# The 'Thisness' of Beethoven...?



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It is widely agreed that *Beethoven* in some senses was *a new start* in the history of art music.

It is widely agreed that *Beethoven* in some senses *carried on the tradition* of art music.

So then - what *qualitie*s make up the *Quiddit*y - the *Haecceitas* - the *Thisness* of Beethoven?
What makes _Beethoven_ *Beethoven*? What makes him *new*? What makes him part of the Paradosis, the *Living Tradition* of Classical Music?

Here is a *non-poll* thread that I hope can be answered by music experts, lovers & listeners alike.
It can be answered on a number of levels - technical aspects *and/or* personal response.
It can be taken in a number of directions, and remain relevant.

And best of all, I hope to learn something from it! 

:tiphat: Thank you in advance for any replies. 
(And if there are none, I shall know that Beethoven is ineffable!)


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

On a personal response level, I think the music of Beethoven has a sort of *directness* about it compared with earlier composers. It is sometimes but not always forceful; even when it's a quiet or slow movement, it seems to get straight to the point; not beat about the bushes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Beethoven was what I like to think of as an _evolutionary_ in classical music. He took existing forms, studied Bach, learn counterpoint, immersed himself in the world of existing music to create the music he wanted to create. What he did do to the existing forms and styles is expand them, adding instruments, making the music longer, expositions with more than two subjects etc. etc. etc. One thing about Beethoven which can be found to have a fair bit in common with Bach is his knack of development of very few motifs over a long period of time, a good example is the opening movement of the 5th symphony. It adheres to classical form (but despite it being of a similar or shorter length than earlier symphonies' opening movements, he explores his concept of treating an extended coda section as almost a second development section, he did the same thing in the 3rd symphony), it looks back at the monothematic music of Bach (one rhythmic motif prevails in this movement), it keeps to the size of the orchestra no bigger than what Mozart or Haydn would have written for (until the last movement in which he introduces trombones, a piccolo and a contrabassoon).

Just keeping these few things about the 5th symphony in mind, we can clearly see how much Beethoven was a continuation to the tradition of the Classical era, but also his additions and innovations were looked back to by later composers, by which time Beethoven's innovations were now nothing out of the ordinary and in fact composers were expanding on Beethoven's orchestra size.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Yes, Beethoven's music is almost always *direct* but that's not the only quality. His music has all the good qualities of the absolutely greatest music - great development, memorable themes, intriguing structures, and emotional depth. There might be a few more of which I am only aware on a subliminal level but cannot describe.

But one thing I find incredible in his music is the *confidence*. It's actually something similar to the Beatles. Every minute of his symphonies you listen to, you are taken by the self assurance, the remarkable poise with which he delivers. There's always a sense that he *knows he belongs* at the heart of the tradition. He grasps the tradition with both hands and becomes its rightful and responsible heir, taking it forward. His musical life is not an "attempt", or a "self-expression", or even "art", it's a sport, a valiant proving ground, where he taps on every last of his talents and capacities.

There's a fresh newness to every passage, a feeling of a discovery of a sublime reality previously unknown - I think this is what is counted as a "Romantic" aesthetic, but IMO it's just short of that Romanticism that you find _after_ Beethoven, in Chopin and Schubert. Beethoven was a hugely talented musician to begin with, having the intellectual capacity to assimilate all the classical forms, having the good mind to disregard what he wasn't very good at (eg. singing and writing for voices) and concentrate confidently on his strengths. These qualities are on full display in the way his music is *full-blooded* as compared to the rather restricted and cramped style of a Bruckner (!).

Beethoven is simply the performer, the man who delivers, the guy who makes it happen, in this life.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm not sure that Beethoven innovated all that much. I think it is more widely regarded that Beethoven was evolutionary, not revolutionary. His music sounds "newer" than that of Mozart and Haydn but I don't think it's due to any major technical changes in the method of composition, but more a change of style. This of itself doesn't imply any kind of criticism of Beethoven because there were very few really great composers who did actually invent something new. Beethoven's claim to fame is mainly that he built upon all that he inherited from previous "greats" (of course, he and Haydn overlapped to some extent) and developed it in ways that refreshed his audiences' liking for that style of music, and which continued to be liked by later generations. I can't see that it's any more complicated than that.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think his working method of honing his themes and motifs down to their bare essence is what gives his music its instant impact. I suppose this is just another way of saying it is direct, but he left notebooks of skethces that show the extended (indirect) processes he went through to arrive at them. Somehow by working and reworking his ideas, almost every moment seems surprising, yet inevitable at the same time. I for one do not quite hear the same impact from his contemporaries, though Haydn comes very close, and seldom from those who followed.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

In a sense, any composer who is original is a new start. We tend to esteem originality when it is (safely) in the past, hence the by now almost universal adoration of Herr Beethoven.

The twentieth century gave us some composers who while "in the past" have managed to continue to seem dangerous to many, hence the almost universal adoration in online forums of such twentieth century composers as Sibelius and Shostakovich (as opposed to, say, Ives or Schoenberg or Varese. Stravinsky and Bartok have become almost universally esteemed only within my lifetime. Within only a portion--half at most--of my lifetime.)

The nineteen century has turned out to have given us only one composer who is still dangerous, hence the almost universal ignorance (lack of knowledge/experience) of all of his works but one and the almost universal misunderstanding of what that one work is really all about, musically. (_Symphonie fantastique_ is still only safe if it is carefully wrapped up in its straitjacket of a story.)


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> ...almost universal misunderstanding of what that one work is really all about, musically. (_Symphonie fantastique_ is still only safe if it is carefully wrapped up in its straitjacket of a story.)


I was listening to Symphonie Fantastique just now, so it would be nice to hear what it is really all about musically?


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

Best place to find that out would be in Jacques Barzun's _Berlioz and the Romantic Century._ The relevant material is mostly in volume one.

Barzun is a much more eloquent and elegant writer than I. And he's a more original thinker as well.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

If I had to pick a 'dangerous' composer from the 19th century I'd probably go for Satie.

I too am interested to hear why Berlioz of all people is so esteemed by someguy.

I'm also interested to hear how a story attached to a piece by the composer himself forms a straitjacket for the piece.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

How tempting it is to answer myself, anticipating what could be an incredibly rewarding read of a splendid cultural biography.

I'll limit myself to one historical fact. Berlioz only supplied a story for that one (early) piece, and he eventually forbade any reproduction of "the story" in programs unless the whole opus 14 were being performed.

OK. And one observation. No matter who attached the story to the piece, it is primarily what people talk about when they talk about the piece. Not the music, but the story. (The closest practically anyone gets to the music is how the piece depicts the events of the story.) Hence the straitjacket.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

some guy said:


> How tempting it is to answer myself, anticipating what could be an incredibly rewarding read of a splendid cultural biography.
> 
> I'll limit myself to one historical fact. Berlioz only supplied a story for that one (early) piece, and he eventually forbade any reproduction of "the story" in programs unless the whole opus 14 were being performed.
> 
> OK. And one observation. No matter who attached the story to the piece, it is primarily what people talk about when they talk about the piece. Not the music, but the story. (The closest practically anyone gets to the music is how the piece depicts the events of the story.) Hence the straitjacket.


Perhaps a Wagnerian aesthetic, where the music is a soul-less dummy without the story?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_COAG_:
"Just keeping these few things about the 5th symphony in mind, we can clearly see how much Beethoven was a continuation to the tradition of the Classical era, but also his additions and innovations were looked back to by later composers, by which time Beethoven's innovations were now nothing out of the ordinary and in fact composers were expanding on Beethoven's orchestra size."

[The explication of 'these few things' is obviously relevant, so check post #3]

You have focused on Beethoven's 'mechanics', in your _composerly_ way. Those things were means to achieve ends. Those ends were what made Beethoven.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Beethoven was the first great musical egoist.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> [...]
> OK. And one observation. No matter who attached the story to the piece, it is primarily what people talk about when they talk about the piece. Not the music, but the story. (The closest practically anyone gets to the music is how the piece depicts the events of the story.) Hence the straitjacket.


Some members may have noticed that I don't like most 'program' music. In the case of the Symphonie Fantastique, I first listened while treating the Program as a 'suggested story'. Those are pretty good suggestions, but I usually go elsewhere with the story. The unfortunate thing is that there _*is*_ a story. I can't listen to the music without providing _associations_. And that is Berlioz's fault, with his damn program!


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Some members may have noticed that I don't like most 'program' music. In the case of the Symphonie Fantastique, I first listened while treating the Program as a 'suggested story'. Those are pretty good suggestions, but I usually go elsewhere with the story. The unfortunate thing is that there _*is*_ a story. I can't listen to the music without providing _associations_. And that is Berlioz's fault, with his damn program!


What about opera?


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

There is too much Beethoven in Beethoven's music.


----------



## Crassus (Nov 4, 2013)

The answer is simple; his themes sound objectively better than those of other composers.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

some guy said:


> How tempting it is to answer myself, anticipating what could be an incredibly rewarding read of a splendid cultural biography.
> 
> I'll limit myself to one historical fact. Berlioz only supplied a story for that one (early) piece, and he eventually forbade any reproduction of "the story" in programs unless the whole opus 14 were being performed.
> 
> OK. And one observation. No matter who attached the story to the piece, it is primarily what people talk about when they talk about the piece. Not the music, but the story. (The closest practically anyone gets to the music is how the piece depicts the events of the story.) Hence the straitjacket.


I had one chance. I don't know a lot about classical music, so I could have listened to Symphonie Fantastique without knowing the story, without any preconceptions.
But heck, I'm a human being, and I can't blot out the fact that google exists....


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Crassus said:


> The answer is simple; his themes sound objectively better than those of other composers.


Not sure if I agree. Beethoven's themes weren't much, but he did great things with them.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Yes, it's amazing how much material he generates from such simple, often unremarkable fragments.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

Ukko and Ingélou, there's hope.

Well, I hope there's hope. I think that _Symphonie fantastique_ can be listened to without thinking of the story. It's really quite strong music, all on its own. I think it can be done. I suppose I should exclude myself. I had several listens before I knew the story. I had long before then given up reading programs. Neither the stories that the composers had supplied (or the stories that had supplied the impetus for them to do something musical) nor the explications of liner note scribblers ever seemed to match (or never consistently) what I was actually hearing. (I thought this was a defect of mine. No longer!! In any case, I had given up reading about music.)

Even the guillotine in the fourth movement--it's a loud single chord. Music is full of loud single chords that have no decapitative connotations at all. And the head rolling down the stairs? Pffft. That's just another example of a pattern that occurs throughout the symphony. It's not as prominent or as memorable as the idee fixe, but there it is. And you can hear it throughout the entire symphony, including after that single loud chord. What's more, when it occurs, it is usually (I'm going by memory here--it could be always) played pizzicato.

Crassus, I'm guessing your tongue was in your cheek. But on the off-chance that it wasn't, I take yet another opportunity to point out that the word "better," which you have linked with the word "objectively," points to the subjective realm, not the objective one.

"Objectively better," hence, is at best what one could call an oxymoron. At worst, a simple contradiction. You know, like fiery ice or short skyscraper.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> his music is *full-blooded* as compared to the rather restricted and cramped style of a Bruckner (!).


What do you mean by this? I'm not sure I follow. I read a description of Beethoven's style in a music textbook once, and I realized that the description also fit Bruckner to a T. They are very different, of course, but a good deal connects them as well.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

His form and personality can be talked about six ways to Sunday, but what keeps him so relevant is his indescribable ability of pointing towards a universal mysticism. There's simply something about his music that's unexplainable, but it's presence is undeniable.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Beethoven is *willful*. Whether the music is an andante or an allegro, soft or loud, there's always a certain vitality and force in it. Some pieces have gained their reputation mostly by virtue of their unrelenting forcefulness (such as the Great Fugue), and although there are certainly elements of this in the compositions of Mozart and Haydn, Beethoven seemed more willing to sacrifice propriety and grace for expressive effect.

And it is that very expressiveness that draws in lay and educated audiences alike, something absolutely elemental like the obsessive rhythmic motif of the Fifth or the simple diatonic Ode to Joy tune.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ukko said:


> Some members may have noticed that I don't like most 'program' music. In the case of the Symphonie Fantastique, I first listened while treating the Program as a 'suggested story'. Those are pretty good suggestions, but I usually go elsewhere with the story. The unfortunate thing is that there _*is*_ a story. I can't listen to the music without providing _associations_. And that is Berlioz's fault, with his damn program!


Strange because it has always seemed a perfect fit to me.You whippersnappers sometimes question for the sake of it I fear.SomeGuy in his post above is apparently being all mysterious when in fact referring to Op 14b,"Lelio or the Return To Life". This is the follow-up to the Symphonie,


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Beethoven's thisness shall satisfy thy deeds thusly.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Strange because it has always seemed a perfect fit to me.You whippersnappers sometimes question for the sake of it I fear.


Yep, we whippersnappers have never seen an argument we didn't want to jump into with an indefensible opinion.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

some guy said:


> Even the guillotine in the fourth movement--it's a loud single chord. Music is full of loud single chords that have no decapitative connotations at all. And the head rolling down the stairs? Pffft. That's just another example of a pattern that occurs throughout the symphony. It's not as prominent or as memorable as the idee fixe, but there it is. And you can hear it throughout the entire symphony, including after that single loud chord. What's more, when it occurs, it is usually (I'm going by memory here--it could be always) played pizzicato.


That's torn it - you've given away the program! Now how can I listen to it with virgin ears??

Alright, I'm kidding. I watched the BRSO with Mariss Jansons at the Proms this year and the presenter gave the game away...

Actually, I also saw Simon Russell-Beale's "Symphony" last year and he covered it in some depth...

And then, when I was at college, we used a clip as incidental music for one of our plays...

See? It's impossible to escape the program.

[edit]Sorry, thread duty: I can't stand Gerard Manly-Hopkins, so was put off by the 'thisness' of it all. However, I hope I've already established my pro-Beethoven credentials elsewhere, including asking this same question in another thread. It's interesting to see how members are responding now.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> What do you mean by this? I'm not sure I follow. I read a description of Beethoven's style in a music textbook once, and I realized that the description also fit Bruckner to a T. They are very different, of course, but a good deal connects them as well.


Maybe we can replace Bruckner with some other example. My only intention was bringing out qualities of Beethoven by means of contrast.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> Maybe we can replace Bruckner with some other example. My only intention was bringing out qualities of Beethoven by means of contrast.


Well, I agree with the sentiment that Beethoven was a greater and more important composer than Bruckner on the whole, not only in terms of the breadth of his oeuvre (although Bruckner's String Quintet and sacred choral works are worthwhile as well), but also in terms of his lasting influence and place in the development of his art. Bruckner's influence extends only locally, in terms of a few symphonic composers (Sibelius, Mahler to a small extent, and then more obscure lesser figures like Brian and Simpson).

There is the Beethoven of the symphonies, but also the Beethoven of the piano sonatas and the string quartets, even of Fidelio. And all of these have had a wide sphere of influence, to say nothing of the immediate quality of the works themselves, which do great service to their individual genres regardless of influence.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I have long thought that Beethoven was the most interesting person in music -- both his music and biographically (I have about three feet of Beethoven books on my shelf). I think an artist's personality and his work are inextricably intertwined and to try to define either gets one into hot water very quickly. Yes, he was a classicist through and through, and form was very important to him. Even when he modified it, there was order to what he did. Yes, he brought a new sense of emotional expressiveness to music, and that was a function of his personality. He was compulsively experimental, and the wonder of his experimenting was how few tries he took to get something new right. He clearly had genius in abundance, was always studying and learning (or not) from those who went before. He was fairly monomaniacal about music and impossible to live with, and had a philosophical bent towards artistic creation as the summit of human activity. For all the influences of others one can find in his music, ultimately it was sui genesis. The "is-ness" is the force of his personality and his determination not to stagnate. The is also a life force his music that is perhaps unequalled. You could probably listen to Mahler and then follow through with a predetermined suicide attempt. I think it would be difficult to do the same and try to go out with Beethoven ringing in your ears.

To try to define a force of nature is probably impossible. Most of human endeavor contains giants that are so far out of our league, that to try to pinpoint the why and how is nealy impossible. Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Picasso, Shakespeare, Bach, 
Aquinas, Socrates, Lao Tzu, Tolstoy, Melville . . . 

At best, early Beethoven delights, middle Bethoven makes you feel alive and aspiring to heroism, late Beethoven puts you in touch with the ineffable. And leave scholarly arguments to the musicologists -- who can't define his music's soul any more than any one else. 

George


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Ondine said:


> There is too much Beethoven in Beethoven's music.


In my experience, the Beethoven 'personality' in his music that can captivate listeners so easily, also becomes really wearying to me after a while.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Here is Shaw:
"A hundred years ago a crusty old bachelor of fifty-seven, so deaf that he could not hear his own music played by a full orchestra, yet still able to hear thunder, shook his fist at the roaring heavens for the last time, and died as he had lived, challenging God and defying the universe. ... It was this turbulence, this deliberate disorder, this reckless and triumphant mockery of conventional manners, that set Beethoven apart from the musical geniuses of the ceremonious seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He was a giant wave in that storm of the human spirit which produced the French Revolution. He called no man master."

And Mencken:
"It is almost a literal fact that there is not a trace of cheapness in the whole body of his [Beethoven's] music. He is never sweet and romantic; he never sheds conventional tears; he never strikes orthodox attitudes. In his lighter moods there is the immense and inescapable dignity of the ancient Hebrew prophets. He concerns himself, not with the puerile agonies of love, but with the eternal tragedy of man."
(Full essay: http://banilsson.blogspot.nl/2012/10/mencken-on-beethoven.html)

There is indeed something colossal and dignified about much of Beethoven's music.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Beethoven really knows how to do a great musical dive bomb. He rattles my cage, and zaps me with static electricity. 

There we go.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GGluek said:


> The is also a life force his music that is perhaps unequalled. You could probably listen to Mahler and then follow through with a predetermined suicide attempt. I think it would be difficult to do the same and try to go out with Beethoven ringing in your ears.


Edward G. Robinsin in Soylent Green (Pastoral) and Maurice Spandrell in Point Counter Point (Heiliger Dankgesang) beg to differ.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

trazom said:


> In my experience, the Beethoven 'personality' in his music that can captivate listeners so easily, also becomes really wearying to me after a while.


I would become weary of a perfectly cooked Filet Mignon if I constantly ate it. Use discretion. Particularly with things as potent as Beethoven.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> It is widely agreed that *Beethoven* in some senses was *a new start* in the history of art music.
> 
> It is widely agreed that *Beethoven* in some senses *carried on the tradition* of art music.
> 
> ...


I have no clue what the hell some of those words are. Quiddity? Haecceitas? Thisness? Paradosis?

Here is my attempt at explaining Beethoven: he wrote damn fine music that sounded (and continues to sound) really good to a lot of people. He wrote music that inspired other musicians. He wrote music that people like to listen to. If you can do that as a composer, you should achieve a relative level of success. If not, then you will probably only be discussed on some specialized forum by a sub-sub-sub-section of the global economy.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

GGluek said:


> I have long thought that Beethoven was the most interesting person in music -- both his music and biographically (I have about three feet of Beethoven books on my shelf). I think an artist's personality and his work are inextricably intertwined and to try to define either gets one into hot water very quickly. Yes, he was a classicist through and through, and form was very important to him. Even when he modified it, there was order to what he did. Yes, he brought a new sense of emotional expressiveness to music, and that was a function of his personality. He was compulsively experimental, and the wonder of his experimenting was how few tries he took to get something new right. He clearly had genius in abundance, was always studying and learning (or not) from those who went before. He was fairly monomaniacal about music and impossible to live with, and had a philosophical bent towards artistic creation as the summit of human activity. For all the influences of others one can find in his music, ultimately it was sui genesis. The "is-ness" is the force of his personality and his determination not to stagnate. *The is also a life force his music that is perhaps unequalled. You could probably listen to Mahler and then follow through with a predetermined suicide attempt. I think it would be difficult to do the same and try to go out with Beethoven ringing in your ears.*
> 
> To try to define a force of nature is probably impossible. Most of human endeavor contains giants that are so far out of our league, that to try to pinpoint the why and how is nealy impossible. Einstein, Newton, Bohr, Picasso, Shakespeare, Bach,
> Aquinas, Socrates, Lao Tzu, Tolstoy, Melville . . .
> ...


This reminded me instantly of the film "Educating Rita." Remember? Her roommate swooned over Mahler's recordings, then attempted suicide.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

DrMike said:


> I have no clue what the hell some of those words are. Quiddity? Haecceitas? Thisness? Paradosis?
> 
> Here is my attempt at explaining Beethoven: he wrote damn fine music that sounded (and continues to sound) really good to a lot of people. He wrote music that inspired other musicians. He wrote music that people like to listen to. If you can do that as a composer, you should achieve a relative level of success. If not, then you will probably only be discussed on some specialized forum by a sub-sub-sub-section of the global economy.


Yes, sorry - it wasn't so much that I was being highfalutin' as I was trying to bring in my favourite ideas.

Quiddity & haecceitas just translate 'thisness' or individual essence, but 'haecceitas' was used by the philosopher Duns Scotus who inspired one of my favourite poets, Gerard Manley Hopkins. In one of his sonnets, he talks about how each of us have a unique flavour & that that is our purpose:
'Each mortal thing does one thing & the same. / Selves - goes itself - 'myself' it speaks & spells/ Crying 'what I do is me - for that I came'.

'Paradosis' is the living tradition believed in by the Jews of Jesus's time: tradition that is open to organic growth, like a tree.

I find both these concepts really inspiring, and also relevant. There can never be anyone quite like Beethoven - his function is to flood the universe with Beethoven-ness. And it's daft to think that he totally broke with tradition. He is a new but very important branch on a grand old tree.

Thank you for all these fabulous posts, by the way. There's so much to ponder here.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

One thing I thought of in the car, going to Scottish dancing class tonight: 

Which of Beethoven's works is 'least like him' - that if you didn't already know, you wouldn't think he wrote it?

And which - in your opinion - is the one that out-Beethovens Beethoven; the piece of his music that is almost a caricature of all that the man stands for? 

I just ask out of interest, she added hastily, because so far this has been a mannerly, funny & well-informed thread.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

I think "Adelaide" feels least like _echt_ Beethoven to me. I love it anyway, for itself. 
The most Beethoven-ish for me is Symphony #7 - it pops into my mind's ear whenever anyone mentions him.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I think choosing an unBeethovenian piece by him will be tough because you will be tempted to simply choose a bad piece - because it is obvious he was a good composer and any inferior material is therefore unBeethovenian. 

And even when you only consider the better works, there are a few different Beethovens to be considered. There is one of the 3rd, 5th and 7th symphonies. A late quartet Beethoven. An Appassionata Beethoven... so on.

So, not an easy one!

But I think if you look for a piece where his whole personality comes to a "head", where it feels like he is barely holding back his instincts behind his will, which does not so much encapsulate his personal traits as define them clearly for everybody to see, it absolutely has to be the 5th symphony.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

trazom said:


> In my experience, the Beethoven 'personality' in his music that can captivate listeners so easily, also becomes really wearying to me after a while.


Yup. In my case "after a while" was decades, but it eventually happened. Not that I dislike everything he wrote, but I find that nowadays my favourite Beethoven works are all the ones he is not quite as famous for: the even-numbered symphonies rather than the heavyweight uneven-numbered ones, the first two piano concertos rather than the Emperor, the lyrical violin concerto rather than any of the heavier concerti, the early chamber music rather than the famous heavyweight quartets and trios.

I have a particular soft spot for those piano quartets he wrote in his early teens; they seem to me to disprove the notion that he was something of a late bloomer. They are unmistakably Beethoven, yet without all the angst and fury and sheer ego of his middle period.

That said, I remain completely in awe of the man and his music. There is simply no question about his genius, whether it is to my personal taste or not (I feel pretty much the same way about Wagner).


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2013)

DrMike said:


> I have no clue what the hell some of those words are. Quiddity? Haecceitas? Thisness? Paradosis?


I assumed they are words spoken in Norfolk, England to mean "inventiveness" and "uniqueness" etc.

I do hope therefore that all the answers being offered here are addressing the correct issues, and that the intended question is not something else like for example Beethoven's favorite booze, or whether he was ever rude to his landlady, or how many pints of ascitic fluid they drained off him during the autopsy.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

See post #40, above...

I am listening to Beethoven just now & an idle query has popped into my brain, as it regularly does. 

The 'portentous ending' seems to be a Beethoven feature, and I'm wondering - is that new, or is the *pom-ti-pom-pom-pommmmmm! *found in his predecessors' work too?

If it's new with Beethoven, does anyone know what he might have been hoping to do by using it? :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> One thing I thought of in the car, going to Scottish dancing class tonight:
> 
> Which of Beethoven's works is 'least like him' - that if you didn't already know, you wouldn't think he wrote it?
> 
> ...


Least like him? I can't think of anything major that he wrote that doesn't have "beethoven" stamped all over it. You'd perhaps have to delve into his collection of minor works "WoO" or "Hess" to find something that's possibly slightly out of character. These aside, Beethoven scholars have no trouble at all in identifying a work by Beethoven. There's scope for rather more doubt with the likes of Mozart and Haydn, partly because they wrote so much more and a good deal of it was not categorised at the time, but by later researchers, hence scope for errors creeping in. Beethoven however was careful to keep records of his work, and no doubt threw out anything that didn't match up to his high standards (like Brahms decades later), hence a uniform "stamp".

Most like him? That's a lot easier. Among the orchestral works strong candidates are Symphonies Nos 3, 5, 6, 7, 9. Of his Piano Concertos I'd select No 5 as most characteristic of Beethoven. Among his piano sonatas, I'd select Waldstein and Hammerklavia. For chamber works, perhaps Piano Trio 'Archduke' and String Quartet No 14. If choice is limited to a single work it would have to be Op 67 (ie Sym 5), or possibly Op 93 (Sym 7).


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

There is a dichotomy here BUT we all know that the world would be a sadder and quieter place without Bach, Brahms, Beethoven and Mozart and my CD collection would be a lot thinner ... actually I'd better include Handel, Haydn and Vivaldi ... ooh and maybe Wagner and those Strausses ... oh and Verdi. 

Gosh the world is full of music from Achron thru' Zemlinsky or even Abba thru' ZZ Top ;-)


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Well, I think you may just have hit on something there. Portentous or drawn out cadences are a way of dissipating harmonic momentum, and thinking it over, I believe you can legitimately say that barring a few late Mozartean exceptions, Beethoven's music generated harmonic momentum on a scale that dwarfs most ofnthe music that came before by an order of magnitude.



Ingélou said:


> See post #40, above...
> 
> I am listening to Beethoven just now & an idle query has popped into my brain, as it regularly does.
> 
> ...


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

After studying Beethoven's life a little, my opinion is that what explain Beethoven's 'thisness' is the obvious sincerity in his music, in a sense that his musical progression is totally influenced by his development through life. I am not saying that Bach or Haydn weren't sincere in their music, but they had more obligations to please their patrons (and write absurd amounts of music), and the sincerity sometimes feels a little obscured. Mozart broke this pattern being almost entirely "free" to write as he wanted (but a little limited by his difficult to manage finances), but Beethoven simply could not exist as Beethoven if he had the same obligations. His life force and his personality were almost impossible, even for himself, to handle.

(in the first paragraph I left out any mentions of _spirituality_, so if you don't believe in this kind of thing you probably don't want to continue reading.)

What is more interesting in Beethoven's life (and clearly reflected in his compositions), in my opinion, is his spiritual development. How a young, brilliant, absurdly promising composer, with a great ego and force of will could be challenged? His deafness, in my opinion, was not put in his way by chance. It was a big, and planned, test by God, a test that Beethoven almost failed but in the end his will to live and to manifest his art prevailed. The influence of this in his music is not easy to explain, but I think that it is exactly the 'thisness' that differentiate Beethoven's music from everything that came before or after him.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2013)

Seems on the surface of it to have been a rather sadistic test, no? Mean. Cruel. Fiendish.

Those sound like descriptions of another guy entirely, eh? Or?


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

julianoq said:


> After studying Beethoven's life a little, my opinion is that what explain Beethoven's 'thisness' is the obvious sincerity in his music, in a sense that his musical progression is totally influenced by his development through life. I am not saying that Bach or Haydn weren't sincere in their music, but they had more obligations to please their patrons (and write absurd amounts of music), and the sincerity sometimes feels a little obscured. Mozart broke this pattern being almost entirely "free" to write as he wanted (but a little limited by his difficult to manage finances), but Beethoven simply could not exist as Beethoven if he had the same obligations. His life force and his personality were almost impossible, even for himself, to handle.
> 
> (in the first paragraph I left out any mentions of _spirituality_, so if you don't believe in this kind of thing you probably don't want to continue reading.)
> 
> What is more interesting in Beethoven's life (and clearly reflected in his compositions), in my opinion, is his spiritual development. How a young, brilliant, absurdly promising composer, with a great ego and force of will could be challenged? His deafness, in my opinion, was not put in his way by chance. It was a big, and planned, test by God, a test that Beethoven almost failed but in the end his will to live and to manifest his art prevailed. The influence of this in his music is not easy to explain, but I think that it is exactly the 'thisness' that differentiate Beethoven's music from everything that came before or after him.


How superbly put! Beethoven definitely was a strong man who had a difficult life, rather than a weak man with an easy life...


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

some guy said:


> Seems on the surface of it to have been a rather sadistic test, no? Mean. Cruel. Fiendish.
> 
> Those sound like descriptions of another guy entirely, eh? Or?


I don't agree. In my spiritual view, the tests are on our way to make us stronger. It will be painful, hard, but is what makes us move forward. I think we are here to progress spiritually and in most cases this can only happen by learning to grow through pain. If you look at humanity history, most progress was made through difficulties. But well, this is the spirituality topic that I understand that is quite personal and controversial


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

julianoq said:


> After studying Beethoven's life a little, my opinion is that what explain Beethoven's 'thisness' is the obvious sincerity in his music, in a sense that his musical progression is totally influenced by his development through life. I am not saying that Bach or Haydn weren't sincere in their music, but they had more obligations to please their patrons (and write absurd amounts of music), and the sincerity sometimes feels a little obscured. Mozart broke this pattern being almost entirely "free" to write as he wanted (but a little limited by his difficult to manage finances), but Beethoven simply could not exist as Beethoven if he had the same obligations. His life force and his personality were almost impossible, even for himself, to handle.
> 
> (in the first paragraph I left out any mentions of _spirituality_, so if you don't believe in this kind of thing you probably don't want to continue reading.)
> 
> What is more interesting in Beethoven's life (and clearly reflected in his compositions), in my opinion, is his spiritual development. How a young, brilliant, absurdly promising composer, with a great ego and force of will could be challenged? His deafness, in my opinion, was not put in his way by chance. It was a big, and planned, test by God, a test that Beethoven almost failed but in the end his will to live and to manifest his art prevailed. The influence of this in his music is not easy to explain, but I think that it is exactly the 'thisness' that differentiate Beethoven's music from everything that came before or after him.


Obviously nobody in this world can be *sure* that the test of deafness was imposed by God. However, you do point out that not everybody will agree with you...



some guy said:


> Seems on the surface of it to have been a rather sadistic test, no? Mean. Cruel. Fiendish.
> 
> Those sound like descriptions of another guy entirely, eh? Or?


If the test of deafness was imposed by God, then nobody in this world can say that it was 'sadistic', because non-divine beings cannot share the divine point of view.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is beyond doubt is that Beethoven was challenged by deafness. It seems reasonable to me to suppose that this will have affected his music. *How* will be a matter of opinion.

Your points are very thoughtful, Julianoq. I do like your point about patrons and earning a living. In English poetry, Alexander Pope was the first who could earn a living from his verse, and he certainly felt free to speak his mind. I note that when we're speaking of Beethoven's 'thisness' we are all using words like 'directness', 'sincerity', 'force', and I do think this is something inherent in his music, rather than just in our conceptions of his personality.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

julianoq said:


> I don't agree. In my spiritual view, the tests are on our way to make us stronger. It will be painful, hard, but is what makes us move forward. I think we are here to progress spiritually and in most cases this can only happen by learning to grow through pain. If you look at humanity history, most progress was made through difficulties. But well, this is the spirituality topic that I understand that is quite personal and controversial


I don't agree that having a hard life, or being 'tested', necessarily makes someone stronger. In fact, too much adversity and abuse can significantly distort someone's perception/attitude towards life and other people. That's why those who are abused as children tend to abuse others later in life.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

trazom said:


> I don't agree that having a hard life, or being 'tested', necessarily makes someone stronger. In fact, too much adversity and abuse can significantly distort someone's perception/attitude towards life and other people. That's why those who are abused as children tend to abuse others later in life.


I agree with you. I don't think _all_ difficulties are tests. Some are just plain evil and don't add anything (and can, as you said, cause even more problems). I believe that some of them are tests. In my spiritual view, God only gives us difficulties and tests that we have the possibility to overcome. We don't always pass, since the choice in the end is on our hands.

(and sorry Ingélou to throw in the spiritual/religion topic in this thread, but I think that it is necessary when describing Beethoven, a deeply spiritual person)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Which of Beethoven's works is 'least like him' - that if you didn't already know, you wouldn't think he wrote it?


Some of the incidental music he wrote for the ballet Creatures of Prometheus uses the harp, of all things. It's not necessarily counted among his best works, but it gets some attention.



Ingélou said:


> And which - in your opinion - is the one that out-Beethovens Beethoven; the piece of his music that is almost a caricature of all that the man stands for?


Well, for straight-up caricature, you can't do better (worse) than Wellington's Victory, which is notoriously one of the worst pieces the man ever wrote. It sounds more like a parody of Beethoven than serious Beethoven.

For great pieces that typify everything he stood for, I'd go for those massive works that push boundaries and defy categorization, like the "Hammerklavier" sonata, the D minor "Choral" symphony, the Missa Solemnis, and the C-sharp minor quartet.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

julianoq said:


> I agree with you. I don't think _all_ difficulties are tests. Some are just plain evil and don't add anything (and can, as you said, cause even more problems). I believe that some of them are tests. In my spiritual view, God only gives us difficulties and tests that we have the possibility to overcome. We don't always pass, since the choice in the end is on our hands.
> 
> (and sorry Ingélou to throw in the spiritual/religion topic in this thread, but I think that it is necessary when describing Beethoven, a deeply spiritual person)


I have it on unassailable authority that God doesn't give tests. (S)he runs an all-pass university.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Ukko said:


> I have it on unassailable authority that God doesn't give tests. (S)he runs an all-pass university.


Sure, university is a walk in the park--but then you go out in the real world and find a Job.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Sure, university is a walk in the park--but then you go out in the real world and find a Job.


Then you work your entire life for a bit of peace and fulfillment, just to die and have it all taken away... Something seems amiss with this equation.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> Sure, university is a walk in the park--but then you go out in the real world and find a Job.


God's university courses are life-long. Everybody graduates. (Infants may receive an honorary degree, and a re-start.)


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

So I'm not going to get a "like" for my crappy pun on "job/Job"? Oh well--I suppose I should be happy if it doesn't earn me a suspension. 

:lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> So I'm not going to get a "like" for my crappy pun on "job/Job"? Oh well--I suppose I should be happy if it doesn't earn me a suspension.
> 
> :lol:


It got a smile from me, but isn't there something a little fishy about it?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Beethoven differs from his predecessors Haydn ,Mozart and their contemporaries in that he was no longer
writing music merely to please listeners and give them what they wanted to hear but making a personal 
statement . 
Of course, his lesser works do fit into the kind of merely pleasant music which was the norm at a time
when composers wrote for patrons and would not dream of writing something outlandish lest they offend
those patrons , but works like the Eroica symphony, 5th , the Missa Solemnis, the Hammerlavier sonata
the 9th symphony, etc were extremely challenging to many listeners and critics .
There is an unprecendented ruggedness , emotional intensity , complexity of structure , texture ,
as well as some radical departures from conventional form, such as the 14th string quartet ,
with its seven movements and departure from conventional sonata form .
It would have been inconceivable for Haydn or Mozart to write a symphony inspired by current events,
such as the Eroica , which Beethoven originally dedicated to Napoleon but changed his mind in rage
when Npoleon had himself crowned emperor .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Seems on the surface of it to have been a rather sadistic test, no? Mean. Cruel. Fiendish.
> 
> Those sound like descriptions of another guy entirely, eh? Or?


LOL, perhaps you're talking about that rather clueless "God I" of the old testament, and not "God II" of the _New & Improved_ new testament sort?

Me, I'm waiting for the "III" sequel, excepting the franchise seems to be doing quite well and doesn't yet need that shot in the arm boost.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

If you not yet encountered it, find and read JWN Sullivan's "Beethoven, His Spiritual Development.



julianoq said:


> After studying Beethoven's life a little, my opinion is that what explain Beethoven's 'thisness' is the obvious sincerity in his music, in a sense that his musical progression is totally influenced by his development through life. I am not saying that Bach or Haydn weren't sincere in their music, but they had more obligations to please their patrons (and write absurd amounts of music), and the sincerity sometimes feels a little obscured. Mozart broke this pattern being almost entirely "free" to write as he wanted (but a little limited by his difficult to manage finances), but Beethoven simply could not exist as Beethoven if he had the same obligations. His life force and his personality were almost impossible, even for himself, to handle.
> 
> (in the first paragraph I left out any mentions of _spirituality_, so if you don't believe in this kind of thing you probably don't want to continue reading.)
> 
> What is more interesting in Beethoven's life (and clearly reflected in his compositions), in my opinion, is his spiritual development. How a young, brilliant, absurdly promising composer, with a great ego and force of will could be challenged? His deafness, in my opinion, was not put in his way by chance. It was a big, and planned, test by God, a test that Beethoven almost failed but in the end his will to live and to manifest his art prevailed. The influence of this in his music is not easy to explain, but I think that it is exactly the 'thisness' that differentiate Beethoven's music from everything that came before or after him.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Me, I'm waiting for the "III" sequel, excepting the franchise seems to be doing quite well and doesn't yet need that shot in the arm boost.


Would that be "Son of..."? Or "The Return of...?"


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'That Beethoven had great difficulties in his life was joined to *the sense of struggle and difficulty in his music*, and used as the basis for an entire mythology of the role of the artist in society, and the difficulties of artistic creation.'
This is from Wikipedia (_my italics_).

I am interested in the idea of 'sense of struggle & difficulty' because so far in this thread, the words used - 'directness' - 'confidence' - 'force' - 'sincerity' - 'heroism' - 'universal mysticism' - 'emotional intensity' - 'ineffable' - 'intensity' - 'musical dive-bomb' - don't seem quite to fit with 'sense of difficulty'.

What are your thoughts on this? Can anyone suggest works which contain both the force/sincerity and the struggle/difficulty?


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2013)

trazom said:


> In my experience, the Beethoven 'personality' in his music that can captivate listeners so easily, also becomes really wearying to me after a while.


I also found the novelty wore off with Beethoven after a number of years. The same applies to most other composers I've been fascinated by: couldn't get enough of them for a long while and then something happened to switch my attention to another. I still like Beethoven and will never go off his music but it doesn't hold the same magic that it once did. Like trazom says, it can become wearying after a while, in my case especially the more strident orchestral works.

It would be nice, if it were possible to do so, to ask the present Beethoven fan-club how much time they have spent so far in pursuing their interest in classical music. I may be wrong but would guess that many are quite new, say within 2-3 years. It would be interesting to see how they feel about the matter in say 5 years time. I wouldn't mind betting that many of the current glowing opinions will have mellowed by that time, and that other composers will have been elevated to a higher rating than they currently possess. I'm not suggesting that Beethoven will have dropped out, only that he may be seen in a less highly revered position relatively speaking.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Partita said:


> I also found the novelty wore off with Beethoven after a number of years. The same applies to most other composers I've been fascinated by: couldn't get enough of them for a long while and then something happened to switch my attention to another. I still like Beethoven and will never go off his music but it doesn't hold the same magic that it once did. Like trazom says, it can become wearying after a while, in my case especially the more strident orchestral works.
> 
> It would be nice, if it were possible to do so, to ask the present Beethoven fan-club how much time they have spent so far in pursuing their interest in classical music. I may be wrong but would guess that many are quite new, say within 2-3 years. It would be interesting to see how they feel about the matter in say 5 years time. I wouldn't mind betting that many of the current glowing opinions will have mellowed by that time, and that other composers will have been elevated to a higher rating than they currently possess. I'm not suggesting that Beethoven will have dropped out, only that he may be seen in a less highly revered position relatively speaking.


Beethoven just turned over in his grave along with a few other decomposed composers methinks


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Partita said:


> It would be nice, if it were possible to do so, to ask the present Beethoven fan-club how much time they have spent so far in pursuing their interest in classical music. I may be wrong but would guess that many are quite new, say within 2-3 years. It would be interesting to see how they feel about the matter in say 5 years time. I wouldn't mind betting that many of the current glowing opinions will have mellowed by that time, and that other composers will have been elevated to a higher rating than they currently possess. I'm not suggesting that Beethoven will have dropped out, only that he may be seen in a less highly revered position relatively speaking.


:tiphat: I'm sure you're right. It seems logical to start with Beethoven and move on to someone less well-known. But I expect sometimes people say to themselves that they want to be 'unconventional' and seeing the scorn poured on those who rave about Beethoven's Fifth, they miss him out and don't actually get to know the Beethoven Basics.

At any rate, I have quite a long way to go before I reach your jaded stage.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> 'That Beethoven had great difficulties in his life was joined to *the sense of struggle and difficulty in his music*, and used as the basis for an entire mythology of the role of the artist in society, and the difficulties of artistic creation.'
> This is from Wikipedia (_my italics_).
> 
> I am interested in the idea of 'sense of struggle & difficulty' because so far in this thread, the words used - 'directness' - 'confidence' - 'force' - 'sincerity' - 'heroism' - 'universal mysticism' - 'emotional intensity' - 'ineffable' - 'intensity' - 'musical dive-bomb' - don't seem quite to fit with 'sense of difficulty'.
> ...


The sense of struggle seems to be the human condition at this point in time. That barrier holding one back from being completely free... and I feel that's evident in all of Beethoven's works, as well as all the other adjectives previously used. Words can only point to a sensation, they can never carry the experience in itself. That's why there are millions of words that can be used to describe music, but they never quite fulfill it.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Been following this thread and spotted a nice link from the BBC. It has Charles Hazelwood discussing Beethoven's Second Symphony and provides a nice discussion about Beethoven and his methods. There is in fact a whole section of programs about Beethoven which I will have to explore.

Unfortunately, being the BBC, and since I am in the the UK, these are all .co.uk links rather than the international ones. Sorry about that.



Vesuvius said:


> That's why there are millions of words that can be used to describe music, but they never quite fulfill it.


See my tag line.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> :tiphat: I'm sure you're right. It seems logical to start with Beethoven and move on to someone less well-known. But I expect sometimes people say to themselves that they want to be 'unconventional' and seeing the scorn poured on those who rave about Beethoven's Fifth, they miss him out and don't actually get to know the Beethoven Basics.
> 
> At any rate, I have quite a long way to go before I reach your jaded stage.


I'm not exactly sure where you are presently "at" on the classical music path, but if you haven't yet travelled very far the good news is that are some other wonderful composers to explore, either alongside or in place of Beethoven, should you begin to feel the need to broaden out. Beethoven is an excellent starting point. Some dedicated fans don't move far away, but I would guess that many will have acquired a strong interest in up to another ten or so within a decade. There's no point me or anyone else making suggestions to you about the order of possible future composers to investigate. It's far better to work it out for yourself, as you'll otherwise risk being frustrated over not liking a composer recommended to you.


----------



## Crassus (Nov 4, 2013)

superhorn said:


> It would have been inconceivable for Haydn or Mozart to write a symphony inspired by current events,


It wouldn't, Mozart's unfinished requiem was inspired by the fact that he was literally dying.



> such as the Eroica , which Beethoven originally dedicated to Napoleon but changed his mind in rage
> when Npoleon had himself crowned emperor .


Dedicating a work to somebody ≠ Being directly inspired by this person in this work.

Beethoven himself didn't admit external influence in his music (for a good reason).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crassus said:


> It wouldn't, Mozart's unfinished requiem was inspired by the fact that he was literally dying.


When Mozart started work on the Requiem, he was already feeling unwell but there appears to have been no suspicion that he was "dying." In fact, it was a month and a half before he had to be confined to bed. Most likely the Requiem was "inspired" by the same thing that inspired many other composers in their finest work: A nice commission (in his case, 100 ducats plus a promised completion bonus from Count Franz von Walsegg.)


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

It can also be argued that Mozart wrote his music because he was good at it and there were ideas floating in his fertile mind.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Partita said:


> I also found the novelty wore off with Beethoven after a number of years.
> 
> It would be nice, if it were possible to do so, to ask the present Beethoven fan-club how much time they have spent so far in pursuing their interest in classical music.


40+ years so far in my case. Of course I don't discover much 'new' Beethoven any more (but I got a modern recording of the string trios this year which was pretty good) and the works well known to me provide few surprises, except in new interpretations. But some works still make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

I try to listen widely, and to contemporary works too, but I come back to Beethoven.

Incidentally along with 'directness' and 'force' etc. I always find in Beethoven something of a musical 'dialogue', or 'argument', with the listener (now that I am trying to put into words what I sense, this is not so easy).


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

GGluek said:


> If you not yet encountered it, find and read JWN Sullivan's "Beethoven, His Spiritual Development.


Yes, I am halfway through the book and enjoying it a lot!


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> When Mozart started work on the Requiem, he was already feeling unwell but there appears to have been no suspicion that he was "dying." In fact, it was a month and a half before he had to be confined to bed. Most likely the Requiem was "inspired" by the same thing that inspired many other composers in their finest work: A nice commission (in his case, 100 ducats plus a promised completion bonus from Count Franz von Walsegg.)


That's right. Mozart probably accepted the commission for the Requiem as early as February 1791, long before his death in December of that year. It was a work commissioned to commemorate the first anniversary of the death of Count Walsegg's wife in February 1792. Since there was no immediate urgency for the work to be completed, and because he was busy on other major works La Clemenza di Tito, the Magic Flute and the Clarinet Concerto, Mozart didn't start on the Requiem until October 1791. It was after starting the work that he began to feel unwell and eventually took to his bed. His illness became acute in late November, by which time he probably worked on it very little directly but instead continued discussions about it with Franz Sussmayr whom he had recruited to help him with the work, and died a couple of weeks later on 5 December.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GGluek said:


> If you not yet encountered it, find and read JWN Sullivan's "Beethoven, His Spiritual Development.


A great book, though the cover of the old Mentor edition can generate nightmares. I was frightened as a child by the movie "Donovan's Brain," where the brain of a master criminal was kept alive in a bell jar, pulsing, glowing, growing ever larger...


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> 40+ years so far in my case. Of course I don't discover much 'new' Beethoven any more (but I got a modern recording of the string trios this year which was pretty good) and the works well known to me provide few surprises, except in new interpretations. But some works still make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
> 
> I try to listen widely, and to contemporary works too, but I come back to Beethoven.
> 
> Incidentally along with 'directness' and 'force' etc. I always find in Beethoven something of a musical 'dialogue', or 'argument', with the listener (now that I am trying to put into words what I sense, this is not so easy).


For clarification I meant only that there was once a time when Beethoven reigned supreme in my estimation, but he is now just one among several I like especially, the others including Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann. I was speculating that something similar might also be the case for some other members of the current Beethoven fan-club, not that they would lose interest or anything like. It's little more than a statement of the obvious really, that if you start with one composer you are almost bound to seek out others in due course, some of whom you may discover you like better or equally. Tastes can and do change over time. Initial impressions with regard to preferences among composers might be permanent for some but for others they might be temporary.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Partita said:


> I also found the novelty wore off with Beethoven after a number of years. The same applies to most other composers I've been fascinated by: couldn't get enough of them for a long while and then something happened to switch my attention to another. I still like Beethoven and will never go off his music but it doesn't hold the same magic that it once did. Like trazom says, it can become wearying after a while, in my case especially the more strident orchestral works.
> 
> It would be nice, if it were possible to do so, to ask the present Beethoven fan-club how much time they have spent so far in pursuing their interest in classical music. I may be wrong but would guess that many are quite new, say within 2-3 years. It would be interesting to see how they feel about the matter in say 5 years time. I wouldn't mind betting that many of the current glowing opinions will have mellowed by that time, and that other composers will have been elevated to a higher rating than they currently possess. I'm not suggesting that Beethoven will have dropped out, only that he may be seen in a less highly revered position relatively speaking.


Not unlike my own experience. When I started collecting and exploring classical music on CD's in the late 80s, he was the first composer that I explored in great depth in terms of number of works. I quickly bought all symphonies, all concertos, all piano sonatas, all string quartets, the Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, and a number of other CD's. But, satisfying as I found them at the time, I rarely play them anymore - and when I do, more often than not, I am disappointed. Unlike composers such as Bach, Brahms, Mahler and Schubert, who have remained a steady part of my listening.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

The idea that the attraction of music can pall over time is unexceptional. However, perhaps part of the 'thisness' of LvB is that his staying power is likely greater for more individuals than other composers. In other words, more people listen to his work over a greater length of time - though not necessarily exhaustively so.

I stress I'm not advancing that as an assertion - I have no evidence except that this is indicated by his enduring popularity. I'm posing it as a possibility that might be verifiable - if someone would do (or has done) the research.

For this to be connected to his 'thisness', we would still have to say what it is about his music that attracts people for longer. I would endorse the idea that it is his drive, power, confidence, assertiveness that is most attractive, and perhaps the very same virtue that can ultimately cause a waning of his appeal.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

> ...Mozart's unfinished requiem was inspired by the fact that he was literally dying.


It just occurred to me, Schubert's D.960 piano sonata fits this description quite well.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> It just occurred to me, Schubert's D.960 piano sonata fits this description quite well.


It can't be taken for granted that Schubert knew that he was dying when he wrote D 960 in 1828. He had known for several years that he had a terminal illness (since early 1823) but had no idea when he would die. He was certainly ill during his last few months but as far as he was concerned he didn't know for sure what was wrong with him, but may have thought it was because he was writing so much that it exhausted him. A week before he died, and some 2 months or so after completing the last 3 sonatas, he asked his brother what was wrong with him, indicating that he may have had no idea of his impending death even at that late stage. He probably didn't die of syphilis anyway, the more likely cause being typhoid fever. In any case, D 960 is nowhere near as dark and foreboding as some of his other works written a lot earlier, Piano Sonata No 14, D 784 written in 1823 after he received news of his condition, being a good example.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

It is not only the generally strident and dynamic feature of Beethoven's orchestral music that give rises to both appeal but possible weariness among some listeners after some years of listening. Again I stress "some" listeners as this obviously does not apply to all.

Another area of his music where a degree of tedium can eventually be experienced is in his chamber music. For a time most of it sounds truly delightful and wonderfully integrated. However after several years of listening to it can begin to sound rather boring especially between violin and piano parts with each calling and responding to each other in a rather tedious manner: piano: '_here I am_'; violin '_yes I hear you, how are you_' type of thing going on virtually all the time.

I think it was Debussy, who thought that the influence of Beethoven was still far too great towards the end of the 19th C, who especially didn't like this kind of predictable dialogue, and broke with tradition in writing far less discursive chamber music. Ravel followed similarly, and both composers produced some refreshingly different music based on a more impressionistic style with far less predictability of interplay between instruments. Much as I like the latter style of music, it is nevertheless very enjoyable to go back occasionally and listen again to Beethoven.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. Near as I can tell, Debussy's problem with Beethoven is that he was German, and responsible (in Debussy's estimation) for 'Germanizing' European music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

Ukko said:


> Hah. Near as I can tell, Debussy's problem with Beethoven is that he was German, and responsible (in Debussy's estimation) for 'Germanizing' European music.


I noted that Debussy didn't like Beethoven's continued stranglehold on music which continued into the late 19th Century. I don't believe that the reason for this dislike was so much a nationality issue but more a stylistic objection to retention of the old compositional methods, which Debussy thought were tired and in need of modernising. He offered a change in the form of impressionism.

If you think it was mainly a nationalistic objection, what's the evidence for that? Impressionist music doesn't involve nationalistic features at all. If it was solely a nationalistic objection about Beethoven being German and there not being enough non-German music then Debussy would have had an easier job in simply writing more of the same old stuff as before but as a French composer.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Partita said:


> I noted that Debussy didn't like Beethoven's continued stranglehold on music which continued into the late 19th Century. I don't believe that the reason for this dislike was so much a nationality issue but more a stylistic objection to retention of the old compositional methods, which Debussy thought were tired and in need of modernising. He offered a change in the form of impressionism.
> 
> If you think it was mainly a nationalistic objection, what's the evidence for that? Impressionist music doesn't involve nationalistic
> traits at all. If it was solely a nationalistic objection then Debussy would have had an easier job in simply writing more of the same old stuff as before but as a French composer.


So much for my neatly combed ideas of French Impressionism and German Expressionism.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Partita said:


> It can't be taken for granted that Schubert knew that he was dying when he wrote D 960 in 1828. He had known for several years that he had a terminal illness (since early 1823) but had no idea when he would die. He was certainly ill during his last few months but as far as he was concerned he didn't know for sure what was wrong with him, but may have thought it was because he was writing so much that it exhausted him. A week before he died, and some 2 months or so after completing the last 3 sonatas, he asked his brother what was wrong with him, indicating that he may have had no idea of his impending death even at that late stage. He probably didn't die of syphilis anyway, the more likely cause being typhoid fever. In any case, D 960 is nowhere near as dark and foreboding as some of his other works written a lot earlier, Piano Sonata No 14, D 784 written in 1823 after he received news of his condition, being a good example.


Of course, it cannot be taken for granted. I went back and heard the D 784 sonata and while it is somewhat 'dark', the D 960 sonata has something else. I did not only mean 'dark' when I said it sounded like a 'final' piece by Schubert. Foremost, it has an ethereal and 'removed' beauty which sounds in itself like a departure of some sort. It is not music evoking troubled emotions, but music which is like a bittersweet rememberance, a detached consideration of one's existence... again all my own thoughts and opinions.

Gorgeous music, any which way.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Partita said:


> I noted that Debussy didn't like Beethoven's continued stranglehold on music which continued into the late 19th Century. I don't believe that the reason for this dislike was so much a nationality issue but more a stylistic objection to retention of the old compositional methods, which Debussy thought were tired and in need of modernising. He offered a change in the form of impressionism.
> 
> If you think it was mainly a nationalistic objection, what's the evidence for that? Impressionist music doesn't involve nationalistic features at all. If it was solely a nationalistic objection about Beethoven being German and there not being enough non-German music then Debussy would have had an easier job in simply writing more of the same old stuff as before but as a French composer.


The 'evidence', such as it is, has appeared in the writings of people much more authoritative (that wouldn't take much) than I am. A Google search could come up with such, maybe. Debussy just liked to sail his own boat. A quite unfair assignation of reasoning for that is that if one's boat is non-standard enough, it may be difficult to determine whether or not it is well-built. Whatever Debussy's reasoning, it really is a well-built boat.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

Ukko said:


> The 'evidence', such as it is, has appeared in the writings of people much more authoritative (that wouldn't take much) than I am. A Google search could come up with such, maybe. Debussy just liked to sail his own boat. A quite unfair assignation of reasoning for that is that if one's boat is non-standard enough, it may be difficult to determine whether or not it is well-built. Whatever Debussy's reasoning, it really is a well-built boat.


As far as I recall, Debussy's own writings on his feelings towards Beethoven or his music are unclear and ambiguous. He was at times complimentary about Beethoven's great achievements but felt that there was a need for change. Ravel was a more outspoken critic of Beethoven's style of music.

It doesn't make any sense to me that Debussy pioneered Impressionism mainly or solely because he didn't like Beethoven's nationality or that he resented the fact that the most common source of classical music was by German speaking composers.

Far more plausible is that Debussy felt the need to move forward from the constraints of the Beethovenian compositional structure, which he considered had outlived its usefulness and kept alive only by unwarranted adulation of Beethoven.


----------



## BillT (Nov 3, 2013)

*He has something to say*

To me, Beethoven seems always to have _*something to say*_ -- similar to the great jazz artists that I like. That "something" is personal to me. Many other composers (to me) have very nice music, interesting, listenable, but not passionate and personal.

This "something to say" has always been an interesting concept to me. Great vocal artists seem to use their voice "as an instrument" -- and good instrumental artists seem to use their instrument to "say something". How does _that_ work?

My first TC post!

- Bill


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Partita said:


> As far as I recall, Debussy's own writings on his feelings towards Beethoven or his music are unclear and ambiguous. He was at times complimentary about Beethoven's great achievements but felt that there was a need for change. Ravel was a more outspoken critic of Beethoven's style of music.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense to me that Debussy pioneered Impressionism mainly or solely because he didn't like Beethoven's nationality or that he resented the fact that the most common source of classical music was by German speaking composers.
> 
> Far more plausible is that Debussy felt the need to move forward from the constraints of the Beethovenian compositional structure, which he considered had outlived its usefulness and kept alive only by unwarranted adulation of Beethoven.


1) It doesn't have to make sense to you. 2) 'Main or solely' are your words, not mine. 3) Your last paragraph confounds your own argument, assuming that Beethoven was a German.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

BillT said:


> To me, Beethoven seems always to have _*something to say*_ -- similar to the great jazz artists that I like. That "something" is personal to me. Many other composers (to me) have very nice music, interesting, listenable, but not passionate and personal.
> 
> This "something to say" has always been an interesting concept to me. Great vocal artists seem to use their voice "as an instrument" -- and good instrumental artists seem to use their instrument to "say something". How does _that_ work?
> 
> ...


And a very nice post too! :tiphat:
Welcome to TalkClassical.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Partita said:


> I noted that Debussy didn't like Beethoven's continued stranglehold on music which continued into the late 19th Century. I don't believe that the reason for this dislike was so much a nationality issue but more a stylistic objection to retention of the old compositional methods, which Debussy thought were tired and in need of modernising. He offered a change in the form of impressionism.
> 
> If you think it was mainly a nationalistic objection, what's the evidence for that? Impressionist music doesn't involve nationalistic features at all. If it was solely a nationalistic objection about Beethoven being German and there not being enough non-German music then Debussy would have had an easier job in simply writing more of the same old stuff as before but as a French composer.


OK As @Ukko has said a quick google will find things out. I've just started The Rest is Noise (serendipity) and am in the middle of the war chapter. Ross is quite clear that Debussy was against "Austro Boche miasmas .. spreading through art." ( letter to Stravinsky)

See also Debussy's Nationalism. Wiki notes that "he believed that Beethoven had terrifically profound things to say, but that he did not know how to say them, because he was imprisoned in a web of incessant restatement and of German aggressiveness." (Roger Nichols (2003). Debussy Remembered)

Nonetheless, Beethoven has much to say and moves from the classical sonata to the romantic symphony. Interestingly, one of Beethoven's main channels of influence was through the work of his pupil - Czerny - who in many ways influenced piano playing throughout the 19th century.


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

I'm waiting for those who complain that music can't "say" anything (because words belong to language which is a different means of communicating) to point out that Beethoven can't have had anything to "say".


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I'm waiting for those who complain that music can't "say" anything (because words belong to language which is a different means of communicating) to point out that Beethoven can't have had anything to "say".


Stravinsky aside, Beethoven obviously has something to say to at least some people. Here's a quote, used in another thread, from the Good Prof. Burnham:

"Safely removed from speech, music allows us to escape to older, more comforting notions of the centrality of self... The values of self instantiated by Beethoven's heroic style have long been outmoded philosophically, shucked away as the absurd wrappings of what is now thought to be an absent center. Our continued acceptance in the musico-aesthetic marketplace of such defunct philosophical currency is an indication that such currency still buys us something we value, something no longer dreamt of in our philosophy."


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Stravinsky aside, Beethoven obviously has something to say to at least some people. Here's a quote, used in another thread, from the Good Prof. Burnham:
> 
> "Safely removed from speech, music allows us to escape to older, more comforting notions of the centrality of self... The values of self instantiated by Beethoven's heroic style have long been outmoded philosophically, shucked away as the absurd wrappings of what is now thought to be an absent center. Our continued acceptance in the musico-aesthetic marketplace of such defunct philosophical currency is an indication that such currency still buys us something we value, something no longer dreamt of in our philosophy."


I guess I'm in lazy Saturday evening mode...but I didn't understand this when I read it in the other thread, and it makes no better sense to me in this one!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Stravinsky aside, Beethoven obviously has something to say to at least some people. Here's a quote, used in another thread, from the Good Prof. Burnham:
> 
> "Safely removed from speech, music allows us to escape to older, more comforting notions of the centrality of self... The values of self instantiated by Beethoven's heroic style have long been outmoded philosophically, shucked away as the absurd wrappings of what is now thought to be an absent center. Our continued acceptance in the musico-aesthetic marketplace of such defunct philosophical currency is an indication that such currency still buys us something we value, something no longer dreamt of in our philosophy."


For some reason the material you quote makes me chuckle - and I don't know why. Maybe the unity the author suggests in modern philosophy? Nah, that can't be it.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I just about puzzled out that it's to do with the philosophical denial of selfhood, but the quote leaves me feeling disappointed - it's that image of unwrapping three layers of gold foil round a chocolate, only to find that it's hollow... just when I was hoping for a raspberry creme.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "Safely removed from speech, music allows us to escape to older, more comforting notions of the centrality of self... The values of self instantiated by Beethoven's heroic style have long been outmoded philosophically, shucked away as the absurd wrappings of what is now thought to be an absent center. Our continued acceptance in the musico-aesthetic marketplace of such defunct philosophical currency is an indication that such currency still buys us something we value, something no longer dreamt of in our philosophy."


I agree with this. Music of our own times which is of an intellectual nature tends towards nihilism or deconstruction as philosophical ideals. There is more and more disorder and lack of structure which is present in present-day classical music. Older music is from an era when perhaps philosophical ideas were not as advanced and the self was a more sacrosanct entity. People still believed in God and Creation and science was by today's standards, largely undeveloped. Thus, this music tends to be more "centred".

I often feel a dilemma over this kind of thing. Do I listen to the music of the 17th and 18th century which is dare I say, essentially more "human" and "fleshly"? Or do I listen to the music of my own times, music which aligns with the current state of affairs, which at any rate should be more important for me than what happened centuries ago? In fact, I have experienced a "simplification" of emotions when I overdosed on classical music and that is when I heard some grunge or shoegaze to return to the 21st century...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I guess I'm in lazy Saturday evening mode...but I didn't understand this when I read it in the other thread, and it makes no better sense to me in this one!


You have to read it eight times before it starts to make sense. This is a very *simplified* example of the good professor's style!


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I just about puzzled out that it's to do with the philosophical denial of selfhood, but the quote leaves me feeling disappointed - it's that image of unwrapping three layers of gold foil round a chocolate, only to find that it's hollow... just when I was hoping for a raspberry creme.


Thanks for the pointer.

However, the quote leaves me thinking that it's writer has, to copy someone posting rude things about me on another forum, "a boot the size of China in their ***."

I think I can pontificate quite well when I fancy it, but some academics really take the biscuit: I'm in the Skrill Southern League, while they're in the Premiership!

(Sorry, I'm watching _Match of the Day_ while typing this!)


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Stravinsky aside, Beethoven obviously has something to say to at least some people. Here's a quote, used in another thread, from the Good Prof. Burnham:
> 
> "Safely removed from speech, music allows us to escape to older, more comforting notions of the centrality of self... The values of self instantiated by Beethoven's heroic style have long been outmoded philosophically, shucked away as the absurd wrappings of what is now thought to be an absent center. Our continued acceptance in the musico-aesthetic marketplace of such defunct philosophical currency is an indication that such currency still buys us something we value, something no longer dreamt of in our philosophy."


I'm not sure what he means by this. Is he referring to older music being more heavily influenced by religious beliefs, or an existence outside of this material world? If so, is he saying that this is no longer contemplated in philosophy, and that this characteristic of music is futile?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> I'm not sure what he means by this. Is he referring to older music being more heavily influenced by religious beliefs, or an existence outside of this material world? If so, is he saying that this is no longer contemplated in philosophy, and that this characteristic of music is futile?


I think he means that the "philosophical baggage" of Beethoven's music says that we matter, in and of ourselves, that we are unique and valuable beings, that we are capable of improvement toward some ideal. Basically, that if we look within ourselves, there's something there, something important. He is suggesting that this view is today somewhat old-fashioned -- not sure I agree with that, however.

Maybe somebody else can address the question, getting us thoroughly off-topic but in a pleasant way.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I think he means that the "philosophical baggage" of Beethoven's music says that we matter, in and of ourselves, that we are unique and valuable beings, that we are capable of improvement toward some ideal. Basically, that if we look within ourselves, there's something there, something important. He is suggesting that this view is today somewhat old-fashioned -- not sure I agree with that, however.
> 
> Maybe somebody else can address the question, getting us thoroughly off-topic but in a pleasant way.


I thought that's what he meant... and I disagree. I'm not a religious person in the least, but I will say that there is something very beautiful and majestic about life and the ability to be consciously participating in it. It truly is a wonder.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> I thought that's what he meant... and I disagree. I'm not a religious person in the least, but I will say that there is something very beautiful and majestic about life and the ability to be consciously participating in it. It truly is a wonder.


I think the Good Professor disagrees as well. He suggests that in our "marketplace of the soul" Beethoven is still a highly valued commodity, even though prevailing philosophies denigrate the value of the self.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I think the Good Professor disagrees as well. He suggests that in our "marketplace of the soul" Beethoven is still a highly valued commodity, even though prevailing philosophies denigrate the value of the self.


For anyone to so casually shrug the mystery and majesty of life off because of their obsession with their own intelligence shows great arrogance and ignorance... as they honestly don't know either. There's no need to have any religious beliefs if that's not your deal, it's not mine either. But if one is going to be reasonably intelligent, then at least use it well and understand that there are many things left unexplained.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I just took a break from listening to any music for 2-3 days (was watching the first Ashes test) and just came back and listened to Beethoven's 5th and 7th and I think I gained another little glimpse of that "heroic" aspect of his music. The way he introduces the first movement of the 7th symphony is just sublime - he is trying to impress a forceful and almost cyclonic solemnness on the listener - all the time through a brilliance and depth, it's like a king walking into his court at mid-day.

There's this passion which is at once the most important thing - his music is free of intellectualism and sentimentality, he is not expounding a method to understand the *thing* but is directing you, urging you, beckoning you to the *thing itself.*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As in the 5th symphony, I find Beethoven very adept at "keeping a musical conversation going." Foremost, he had a desire to communicate. You sense that he is "orating" to an audience, which includes you. Simple ideas, on one level, are stated in various ways by the orchestra; these ideas are elaborated on, and become something more in the process. These are amazing works, still.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I said something about Bruckner at the beginning of this thread. Something not nice. Today, I take that back. Thank you.


----------



## aakermit (Nov 23, 2013)

Partita said:


> I also found the novelty wore off with Beethoven after a number of years. The same applies to most other composers I've been fascinated by: couldn't get enough of them for a long while and then something happened to switch my attention to another. I still like Beethoven and will never go off his music but it doesn't hold the same magic that it once did. Like trazom says, it can become wearying after a while, in my case especially the more strident orchestral works.
> 
> It would be nice, if it were possible to do so, to ask the present Beethoven fan-club how much time they have spent so far in pursuing their interest in classical music. I may be wrong but would guess that many are quite new, say within 2-3 years. It would be interesting to see how they feel about the matter in say 5 years time. I wouldn't mind betting that many of the current glowing opinions will have mellowed by that time, and that other composers will have been elevated to a higher rating than they currently possess. I'm not suggesting that Beethoven will have dropped out, only that he may be seen in a less highly revered position relatively speaking.


Although I have listened to classical music periodically over my adult life it is only very recently that I have developed a keen interest if not a passion for it. I am gradually educating myself to the genre and find that at present I seem to be becoming obsessed with Beethoven. He is BIG and at least on superficial level seems to be somewhat understood by a novice like me. Perhaps with time and education I will be less enamored with Beethoven, but for now I am loving this obsession!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

aakermit said:


> Although I have listened to classical music periodically over my adult life it is only very recently that I have developed a keen interest if not a passion for it. I am gradually educating myself to the genre and find that at present I seem to be becoming obsessed with Beethoven. He is BIG and at least on superficial level seems to be somewhat understood by a novice like me. Perhaps with time and education I will be less enamored with Beethoven, but for now I am loving this obsession!


Actually, I'll bet that you'll begin to garner a deeper appreciation for Beethoven as your experience grows. Now, it probably has a high novelty factor. But in time, that novelty will turn into a more refined understanding of what Beethoven actually did. Enjoy!

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2013)

In answer to the OP, the 'thisness' of Beethoven can be very well compared by the CD whose link I give here :
http://www.harmoniamundi.com/#/albums?id=1809

I'll make a few comments on the 'What are you listening to now' thread if anyone would care to read my risible thoughts.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

I lay no claim to any greatness, on the contrary I am an expert babbler and dabbler in mediocrity; but I know, over the years, when I have worked/played improvisationally in my music-making, there have been rare, brief moments where, in the refinement of a particular phrase or passage, I have an absolute sense that what happens next must be this, rather than that or anything else. There is a progression that is right, neither a treacly obvious cliché, nor some random thing that sort of sounds okay.

I see in Beethoven's work the record of someone so thoroughly immersed in his practice that what he writes has a sustained inevitability to it. It is not an inevitability due to some mystical foo-bird dropping the notes into his head; rather, it is a musical instinct first finely honed by knowing what the conventions and practice should be, then applied to discovery of surprising yet still inevitable steps that seem logical alternatives. It is a freedom to improvise generated out of mastery of the known forms, to the point where those forms are both instinct and consciously understood.

I feel any "great" composer has more of this capability, and the energy to direct it, than those around her or him. True in literature as well. Shakespeare.

"Lesser" composers have a tendency to either repeat the known without being able to do much with it other than replicate it; or, they "innovate" in ways that are random enough to lose any interesting connection with anything. The latter work becomes so sui generis, self-referential, that it remains inaccessible to all but the very few dedicated to plunging into the study of the unique terms of that composer's language, and more often than not there is as much dross as substance discovered as a result. I think of much of Ezra Pound's The Cantos (not all of it) as in this latter category, as an example.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> In answer to the OP, the 'thisness' of Beethoven can be very well compared by the CD whose link I give here :
> http://www.harmoniamundi.com/#/albums?id=1809
> 
> I'll make a few comments on the 'What are you listening to now' thread if anyone would care to read my risible thoughts.


Yes. Have you posted something there yet? - I haven't noticed if you have.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Yes. Have you posted something there yet? - I haven't noticed if you have.


Yes, he did: http://www.talkclassical.com/1005-current-listening-3222.html#post563857


----------

