beethoven's day, this kind of development was an entirely unprecedented way of working.


----------



## Schumanniac (Dec 11, 2016)

Great post EdwardBeast, its something i really appreciate with my amateur knowlegde, very insightful and clearly understandable even if one is vague on the terminology. Will look at the Eroica with attentive, fresh eyes when i get home, as i had begun to subconsciously realize this when i lately been loosing interest in him, just couldnt pinpoint what it was, seems i'll need to stop looking for immediate gratification after all my recent sessions of small, melodically focused works. Keep it up, maybe i'll really start noticing his longterm reward and fall in love once more


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

tdc said:


> This sounds political, my statement was spiritual.


I think your statement was neither political nor spiritual; it was a prediction.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> People keep repeating this but it is quite wrong. The opening theme is some 40 measures long, it is quite complex, and it contains in microcosm the conflict that drives the whole movement. That is part of the essence of Beethoven, writing complex multidimensional themes. What you are describing is the opening _motive_ or phrase, not the main theme.


I can follow you totally and don't get me wrong, Beethoven is my favorite composer but can't we at least state that Beethoven wasn't particularly good at coming up with striking melodies that last for about 8 measures. Something that in my opinion Schubert, Mozart, Händel... are far better at?

And again, to me a melody of 8 measures isn't the essence of good music but at least we should call a cat a cat.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Razumovskymas said:


> I can follow you totally and don't get me wrong, Beethoven is my favorite composer but can't we at least state that Beethoven wasn't particularly good at coming up with striking melodies that last for about 8 measures. Something that in my opinion Schubert, Mozart, Händel... are far better at?
> 
> And again, to me a melody of 8 measures isn't the essence of good music but at least we should call a cat a cat.


I don't know. To me Beethoven's melodies are as beautiful as any other composer's.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> I can follow you totally and don't get me wrong, Beethoven is my favorite composer but can't we at least state that Beethoven wasn't particularly good at coming up with striking melodies that last for about 8 measures. Something that in my opinion Schubert, Mozart, Händel... are far better at?
> 
> And again, to me a melody of 8 measures isn't the essence of good music but at least we should call a cat a cat.


What would be the point of agreeing to that? If one tends to write longer, more involved themes, one is going to have fewer great melodies of 8 measures. That is a truly arbitrary and silly standard for judging a composer's melodic gift. While there might be arguments for subdividing it, the melody with which this movement begins, I would claim, is a continuous, rounded melodic structure that takes 3:10 to unfold - or, if one hears the next passage as a codetta, 3:40:






People with short attention spans tend not to comprehend melodic structures like this - that is, tend not to grasp their unity and indecomposability. Beethoven wasn't writing for them.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> If one tends to write longer, more involved themes, one is going to have fewer great melodies of 8 measures.


Ok, so Beethoven has fewer great melodies of 8 measures, I'm glad you agree


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> What would be the point of agreeing to that? If one tends to write longer, more involved themes, one is going to have fewer great melodies of 8 measures. That is a truly arbitrary and silly standard for judging a composer's melodic gift.


So what you are saying that there is no point in describing Beethovens' music as containing less great 8-measure melodies then that of other composers? So in other words, pointing out differences between composers is pointless?


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Beethoven does write long complex melodies. Look at many of his adagios amongst his piano sonatas for starters. Take the 3rd PS and take a look at the adagio. The section with semidemi quavers thrusting the piece forward is overlapped by a sublime lengthy melody. Dare I say Moonlight sonata 1st mov is one long idea stretched out over the entire movement? Although I concede that it should be easier to compose lengthy melodies in a slow tempo. Although the last movement of the Tempest is also one continuous thought just like the 3rd mov of the Waldstein. There are many examples.

Edit: The main theme of the Cavatina is fairly lengthy and intricate.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> Ok, so Beethoven has fewer great melodies of 8 measures, I'm glad you agree


Yes, but this is meaningless. The eight measure melodies he wrote were great too. You simply aren't happy because he didn't write enough short little nuggets of the length you prefer. This isn't Beethoven's problem.



Razumovskymas said:


> So what you are saying that there is no point in describing Beethovens' music as containing less great 8-measure melodies then that of other composers?


Correct. That is a strange, pointless way of describing the differences. It is like saying William Gaddis wrote fewer great short novels than Cormac McCarthy (Gaddis only wrote one short one) or that Shakespeare wrote less great Persian poetry than Rumi.



Razumovskymas said:


> So in other words, pointing out differences between composers is pointless?


It is pointless if one states it with an obvious bias. The objective way to describe the difference would be to say that Beethoven tended to think in longer, more variegated paragraphs than the composers you listed.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

If I was willing to take the time, I'm sure I could point out many short vs longer complex exquisite Beethoven melodies. But, just for the moment, take the Violin Concerto: The long orchestral opening of the 1st movement is essentially two long statements each consisting of interrelated melodic elements. It's hard to hum a part of it as an individual melody without moving on to the rest of it until the entry of the violin.

On the other hand, the gloriously beautiful opening of the 2nd movement is a relatively short individual melody that is stated by the orchestra and then repeated with orchestra and violin. It is not particularly complex or extended.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, but this is meaningless. The eight measure melodies he wrote were great too. You simply aren't happy because he didn't write enough short little nuggets of the length you prefer. This isn't Beethoven's problem.


I'm very happy he didn't write great short little nuggets and I totally admire the way he wrote his music (the way you can describe it better then me) but why should that stop me from saying that Beethoven had less great melodies of 8 measures?

To me the absence of striking 8 measure-melodies in Beethovens' music is a strong point and maybe the essence of Beethoven's music.



EdwardBast said:


> It is pointless if one states it with an obvious bias. The objective way to describe the difference would be to say that Beethoven tended to think in longer, more variegated paragraphs than the composers you listed.


I will bare that in mind! 

I would ad to that that an objective and unbiased way to describe the music we both love so much is not to compare it with literature :tiphat:


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

A sincere question to you EdwardBast:

Is it meaningful to point out any negative side (or weak point) of Beethovens' work? And if you agree that it could be meaningful, what would you point out as a negative side of Beethoven's work?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

beetzart said:


> Yes, apologies if this has been done before. I have been listening to Beethoven's late string quartets and those along with the late piano sonatas and the Diabelli Variations. Surely these works are insurmountable and music could never be improved on after these were written? The pinnacle of all music.


Maybe. Or maybe that's Wagner and Beethoven's greatness is less controversial exactly because, after Wagner, it's comparatively less threatening.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> A sincere question to you EdwardBast:
> 
> Is it meaningful to point out any negative side (or weak point) of Beethovens' work? And if you agree that it could be meaningful, what would you point out as a negative side of Beethoven's work?


I don't think the concept of a "weak side" is apt. His masterpieces, and he composed a lot of them, don't have weaknesses - that's sort of the definition of a masterpiece. I believe he wrote less interesting works, unexceptional works, and some for fast cash that he didn't care a whole lot about. I imagine many listeners agree with this assessment. Of course, whether they agree about which works belong in which category is another matter altogether.



Razumovskymas said:


> I'm very happy he didn't write great short little nuggets and I totally admire the way he wrote his music (the way you can describe it better then me) but why should that stop me from saying that Beethoven had less great melodies of 8 measures?


If you are talking about the proportion of his short tunes that are good, I disagree. If you are talking about the absolute number, I would say: Why on earth is that of interest? In either case, you can say it to your heart's content.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

To be firmly reminded of Beethoven's greatness and immortality one only needs to listen to the 3rd movement of his 15th String Quartet in A minor.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

beetzart said:


> To be firmly reminded of Beethoven's greatness and immortality one only needs to listen to the 3rd movement of his 15th String Quartet in A minor.


One of my favorite quartets too

I read he was severely ill when writing that quartet. I think the moment somewhere in the middle of that movement (and actually more or less in the middle of the whole quartet) where it gets that uplifting feel somehow symbolizes him getting better.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Absolutely right there. Like Haydn supposedly said after hearing the Eroica 'He has put the artist at the centre of his music, everything is different from today.' Brings a lump to my throat. The 15th and 16th were completed in mid to late 1826 weren't they? How on earth did he do it? Maybe a poor analogy but that is like doing a 5000 piece jigsaw with a blindfold on.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

One person's amazement is another person's boredom. I prefer Mozart to Beethoven.

Don't assume that because you find Beethoven amazing that the rest of TC is dancing in lockstep to the same tune.

Strictly personal preference.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I think Beethoven's late quartets are among the best music ever written (certainly among my very favorite). The problem you're faced with, if wanting to make objective statements, is that most (all) of the words used to describe music are very subjective by nature. I am content simply enjoying them and not worrying too much about their relative rank.


They are among the best music written by Beethoven. For me, dullsville. Personal preference at work.

Am I wrong because I have personal preferences that are not in lockstep with yours?

Funny how when we love a musical piece, it simply must be "among the best music ever written."

Finding 10,000 listeners who agree with you doesn't make it so, either, so stop speed dialing 10,000 of your friends. I ain't buyin' it.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

beetzart said:


> Yes, apologies if this has been done before. I have been listening to Beethoven's late string quartets and those along with the late piano sonatas and the Diabelli Variations. Surely these works are insurmountable and music could never be improved on after these were written? The pinnacle of all music.
> 
> Although, I regard JS Bach as equally important as Beethoven with his Mass in B minor, WTC, and the chaconne in D minor.
> 
> ...


Beethoven is my favorite composer. Mozart is my second favorite composer. I'm not a big fan of Bach, but his genius cannot be denied. Mozart has, IMO, achieved what no other composer has, not even Bach or Beethoven. He excelled in every single sub-genre of classical music. I could argue every single work (starting with _Idomeneo_ at age 25) is a masterpiece. Mozart was pure genius. The greatest musical genius this world has ever seen or will ever seen. I think it's sort of passé to look down on Mozart. Like some people believe you don't appear to be as intelligent or as informed about classical music if you like Mozart. There's a reason he is considered by most to be the greatest composer whomever lived. Because he was.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> I never got what people found so amazing about it. He wasn't born deaf.


Maybe because it would be like Picasso painting masterpieces while blind, or because a composer must hear the music, which he couldn't do. It's unbelievable to me that he wrote the 9th Symphony while totally deaf. It saddens me that he has never heard this piece as I have.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> The thing with Beethoven admirers is that they not only find his music "better" then that of a bunch of other composers but often expressions are used like "best music ever written", "beyond words", "no one ever comes close", "hors-catégorie" "no par", "totally beyond any other music" etc etc....
> 
> I think it would be possible to do a survey determining for which composers these kind of expressions are used most and I think Beethoven would possibly be no1. And that's not because I'm a fanboy but because that's simply the impression I get when I read the views of other composers/musicians/musicologists/t.c. members....about Beethoven.
> 
> BUT I do think there are post-Beethoven works that challenge him.


I think that's a bit of a generalization. Beethoven is my favorite composer. His works reach me on an emotional level that no other composer has succeeded in reaching. Mozart is my second favorite composer. I am just in awe every time I listen to his works. I also love Verdi, the Russians, and Wagner. I think fans of every composer say the things you quoted above.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

tdc said:


> My guess is in time Beethoven will be seen as lesser (but still great). His music is seen as so special in the western world because we are a self-centered society and we worship the individual, and that is what Beethoven gives us in spades. I think as society evolves Beethoven's music will be downgraded a little in ranking.
> 
> Do I think this is an objective fact? No. It is a guess. I certainly could be wrong but all I'm talking about here are my impressions.


What complete bollucks! His music is seen as so special in the western world because it IS. Of course we all have our opinions. I just know the first time I heard the Moonlight Sonata I couldn't fight back the tears. That still happens whenever I listen to it. The same can be said for the 2nd Movement of the 5th Piano Concerto, which is probably my single favorite work. I find it insulting that you insulate those of us who love Beethoven are self-centered. Maybe we love it because it brings up emotions within us. When I listen to the 1st Movement of the 5th Symphony, I just want to dance with joy. When I listen to the 4th Movement of the 9th Symphony, I fall apart once again. He will always be regarded as one of the greatest composers to ever live. There is no doubt about that.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> Maybe because it would be like Picasso painting masterpieces while blind.


I don't think it's quite like that...


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Chronochromie said:


> I don't think it's quite like that...


Well good for you.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

hpowders said:


> They are among the best music written by Beethoven. For me, dullsville. Personal preference at work.
> 
> Am I wrong because I have personal preferences that are not in lockstep with yours?
> 
> ...


Ah, you're making a whole bunch of conclusions here out of thin air. I never said that Beethoven's late string quartets are among the best music ever written because I love them. They are the greatest because of their intrinsic value. There is music I love that I don't consider among the greatest. Your conclusions are not mine.

Also, simply because *you *don't like something, it doesn't mean that thing is not great.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Also, simply because *you *don't like something, it doesn't mean that thing is not great.


And, conversely, just because YOU love something does not mean that thing is great!


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

........................


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

gellio said:


> What complete bollucks! His music is seen as so special in the western world because it IS. Of course we all have our opinions. I just know the first time I heard the Moonlight Sonata I couldn't fight back the tears. That still happens whenever I listen to it. The same can be said for the 2nd Movement of the 5th Piano Concerto, which is probably my single favorite work. I find it insulting that you insulate those of us who love Beethoven are self-centered. Maybe we love it because it brings up emotions within us. When I listen to the 1st Movement of the 5th Symphony, I just want to dance with joy. When I listen to the 4th Movement of the 9th Symphony, I fall apart once again. He will always be regarded as one of the greatest composers to ever live. There is no doubt about that.


Yes frankly, maybe I went a little far with that statement. I definitely don't think everyone who loves Beethoven's music is self-centered. But to me his approach is sometimes a little untasteful because he seems to show off. I don't think that is what music should be fundamentally about. But whatever, I've heard people claim Bach was a show off too, but I don't hear it. The fact Bach dedicated all of his compositions to God shows he was more humble. Beethoven seemed to try so hard to be great and to me that is not what music should be about. His approach seems a little off. I also think that when it comes to actually analyzing some of the facets of music that are more objective Beethoven did not excel enough to be objectively the greatest.

At least Bernstein could admit that Beethoven was not the greatest in harmony, melody, counterpoint or orchestration. How after admitting that he could still see Beethoven as the greatest composer beyond subjective preference is a little puzzling to me but I think everyone is guilty of being blinded to a certain degree by their own subjective preferences including myself.

All this said I don't deny Beethoven wrote some mind bogglingly impressive music with more than a little genius in it. If it impacts so many people in a positive way I think that is awesome. I only feel like expressing my opinions on this topic when I hear all this 'greatest' and 'summit of western music' talk.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

poconoron said:


> And, conversely, just because YOU love something does not mean that thing is great!


When did I argue otherwise?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> Yes frankly, maybe I went a little far with that statement. I definitely don't think everyone who loves Beethoven's music is self-centered. But to me his approach is sometimes a little untasteful because he seems to show off. I don't think that is what music should be fundamentally about.


Very odd. You're the first person I see saying that about Beethoven, I don't get that impression at all. The one piece where maybe "Beethoven showing off" is true is the Diabelli Variations, I mean, come on! But that doesn't take away from how good it is.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

How I love these Beethoven discussions!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> Very odd. You're the first person I see saying that about Beethoven, I don't get that impression at all. The one piece where maybe "Beethoven showing off" is true is the Diabelli Variations, I mean, come on! But that doesn't take away from how good it is.


Actually, a similar topic came up a couple weeks ago in reference to all the variations in the Kreutzer Sonata started by member Kieran - he essentially seemed to be getting at the same point and member Bettina openly admitted in that thread she thinks Beethoven liked to show off in his music. I hardly think I am the only person who has gotten this impression before.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> ...member Bettina openly admitted in that thread she thinks Beethoven liked to show off in his music. I hardly think I am the only person who has gotten this impression before.


Well, old Ludwig had a lot to show off!


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> Actually, a similar topic came up a couple weeks ago in reference to all the variations in the Kreutzer Sonata started by member Kieran - he essentially seemed to be getting at the same point and member Bettina openly admitted in that thread she thinks Beethoven liked to show off in his music. I hardly think I am the only person who has gotten this impression before.


Oh yes I do remember that thread existing, but I'll have to look it up. For some reason I thought it was you who had started that it, but thinking about it now it can't be, as I can remember the OP saying they love most of Beethoven's music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tdc said:


> At least Bernstein could admit that Beethoven was not the greatest in harmony, melody, counterpoint or orchestration. How after admitting that he could still see Beethoven as the greatest composer beyond subjective preference is a little puzzling to me …


It's simple: Because "greatest in harmony, melody, counterpoint or orchestration" are empty, abstract, largely meaningless criteria. What does it even mean to be the greatest in harmony or melody? Whatever it means, it is insignificant compared with choosing the right harmonies for a particular movement, the perfect notes for a unifying theme, and weaving them together exactly right. Having the best ingredients does not assure an interesting meal or even an edible one. And although you keep misconstruing it, _this was precisely the (largely rhetorical) point Bernstein was making_ - that being the best at harmony, melody, etc. doesn't mean $hi†!!! Like all good rhetoricians, he exaggerated his case because downplaying the quality of the components increases ones wonder at the finished product. Just like saying someone made a great meal out of the best ingredients available is faint praise, whereas saying they made a feast out of refrigerator scraps is the highest evaluation of their skill. Get it? It's rhetoric, not to be taken literally.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> Oh yes I do remember that thread existing, but I'll have to look it up. For some reason I thought it was you who had started that it, but thinking about it now it can't be, as I can remember the OP saying they love most of Beethoven's music.


Nope wasn't me. I did not even comment in that thread.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> It's simple: Because "greatest in harmony, melody, counterpoint or orchestration" are empty, abstract, largely meaningless criteria. What does it even mean to be the greatest in harmony or melody? Whatever it means, it is insignificant compared with choosing the right harmonies for a particular movement, the perfect notes for a unifying theme, and weaving them all together exactly right. Having the best ingredients does not assure an interesting meal or even an edible one. And although you keep misconstruing it, _this was precisely the (largely rhetorical) point Bernstein was making_ - that being the best at harmony, melody, etc. doesn't mean $hi†!!! Like all good rhetoricians, he exaggerated his case because downplaying the quality of the ingredients increases ones wonder at the finished product - saying someone made a great meal out of the best ingredients available is faint praise, whereas saying they made a feast out of refrigerator scraps is the highest evaluation of their skill. Get it?


What you are saying makes some sense, but I think it also conveniently gives you the ability to disregard any general criticisms of Beethoven's music and then on a case by case basis you can argue that anything Beethoven did was the perfect thing to do in that instance, or that it was never the result of any flaw or technical short coming.

I think one can gain some insight from generalized comments, though I also agree with you that Bernstein's comments were exaggerated for effect.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Recordings of Bach's Cantatas and Beethoven's String Quartets... 

Should be blasted into space for another civilisation to enjoy, if I'm allowed to suggest that. Must be careful sometimes on here. Mustn't like music too much. Get it!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

poconoron said:


> And, conversely, just because YOU love something does not mean that thing is great!


Thanks for the unbiased wisdom.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

beetzart said:


> Must be careful sometimes on here. Mustn't like music too much. Get it!


Feel free to LOVE (not just like) whatever music you want, I'm all for it!

But if you write statements like this as you did in the OP:

"_I have been listening to Beethoven's late string quartets and those along with the late piano sonatas and the Diabelli Variations. Surely these works are insurmountable and music could never be improved on after these were written? The pinnacle of all music_."

You can expect some discussion and debate.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Yeah, of course. But they are pretty special pieces of music you have to admit. Everest is objectively the highest mountain pity we can't say Beethoven is objectively the greatest composer.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

beetzart said:


> Yeah, of course. But they are pretty special pieces of music you have to admit. Everest is objectively the highest mountain pity we can't say Beethoven is objectively the greatest composer.


Beethoven is by far my favorite composer...he certainly occupies my personal Mt. Everest. But I'm hesitant to make any statements about who is the "greatest." In order to defend such claims logically, we would first need to come up with a definition of greatness. And that seems like quite a daunting task! If someone else wants to take a stab at it, go ahead. But I think I'll pass! :lol:


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Along with this discussion, isn't "greatness" subjective as are all works of art? If there is an absolute "greatness", who or what decides? Society, music critics, sales of CDs/concert tickets, university music departments, etc.? Maybe all of these together. It's a tough definition to come up with, I think.

Maybe a bad example, but until Bernstein promoted him wasn't Mahler considered mediocre and infrequently performed? He wasn't considered great in those days I don't think. Same with Bach to a certain extent.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

This objectivity vs subjectivity debate keeps cropping up every now and again. I don't think we can all agree on the same objective measures to judge music, the way you can rank runners by clocking their run. 

If you stretch this logic to its limit then I could argue that my banging on the piano randomly is as great music as a Bach fugue, no? I mean if everything is subjective then who's to say my claim to a greater piece of music than Bach's WTC is wrong? It is rather silly, of course, but it follows logically. There is some objectivity to how music (and art in general) can be judged. How then are we all in agreement that the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than my doodling? (trust me, it is!).


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Yes, the are extremes to both sides of the subectivity/objectivity debate which are obvious. Randomly banging on the keys of a piano is not art but noise. No one will debate the artistic merits of that. But there's a fairly large middle ground which leads to the question what are the absolute measures of greatness for that if you believe in absolutes.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

^ OK, so let's say I'm no longer banging randomly on the piano but have composed a nice minuet. I have organized sound in some meaningful (according to some agreed upon rules) way. We can still pretty much agree that the WTC is better than it. Doesn't it all boil down to the quality of sound organization when judging greatness in music? That in itself opens up a huge debate about what qualities of sound organization are more important than others. 

But it isn't a simple "I don't like this music so it cannot be great music". Pure personal taste without resorting to the analysis of the music is too whimsical to use to judge greatness in music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tdc said:


> What you are saying makes some sense, but I think it also conveniently gives you the ability to disregard any general criticisms of Beethoven's music and then on a case by case basis you can argue that anything Beethoven did was the perfect thing to do in that instance, or that it was never the result of any flaw or technical short coming.
> 
> I think one can gain some insight from generalized comments, though I also agree with you that Bernstein's comments were exaggerated for effect.


You're getting things backwards. One must always begin by working on a case by case basis to arrive at general criticisms! Otherwise one ends up making judgements based on what seems immediately apparent - on the superficial and habitual elements of style one has learned by familiarity with other composers. This is exactly what Bernstein was warning us against! The opening theme of the Appassionata, from the year it was composed until the end of history, is always going to sound unhinged and on the edge of madness. Likewise the opening themes of the "Tempest" Sonata, the Eroica, the Fifth Symphony and the Quartet Op. 95, among numerous others, will always sound riven with contradictions and oppositions. They are all deeply problematic. One must figure out on a case by case basis how (or if!) the problems they set are worked out over an entire work before one can arrive at any meaningful general criticism of Beethoven's style.

Does this mean that Beethoven's works are flawless and that all of his flights of fancy prove coherent in the end? No. But, alas, those favoring graceful poise, simple beauties and immediately obvious symmetries, and who are put off by less tractable material, are unlikely to ever distinguish the great from the flawed in Beethoven.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

^You make a good point re: sound organization. It's a fine line in coming up with a definition. Maybe Bettina can give additional thoughts from a music education perspective.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I have analysed Beethoven's music but I don't have a degree in music only an A level. But I study music as a hobby and I think I am fairly well clued up on the subject, especially Beethoven. From a very young age I realised Beethoven was particularly special. I wasn't forced to listen to it, no one pushed it on me; I was drawn towards it. I used to look at his piano sonatas and realise there was a paradox going on. He takes something so simple, like the 1st piano sonata, a Mannheim Rocket, then manipulates it in every possible way. The development section is quite complicated which is the paradox in a way. It is perhaps contradicting itself by being simple and difficult at the same time. To me that is incredible. The times I've marvelled at his work. The times I am always drawn to him. The Eroica was a point in time that music was changed forever. That is objective. The symphony was longer then ever before. It was meant to be listened to and not just background music at a party say. In fact it demands to be listened to. 

Also, we know from biographies and testimonies that Beethoven wasn't always the nicest of persons. So how did something so disgusting and vile, which he probably was in 1825/26, produce music that was so beautiful? It renders me speechless at times. While I love other composers I always come back to Beethoven.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Richard8655 said:


> ^You make a good point re: sound organization. It's a fine line in coming up with a definition. Maybe Bettina can give additional thoughts from a music education perspective.


Yes, all of this is incredibly difficult to define! This thread raises many challenging questions, such as: How do we define musical organization? Is it the same as unity? Does a piece have to be unified to be great?

Unity is a slippery concept, especially when it comes to Beethoven's music, which somehow seems to be both unified and fragmented at the same time. Many of Beethoven's pieces make use of digressions and sudden interruptions and violent contrasts. In that sense, his music could be thought of as lacking unity. However, his use of motivic development often serves to hold a piece together, in spite of all the surface contrasts and oppositions. So, in that sense, from the standpoint of motivic unity, his music is tightly organized.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> You're getting things backwards. One must always begin by working on a case by case basis to arriving at general criticisms! Otherwise one ends up making judgements based on what seems immediately apparent - on the superficial and habitual elements of style one has learned by familiarity with other composers. This is exactly what Bernstein was warning us against! The opening theme of the Appassionata, from the year it was composed until the end of history, is always going to sound unhinged and on the edge of madness. Likewise the opening themes of the "Tempest" Sonata, the Eroica, the Fifth Symphony and the Quartet Op. 95, among numerous others, will always sound riven with contradictions and oppositions. They are all deeply problematic. One must figure out on a case by case basis how the problems they set are worked out over an entire work before one can arrive at any meaningful general criticism of Beethoven's style.
> 
> Does this mean that Beethoven's works are flawless and that all of his flights of fancy prove coherent in the end? Not necessarily. But, alas, those favoring graceful poise, simple beauties and immediately obvious symmetries, and who are put off by less tractable material, are unlikely to ever distinguish the great from the flawed in Beethoven.


Ok some good points, but is the music of Bach and Mozart really so simple and immediately obvious? I'm not sure about that. But it seems clear that you are suggesting that to really appreciate Beethoven's music people need a longer attention span and the ability to appreciate things not so obvious and simple, ok so why then is he the most popular composer on TC? Are all of the Beethoven fans here just geniuses, or what?

Or maybe the reason that Beethoven is so popular has more to do with the fact that he appeals to the more obvious attention grabbing elements of music like his use of aggression and his showy temperament? In some ways to me it seems more the case that because Beethoven shouted the loudest he gets more attention. This isn't to say his use of development and form aren't brilliant I've never argued that. But Brahms 4th Symphony to my ears surpasses Beethoven in terms of its use of harmony and counterpoint. But I'll bet you disagree. What Beethoven works do you think exemplify Beethoven's strengths in these two areas? Or is this another case where the works are from different eras so cannot be compared?


----------



## Crassus (Nov 4, 2013)

I find that a comparison between composers is only legitimate if they share certain attributes or focus on the same genres. Bach couldn't write like Beethoven nor could Beethoven write like Bach; thus, this discussion is pointless.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

tdc said:


> Yes frankly, maybe I went a little far with that statement. I definitely don't think everyone who loves Beethoven's music is self-centered. But to me his approach is sometimes a little untasteful because he seems to show off. I don't think that is what music should be fundamentally about. But whatever, I've heard people claim Bach was a show off too, but I don't hear it. The fact Bach dedicated all of his compositions to God shows he was more humble. Beethoven seemed to try so hard to be great and to me that is not what music should be about. His approach seems a little off. I also think that when it comes to actually analyzing some of the facets of music that are more objective Beethoven did not excel enough to be objectively the greatest.
> 
> At least Bernstein could admit that Beethoven was not the greatest in harmony, melody, counterpoint or orchestration. How after admitting that he could still see Beethoven as the greatest composer beyond subjective preference is a little puzzling to me but I think everyone is guilty of being blinded to a certain degree by their own subjective preferences including myself.
> 
> All this said I don't deny Beethoven wrote some mind bogglingly impressive music with more than a little genius in it. If it impacts so many people in a positive way I think that is awesome. I only feel like expressing my opinions on this topic when I hear all this 'greatest' and 'summit of western music' talk.


No harm, no foul. But, I wouldn't think Bach was more humble because his compositions were written for God. They were written for God because he was paid to write them for God. It doesn't matter why he wrote his works, they are miraculous. I do adore the Mass in B Minor. It's heavenly.

I don't think Beethoven was trying to show off. We can say that about every composer if we wish. I think he was trying new things. You can hear the first step of that in his 2nd Symphony, which is so underrated IMO, as is his 4th. I view Beethoven's works as autobiographical. To me, he poured his heart and soul in his compositions. It shows. The most passionate composer in my opinion. Beethoven loved and lost and you can feel that in his works. I recently saw a video of a 2 year old boy at his sisters piano recital. She played the Moonlight Sonata. He had never heard Beethoven before. He started weeping. You can easily find the video on YouTube. That's the reaction I had to hearing some of his pieces for the first time, and I still have that reaction. The 2nd Movement of the 5th Piano Concerto is tough for me to listen to in public, because I literally just sob. It's crazy - I feel crazy - but I can't explain it. It's like every heartbreak or loss I've ever had is in that piece, or something. I'm tearing up just thinking about it.That's what Beethoven's about (for me). I really wish you could feel what I feel when I listen to Beethoven. When I want to listen to music, I listen to any number of composers works. When I want to feel music, I listen to Beethoven. While I get emotional listening to some pieces, others (the 5th Symphony) make me feel like I'm at a rock concert or something. Beethoven was the original rock star. The love of Beethoven's music is the greatest gift I have been given in this life. Seriously.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bach was "humble"? I doubt that. After all Beethoven studied Bach's works intensively, played the WTC from youth, and was inspired by the Goldbergs to write his own Diabellis. But did Bach ever study Beethoven, or even mention him? Hardly! Is that humility? I ask you!


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Bach was "humble"? I doubt that. After all Beethoven studied Bach's works intensively, played the WTC from youth, and was inspired by the Goldbergs to write his own Diabellis. But did Bach ever study Beethoven, or even mention him? Hardly! Is that humility? I ask you!


Thanks for injecting some humor into this thread! I hope you'll forgive me for replying with a serious statement: Bach was humble with regard to the composers whose music he knew and admired. In fact, he walked 250 miles in the snow to hear Buxtehude play, which shows his eagerness to learn from his older contemporaries. Also, he arranged many of Vivaldi's concertos, presumably in part because he respected these works and wanted to study them closely.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This objectivity vs subjectivity debate keeps cropping up every now and again. I don't think we can all agree on the same objective measures to judge music, the way you can rank runners by clocking their run.
> 
> If you stretch this logic to its limit then I could argue that my banging on the piano randomly is as great music as a Bach fugue, no? I mean if everything is subjective then who's to say my claim to a greater piece of music than Bach's WTC is wrong? It is rather silly, of course, but it follows logically. There is some objectivity to how music (and art in general) can be judged. How then are we all in agreement that the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than my doodling? (trust me, it is!).


If anyone thinks that your works are greater than Bach or da Vinci, then _for that person_ they are. Why is that so difficult to accept? Finding such a person would probably be very difficult though.

IMO, the only approximation of objectivity in arts is the average of many subjective opinions with a lot of constraints on whose opinions to take on board. Otherwise, this leads to the "objective" conclusion that Queen's Bohemian rhapsody is a greater piece of music than Beethoven's late quartets, that Kincaid is a better painter than Kandinsky, and so on.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

tdc said:


> At least Bernstein could admit that Beethoven was not the greatest in harmony, melody, counterpoint or orchestration. How after admitting that he could still see Beethoven as the greatest composer beyond subjective preference is a little puzzling to me but I think everyone is guilty of being blinded to a certain degree by their own subjective preferences including myself.


I couldn't agree more with what Bernstein said about Beethoven. If you analyse his music there's nothing really very special there (certain TC members will totally not agree here) but when put together it's genius and that indeed is very puzzling and that is the reason why music is a mystery. I'm saying this as someone who has had no musical education at all and by consequence have no authority at all to be talking about "analyzing" his music but at least Bernsteins words "feel" so right to me.

IF one could analyse the genius out of Beethovens' music (or any great music for that matter) it would be possible for the analysts to come up with a masterpiece themselves that matches Beethoven so in my opinion although I find it very interesting to read about music analysis, I don't think it will ever explain the genius.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Likewise the opening themes of the "Tempest" Sonata, the Eroica, the Fifth Symphony and the Quartet Op. 95, among numerous others, will always sound riven with contradictions and oppositions. *They are all deeply problematic*. One must figure out on a case by case basis how (or if!) the problems they set are worked out over an entire work before one can arrive at any meaningful general criticism of Beethoven's style.


I keep bumping up this expression when reading about music analysis, especially regarding Beethoven. What does it actually mean? From what I understand it means that for the analyst there rises a problem, meaning that the set of conventions the analyst uses to analyse bump against something that doesn't fit his framework right?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> If anyone thinks that your works are greater than Bach or da Vinci, then _for that person_ they are. Why is that so difficult to accept? Finding such a person would probably be very difficult though.
> 
> IMO, the only approximation of objectivity in arts is the average of many subjective opinions with a lot of constraints on whose opinions to take on board. Otherwise, this leads to the "objective" conclusion that Queen's Bohemian rhapsody is a greater piece of music than Beethoven's late quartets, that Kincaid is a better painter than Kandinsky, and so on.


It isn't difficult to accept someone's preference for random sounds over the WTC but it is difficult to take such preference seriously. Such a person is literally saying "I reject all techniques and standards mankind has created about music and to me they mean nothing".

How does it "objectively" follow that Bohemian Rhapsody is greater than Beethoven's late string quartets? I'm afraid I didn't follow the argument.

And I do see sense in your statement "*IMO, the only approximation of objectivity in arts is the average of many subjective opinions with a lot of constraints on whose opinions to take on board.*"


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

If you would just poll music lovers to see what is the greatest piece of music of all time, the winner would be something like Queen's Bohemian rhapsody, rather than Beethoven's late string quartets (which will not even be known to more than 99% of music lovers). That's why I said that in this approach, you need to take into account whose opinions to include. So, "pseudo-objectively greatest piece of music" will go to a non-classical piece. Now, let's limit it to classical music listeners, then it will be something like Rachmaninoff's second concerto. Did you see the top100 lists compiled by the reactions of classical music radio station listeners? Full of war horses, no Beethoven quartet in sight.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> If you would just poll music lovers to see what is the greatest piece of music of all time, the winner would be something like Queen's Bohemian rhapsody, rather than Beethoven's late string quartets (which will not even be known to more than 99% of music lovers). That's why I said that in this approach, you need to take into account whose opinions to include. So, "pseudo-objectively greatest piece of music" will go to a non-classical piece. Now, let's limit it to classical music listeners, then it will be something like Rachmaninoff's second concerto. Did you see the top100 lists compiled by the reactions of classical music radio station listeners? Full of war horses, no Beethoven quartet in sight.


Well, that would be a popularity ranking, not necessarily "objective" rankings. So yeah, I do agree with your statement that you need to take into account whose opinions to include.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

There's a reason why I did not use the term objective.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

That's it Art Rock. I'd love to know Spotify's listening figures comparing Beethoven' late quartets to Queen say. You would assume the latter would have more listens but is a meaningless stat really. Queen wrote a lot of music but BR was their magnus opus, Beethoven wrote many masterpieces regardless of Spotify figures. So not many people listen to the last quartets but the tiny minority that do arrogantly class them as possibly the greatest pieces ever written. Yeah, I'd go with that. I'm not religious but it felt like having an Epiphany when I started listening to them. Although the late quartets are not played to the general populace much if at all how do we know they wouldn't like them? Not even the grosse fugue. That I think would rouse a few people.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

All things being relative and from my perspective I have to conclude that the Grosse Fugue is the greatest work of art ever produced. Thank you, Ludwig.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Razumovskymas said:


> I keep bumping up this expression when reading about music analysis, especially regarding Beethoven. What does it actually mean? From what I understand it means that for the analyst there rises a problem, meaning that the set of conventions the analyst uses to analyse bump against something that doesn't fit his framework right?


I think in this case 'problematic' means they are incomplete, present paradoxes or require development. This kind of thing was done on purpose by composers, because there are more possibilities and potential to develop motivic fragments or contradictory ideas than complete melodies. So they create musical 'problems' the composer has to resolve over the course of the work.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Razumovskymas said:


> ...If you analyse his music there's nothing really very special there (certain TC members will totally not agree here) but when put together it's genius...


Although he was a fine craftsman, there is certainly nothing special about Beethoven's themes, harmonies, rhythms, orchestrations, or even his structures. But in all aspects he writes exactly what is needed at that moment; in fact, we feel that it's absolutely pre-ordained and inevitable. It could be no other way.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

tdc said:


> Ok some good points, but is the music of Bach and Mozart really so simple and immediately obvious? I'm not sure about that.


I think they are easy to love on a first encounter. Their melodic styles were within well-understood norms. And they were both unequaled masters of their ages.



tdc said:


> But it seems clear that you are suggesting that to really appreciate Beethoven's music people need a longer attention span and the ability to appreciate things not so obvious and simple, ok so why then is he the most popular composer on TC? Are all of the Beethoven fans here just geniuses, or what?
> 
> Or maybe the reason that Beethoven is so popular has more to do with the fact that he appeals to the more obvious attention grabbing elements of music like his use of aggression and his showy temperament? In some ways to me it seems more the case that because Beethoven shouted the loudest he gets more attention.


Is there any reason to think these reactions are mutually exclusive? Some people might like the willfulness, violence, and intense expressive contrasts because they are exciting, even without understanding their overall aesthetic significance. Others might like these qualities because they do understand, either consciously and verbally or intuitively. (Just because one can't articulate why Beethoven's dramatic structures work, it doesn't mean one fails to grasp their musical rightness.) Some might start in one camp and graduate to the other.



tdc said:


> This isn't to say his use of development and form aren't brilliant I've never argued that. But Brahms 4th Symphony to my ears surpasses Beethoven in terms of its use of harmony and counterpoint. But I'll bet you disagree. What Beethoven works do you think exemplify Beethoven's strengths in these two areas? Or is this another case where the works are from different eras so cannot be compared?


I don't disagree. I just have no idea what surpasses is supposed to mean. The way I hear it, because of an intervening aesthetic revolution, there is too much stylistic difference between Mozart and Beethoven to invite easy head-to-head comparisons - and their lives overlapped! So, yes, there is way too much time and change between Beethoven and Brahms to make your statements meaningful to me. If you asked Brahms whether he surpassed Beethoven he would likely have scoffed at the idea, but then his biases shouldn't be taken at face value; He was too much in awe of Beethoven to be objective.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

But isn't that the paradoxes or contradictions we keep finding in his music? Many of his themes are ridiculously simple yet he weaves them into something groundbreaking. Even something like Moonlight Sonata 1st movement is just one long musical idea that is simple but when you examine the chords and progressions you realise it is far from that. There are dischords and short modulations/tonicsications throughout, and the development section is ethereal in that it hangs on the dominant for several bars without deviating from the structure by any degree. Vast dynamic changes are non-existent but you feel the urge to play fortissimo when Beethoven strictly forbids it. It is a self-contained work of genius and I would't be surprised if he whacked it out in a few days if not less. With pieces like that you can just see them just writing themselves once the opening has been discovered.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Although I haven't seen it commented on, I think the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata is very much like a prelude, with a similarity to Bach's C major prelude in Book 1 of the WTC.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> I keep bumping up this expression when reading about music analysis, especially regarding Beethoven. What does it actually mean? From what I understand it means that for the analyst there rises a problem, meaning that the set of conventions the analyst uses to analyse bump against something that doesn't fit his framework right?


Yes, that is pretty much what I meant. Beethoven wrote themes that seem unbalanced, with contradictory ideas vying and clamoring for control. Usually it takes the context of an entire lengthy movement (or even a whole multimovement structure) to work out their implications and bring their conflicts to a satisfying resolution or conclusion.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I was thinking that, too. Although I would argue the difference, although subtle, is that Bach is just arpeggiating chords where as Beethoven is weaving a melody, or at least 1 or 2 extra voices, around the rhythmic triplets that propel the piece on. Both works of genius nonetheless.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, that is pretty much what I meant. Beethoven wrote themes that seem unbalanced, with contradictory ideas vying and clamoring for control. Usually it takes the context of an entire lengthy movement (or even a whole multimovement structure) to work out their implications and bring their conflicts to a satisfying resolution or conclusion.


There was method in his madness you mean? I wonder if these contradictory ideas became a burden to his mind like a musical tic that won't go away until he could find some resolution. Maybe that is why the ending to the 5th is so long and loud; he was burying an idea that had provoked him for years and he wanted to make sure it was finally gone. Could he have had auditory hallucinations when it sounded real? Imagine the opening two bars of the 5th going through your head year after year in stereo.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

> So if it's "lumbering and boorish" then why exactly has his music penetrated the public consciousness more deeply than perhaps any other composer?


For the same reasons that pop music penetrates public consciousness more deeply than classical music, I imagine - Simpler melodies, some rhythm, a bit of facile excitement in the form of sudden trumpets and drums, etc.

I wouldn't use those words but have to say that once you are used to Bach's intricate patterns and contrapuntal mastery, most pieces by Mozart and Beethoven sound like elevator music (sorry).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just listened to the Leipzig cantor's St John passion. You cannot imagine better music unless it's the St matthew Paasion.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

DavidA said:


> Just listened to the Leipzig cantor's St John passion. You cannot imagine better music unless it's the St matthew Paasion.


Yep, I love both and just listening to St John again as I write due to your recommendation. Although, with regard to the St Matthew Passion do your eyes well up on hearing Erbarme Dich? Sometimes just the mention of it can start some people off. Well known atheist, doctor, and theatre producer Johnathan Miller admitted to this.


----------

