# How Beethoven Ruined Classical Music



## MatthewWeflen

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3617581/How-Beethoven-ruined-classical-music.html

This must be one of the great ****-takings I've ever read on the internet, which is saying something.



> Beethoven certainly changed the way that people thought about music, but this was a change for the worse. From the speculations of Pythagoras about the "music of the spheres" in ancient Greece onwards, most Western musicians had agreed that musical beauty was based on a mysterious connection between sound and mathematics, and that this provided music with an objective goal, something that transcended the individual composer's idiosyncrasies and aspired to the universal. Beethoven managed to put an end to this noble tradition by inaugurating a barbaric U-turn away from an other-directed music to an inward-directed, narcissistic focus on the composer himself and his own tortured soul.


----------



## KenOC

> This was a ghastly inversion that led slowly but inevitably to the awful atonal music of Schönberg and Webern.


I have often thought this but have been too polite to say so. Ludwig, say you're sorry!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

KenOC said:


> I have often thought this but have been too polite to say so. Ludwig, say you're sorry!


I wonder what else we might be able to pin on Ludwig's horrid wrong turn?


----------



## Woodduck

"A mysterious connection between sound and mathematics" that provides music with "an objective goal, something that transcended the individual composer's idiosyncrasies and aspired to the universal" sounds ominously like total serialism. If Beethoven ruined music, he didn't do an adequate job of it. Still, we got Wagner along the way back to the "objective universal," and he's been accused of ruining music too.


----------



## joen_cph

This seems to be the guy - a colourful CV:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Evans
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/dylanevans


----------



## arnerich

With Beethoven, and even Mozart to a degree, we really start to see an association between the artwork and the genius of the individual. 

Contrast that mentality with the medieval era and gothic cathedrals; where multiple brilliant unknown sculptures and architects collaborated. They weren't seen as individual artists, they were craftsmen. Orson Welles said of Chartres Cathedral 

"Now this has been standing here for centuries. The premier work of man perhaps in the whole western world and it’s without a signature"


----------



## JAS26

I see that the article was written in 2005.

I'm beginning to feel a bit dis-illusioned with LvB in the light of this. It might be technically excellent work, but now that I've heard quite a lot of it I tend to agree that some of it is very turgid, and has that "overworked" feel about it. I make no wonder it died out. Later styles appeal to me more.


----------



## Guest

joen_cph said:


> This seems to be the guy - a colourful CV:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Evans
> https://www.theguardian.com/profile/dylanevans


And provocative too. Here's a paragraph from his review of Furedi's _Where Have All The Intellectuals Gone_?



> Future generations will look back on this decade as a period of far-reaching and hotly debated changes at all levels of the British education system. What their verdict will be, however, is far from certain. According to those in the current Labour government, they will regard these changes as having ushered in a golden age of educational opportunity for all. According to others, our grandchildren will curse us for having deprived them of all contact with the best that has been thought and said in the world. Or they will simply wallow in ignorance, unaware of their cultural poverty.


The Beethoven article was originally in The Guardian, headlined "Beethoven was a narcissistic hooligan."

Is such polemic helpful to debate?


----------



## DaveM

Well, I’m always interested in hearing new ideas, but I’ve also learned to separate the results of intelligent thought from that of the wandering mind of a flake desperate to be relevant and noticed.


----------



## fliege

joen_cph said:


> This seems to be the guy - a colourful CV:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Evans
> https://www.theguardian.com/profile/dylanevans


Oh... _Him!_ I read the Utopia Experiment. Interesting, but crazy. Here he is talking about. He sadly ended up with mental health problems from the strain after it collapsed. He recovered, though.

The article on Beethoven seems mostly pretty silly, TBH. You know it's ahole when you read
"_Western musicians had agreed that musical beauty was based on a mysterious connection between sound and mathematics, and that this provided music with an objective goal, something that transcended the individual composer's idiosyncrasies and aspired to the universal. _"


----------



## Enthusiast

The aesthetic behind music has been through several major changes over the last 300 hundred years and I guess there have always been people who love the work of one period and cannot get over that to arrive at an appreciation of other periods. Fair enough (although they are missing so much) but it seems they also often need to theorise about the differences in ways that justify and to objectify as true their own discrimination. Is this down to some sort of insecurity that they can't enjoy what so many others enjoy greatly? Whatever the reason it is a doomed endeavour. Beethoven's music is just so great and includes so many wonderful things. I almost feel sympathy for those who find themselves unable to enjoy it.


----------



## flamencosketches

> Above all, Mozart's music shares with that of Bach an exuberant commitment to the Enlightenment values of clarity, reason, optimism and wit.


Hmm... this guy either has no idea what he's talking about, or he's never heard a Bach piece in his life and just wanted to use the name to support his ridiculous conclusion.


----------



## TxllxT

About Beethoven's contemporary Johann Wolfgang von Goethe more or less the same can be said: He professed to be a Christian who didn't believe in Christ anymore, thereby changing the meaning of 'Christian' into a Spinozist narcissistic one. This is typical Sturm und Drang.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm not sure what that means but do not see why a Christian has to believe in Christ. Isn't believing in the teachings ascribed to Jesus what counts? Surely, the rest is a belief in magic and a very unreliable account of some Middle Eastern history.


----------



## apricissimus

I've heard that equal-temperament ruined music. But I dunno, I think music is still pretty good.


----------



## apricissimus

He brings up the connection between music and mathematics. There is some connection, but it's just not something that has ever been meaningful to me. I have much more training in mathematics than I do in music, so maybe if I had studied music more, the connections would be more apparent.

I mean, I _know_ intellectually what the connections are, but when I listen to music, I don't think, "Ah, listen to the lovely ratios in that chord!" For me at least there's a more immediate reaction to the way certain sounds come together and I don't stop to think about the math of it all.

I personally think it's a bit ridiculous to pine for the days of Pythagoras when music was "pure."


----------



## apricissimus

Some people seem to think that there's some objective good in music that's somehow based on scientific principles (the "mathematical beauty" of it). When really of course it's as messy and complicated as any cultural or artistic endeavor is, and it more a reflection of our cultural practices than any mathematical or objective reality.


----------



## EdwardBast

The article is stupid on multiple levels. There is no substance worth critiquing. But: The connection between math and music for the Ancient Greeks wasn't something quasi-mystical. It was practical and empirical. His assumption that Beethoven's music is personally rather than universally expressive has no basis. He's just trying to wind people up. A hack.


----------



## Agamemnon

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3617581/How-Beethoven-ruined-classical-music.html
> 
> This must be one of the great ****-takings I've ever read on the internet, which is saying something.


I feel that a lot of current threads come together in this one. Of course Dylan Evans is right that in Beethoven music took a subjectivist turn: Beethoven 'started' Romanticism after all, right? Basically, modernity is in essence the subjectivist turn in all domains of life: e.g. democracy and liberalism is simply subjectivism in politics (everybody is right and everyone's feelings matter) and even religion became a subjectivist thus private matter ('secularization'). And I believe Hegel - a contemporary of Beethoven - rightly foresaw the end of everything, including history and art, because of this subjectivism (if everything becomes 'the mind' then we can do without the body so philosophy will make art obsolete as the freedom of all people makes history fulfilled).

But Evans is not right about Schonberg. As another thread is called 'The swing of the pendulum', history does not come to an end in a straight linear fashion but dialectically: everything produces it's negation. So I think modernism is a new kind of Enlightment aesthetics ('classical') as postmodernism is a new kind of Romanticism. In any case, I believe it is no coincidence that e.g. Stravinsky was both a modernist and a neoclassicist and likewise is Schonberg's music very rational, very Enlightment instead of Romantic. Indeed, Schonberg regarded himself foremost as a student of Mozart!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

apricissimus said:


> Some people seem to think that there's some objective good in music that's somehow based on scientific principles (the "mathematical beauty" of it). When really of course it's as messy and complicated as any cultural or artistic endeavor is, and it more a reflection of our cultural practices than any mathematical or objective reality.


Indeed: did humans discover mathematics, or invent it? Even the supposedly austere "laws" of science, logic, and mathematics are human products, and reflect our beliefs and foibles as much if note more than they reflect the nature of the universe.

I find the opinion piece provocative in its perverse bull-headedness. Does it contain the nugget of a truth? Maybe. Perhaps Beethoven strikes a more individualist tone than some previous composers. But to that I have a hard time not replying "so what?" As long as I can find something to relate to (and I can, for more than I can in "mathematical" or "universalist" composers like Bach), is it some horrible offense to inject more emotional variety and depth into music?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Personally, I'd blame Beethoven for Trump, Brexit, the instability in the Middle East, and of course the fire at Notre Dame.

That said, I suspect he was quite good for the long-term development of music.


----------



## apricissimus

Blame Beethoven for a dearth of 10th symphonies.


----------



## fliege

apricissimus said:


> He brings up the connection between music and mathematics. There is some connection, but it's just not something that has ever been meaningful to me. I have much more training in mathematics than I do in music, so maybe if I had studied music more, the connections would be more apparent.
> 
> I mean, I _know_ intellectually what the connections are, but when I listen to music, I don't think, "Ah, listen to the lovely ratios in that chord!" For me at least there's a more immediate reaction to the way certain sounds come together and I don't stop to think about the math of it all.


It's not just you, I doubt anyone does. I'm sure we find pretty and concise mathematical ways of describing visual art also (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12320) but it won't mean anything.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3617581/How-Beethoven-ruined-classical-music.html
> 
> This must be one of the great ****-takings I've ever read on the internet, which is saying something.


Article written by someone seeking to justify his pointless and untalented existence.


----------



## MarkW

And certainly Leonardo ruined art because he introduced perspective, and Shakespeare drama because he made characters "real," and Cervantes literature . . .


----------



## philoctetes

Beethoven is to music what upholstery is to furniture, a mattress to a bed, a cloth to a table, a curtain to a window, a rainbow to a storm, fascia to architecture, trees to a mountain... roll over Ludwig...


----------



## Agamemnon

apricissimus said:


> He brings up the connection between music and mathematics. There is some connection, but it's just not something that has ever been meaningful to me. I have much more training in mathematics than I do in music, so maybe if I had studied music more, the connections would be more apparent.
> 
> I mean, I _know_ intellectually what the connections are, but when I listen to music, I don't think, "Ah, listen to the lovely ratios in that chord!" For me at least there's a more immediate reaction to the way certain sounds come together and I don't stop to think about the math of it all.
> 
> I personally think it's a bit ridiculous to pine for the days of Pythagoras when music was "pure."


Actually, almost all of the modernist music - Babbitt, Messiaen, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis - was heavily informed by mathematics which is perhaps the clearest link of rationality (above expression of feelings) between classical music (Haydn, Mozart) and modernist music.

Read e.g. this lecture:
iveyt.people.cofc.edu/HonsLectures/Lecture21.pdf

Modernist music was all about organization, including the deliberate omission of any organization (John Cage!): "some composers migrated from one camp to the other, and what both camps had in common was an approach to composition informed by mathematics."


----------



## apricissimus

Agamemnon said:


> Actually, almost all of the modernist music - Babbitt, Messiaen, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis - was heavily informed by mathematics which is perhaps the clearest link of rationality (above expression of feelings) between classical music (Haydn, Mozart) and modernist music.
> 
> Read e.g. this lecture:
> iveyt.people.cofc.edu/HonsLectures/Lecture21.pdf
> 
> Modernist music was all about organization, including the deliberate omission of any organization (John Cage!): "some composers migrated from one camp to the other, and what both camps had in common was an approach to composition informed by mathematics."


Okay, but I don't experience music that way, which is all I was saying.

For me personally, if there's some mathematical structure behind some music, it's interesting to me only for the "musical" experience that it might evoke in me. The math itself is really secondary. (I'm not putting down math; I've devoted a significant part of my life to studying mathematics.)

To use one of your examples, if a composer intentionally avoids pattern or organization, I might find that musically interesting for the feeling of restlessness or the feeling of being unsettled (perhaps), and not because of the structure used to bring about that feeling.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense. But I think if you like the mathematical part of music, you might as well just do mathematics. You'll have a better time.


----------



## Enthusiast

Agamemnon said:


> .... in Beethoven music took a subjectivist turn: Beethoven 'started' Romanticism after all, right? Basically, modernity is in essence the subjectivist turn in all domains of life: e.g. democracy and liberalism is simply subjectivism in politics (everybody is right and everyone's feelings matter) and even religion became a subjectivist thus private matter ('secularization').


I found this quite stimulating. But, sad to say, I don't think I agree. I am not sure that Romanticism actually equals or even delivers subjectivism. And I do not think that democracy (let alone liberalism) are subjectivism in politics. How or why? In most of our democracies a majority gets what they voted for while the rest do not. And that is before you get into the ways that vested interests can manipulate results. And I am not sure that your timeline for arguing that religion has become a subjectivist. I think there have been many times in history when most religious practice among lay folk was a private matter. Maybe I am missing your point in this?


----------



## millionrainbows

I've always had my own ideas about this, which invariably get laughed-off as religious drivel.
It's possible to construe that the system of tonality itself, based on an hierarchy of sonance in relation to a single tonic note, as the harmonics of a fundamental note relate, is a "sacred" concept, since it relates every diverse harmonic function to a tonic, which becomes the "great note,' metaphorically representing God, "the one" (1:1). 
These harmonic functions of Western tonality, expressed as simple ratios, are based on the division of the octave into 12 notes, which was derived from Pythagoras' (imperfect) cycling of the 2:3 perfect fifth, with its inverted counterpart, the 4:5 perfect fourth.
•The Western represents an objective, outer system which must be approached in a receptive (and many times literal) belief in a God 'out there' which is part of the objective scheme of things.

•The Eastern represents a 'going within,' a diametric reversal, where we are connected internally with the sacred.
Taking this metaphor further, tonality can be seen as the embodiment of a Newtonian universe, a universe based on "gravity" and in keeping with a church-based view of Man, that God is the center of all things.

So, by Beethoven "going within," he was going contrary to the established religious order, of which simple tonality is a reflection. Thus, chromaticism creeps in, with more modulation. We reach Wagner. Then, the whole thing falls apart, leading into atonality, or serialism, which can be metaphorically seen as the dissolution of the Newtonian universe, and of gravity, into a relativistic, Einsteinian universe, in which Man is insignificant by comparison to the stars. Historically, this reflects the diminishing power of the church, and increasing secularism and a new scientific realism which now pervades.


----------



## Bulldog

CnC Bartok said:


> Personally, I'd blame Beethoven for Trump, Brexit, the instability in the Middle East, and of course the fire at Notre Dame.


Don't forget that Beethoven also ruined Christmas. Trump will have more on this at a later date.


----------



## paulbest

JAS26 said:


> I see that the article was written in 2005.
> 
> I'm beginning to feel a bit dis-illusioned with LvB in the light of this. It might be technically excellent work, but now that I've heard quite a lot of it I tend to agree that some of it is very turgid, and has that "overworked" feel about it. I make no wonder it died out. Later styles appeal to me more.


 In my beggings with classical, over 35 yrs ago,,i intuitively felt LvB was not for me, felt more inevitably drawn to all things Mozart.

It was in my comparison 's between the Klempere and Bruno Walter that I made the realization, that his music was not agreeing with me. The 4th sym was my last stand with Beethoven, , I held on to that one for another year or so, then parted ways forever.

I tried to google Ravel's comments on LvB, where Debussy had to chastise the younger composer to *tone it downa bit*, Both Debussy and Ravel felt LvB was a master orchestrator, structurally, that can not be denied. 
But both went on to say, the musical content is lacking, something is sorely missing.
Here is a clip from Bernstein's interview,,,yet you can also find other YT uploads of Lenny speaking high (hyperbolish) lofty praises for Beethoven's music. 
But its too high of speech, not believable.
Note all music critics speaking of both Beethoven and Mozart,,the descripts are different,. Mozart is discussed in with a exquisite style language.

So perhaps intuitive hunch was telling me something after all.

When I read what Ravel and Debussy felt about Beethoven, I then knew , that others heard what I hear

Starting at 5:41


----------



## paulbest

While googling , *Ravel's opinion on Beethoven*,,only came across *Ravel felt Beethoven;'s music was exasperating quite often*

I came upon this link.
I really felt I was alone in this disdain, guess others also hold certain beliefs.

Why The Beethoven Hate?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Bulldog said:


> Don't forget that Beethoven also ruined Christmas. Trump will have more on this at a later date.


Nope, that was Berlioz, with that f***%g tedious oratorio wot he wrote.

And Trump is only two frames away from becoming world snooker champion.....


----------



## millionrainbows

Beethoven was certainly different from Mozart. But Mozart, by the time of his 40th symphony, was headed in the same direction, and I'm sure would have expanded harmonically. Since Western music came unravelled in the end, I see it as inevitable. 
"If you live long enough, you'll get old," and that's what happened.


----------



## Agamemnon

apricissimus said:


> Okay, but I don't experience music that way, which is all I was saying.
> 
> For me personally, if there's some mathematical structure behind some music, it's interesting to me only for the "musical" experience that it might evoke in me. The math itself is really secondary. (I'm not putting down math; I've devoted a significant part of my life to studying mathematics.)
> 
> To use one of your examples, if a composer intentionally avoids pattern or organization, I might find that musically interesting for the feeling of restlessness or the feeling of being unsettled (perhaps), and not because of the structure used to bring about that feeling.
> 
> I'm not sure if I'm making sense. But I think if you like the mathematical part of music, you might as well just do mathematics. You'll have a better time.


I understand that you are not interested in the maths as such when listening to music. I think nobody is. Actually, not even the mathematical composers want listeners to even notice the mathematics of their music. The mathematics is just the technique and only of interest of the composers (likewise painters usually don't want you to notice the used techniques but only the effect of them). But music depends heavily on mathematics anyway which Pythagoras discovered and even Beethoven could not demolish. What has changed though is that Beethoven started to use the mathematics (the technique of composing) to express his inner feelings instead of expressing the inner mathematics (order) of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

The best and most useful way it can be seen, is to know that our 12 notes are based on the projection of fifths. 

That's the best way to understand it, is to "do" and make something with it. Understand how a scale is created, instead of just viewing it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> In my beggings with classical, over 35 yrs ago,,i intuitively felt LvB was not for me, felt more inevitably drawn to all things Mozart.
> 
> It was in my comparison 's between the Klempere and Bruno Walter that I made the realization, that his music was not agreeing with me. The 4th sym was my last stand with Beethoven, , I held on to that one for another year or so, then parted ways forever.
> 
> I tried to google Ravel's comments on LvB, where Debussy had to chastise the younger composer to *tone it downa bit*, Both Debussy and Ravel felt LvB was a master orchestrator, structurally, that can not be denied.
> But both went on to say, the musical content is lacking, something is sorely missing.
> Here is a clip from Bernstein's interview,,,yet you can also find other YT uploads of Lenny speaking high (hyperbolish) lofty praises for Beethoven's music.
> But its too high of speech, not believable.
> Note all music critics speaking of both Beethoven and Mozart,,the descripts are different,. Mozart is discussed in with a exquisite style language.
> 
> So perhaps intuitive hunch was telling me something after all.
> 
> When I read what Ravel and Debussy felt about Beethoven, I then knew , that others heard what I hear
> 
> Starting at 5:41


Ravel and Debussy: LVB a master orchestrator

Bernstein - Beethoven's orchestration sucks


----------



## isorhythm

This person is very confused. For one thing, the modernist stuff he hates is mostly turning away from inner-directed subjectivity and back toward supposedly outer-directed objectivity. But there are so many different errors in that short piece, I don't know where to start.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> This person is very confused. For one thing, the modernist stuff he hates is mostly turning away from inner-directed subjectivity and back toward supposedly outer-directed objectivity. But there are so many different errors in that short piece, I don't know where to start.


I agree the article is flawed, but if you follow the thought process, inner subjectivity leads to more chromaticism, so the "inner direction" is only a direction. In these terms, Beethoven was the "first modernist," which is exactly what he was saying.

Remember, the original "outward objectivity" contained God, and tonality as its expression, but this territory got displaced by The Enlightenment and science as "the new objectivity." To get to God, you had to go inward, and this was Eastern, so it led to atonality.

Since atonality is now viewed as a form of objectivity, it's all the Enlightenment's fault. I think the circle closed back in on itself, and God disappeared down the little hole left by the cosmic compass.


----------



## Agamenon

paulbest said:


> While googling , *Ravel's opinion on Beethoven*,,only came across *Ravel felt Beethoven;'s music was exasperating quite often*
> 
> I came upon this link.
> I really felt I was alone in this disdain, guess others also hold certain beliefs.
> 
> Why The Beethoven Hate?


I agree with Ravel. Sometimes, LvB´s music suffocates my ears!


----------



## KenOC

Agamenon said:


> I agree with Ravel. Sometimes, LvB´s music suffocates my ears!


Somebody (Tolstoy?) wrote that Beethoven grabs you by the throat and slams you up against the wall. A steady diet of that sort of thing might be wearing.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Somebody (Tolstoy?) wrote that Beethoven grabs you by the throat and slams you up against the wall. A steady diet of that sort of thing might be wearing.


Of course Beethoven's music isn't a steady diet of it, or of anything else. His range of expression and style is immense. Generalizations won't do.


----------



## paulbest

Towering music for sure, Ravel and Debussy both knew Beethoven had genius. But it was a style that struck sour chords in their minds. 
This is what some of us are getting at here, No one can deny Beethoven his high genius in writing music. But it is a type that grates against many of us. This is what we are getting at. 

Just because Beethoven rtaes #1 in the world today, has been, always will rate #1, at least for another 1/2 century, beyond that its anyones guess how Beethoven will end up on the charts. 
This world is a dif place daily now. Things are moving. 

I do not have a crystal ball, who knows which composers will gain in strength, whose star will fall. 

I think Bernstein is seeing what some of us hear in Beethoven. 
IHe just does not for us. Some of us here just don't have Beethoven represented in our cd collection. 
Now in Mozart, its completely dif, 
Beethoven's range of expression and style is truly outstanding, But its a type that we just don't want to listen to, regardless of how popular he is. 

We are coming out of the closet so to speak.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Towering music for sure, Ravel and Debussy both knew Beethoven had genius. But it was a style that struck sour chords in their minds.
> This is what some of us are getting at here, No one can deny Beethoven his high genius in writing music. But it is a type that grates against many of us. This is what we are getting at.
> 
> Just because Beethoven rtaes #1 in the world today, has been, always will rate #1, at least for another 1/2 century, beyond that its anyones guess how Beethoven will end up on the charts.
> This world is a dif place daily now. Things are moving.
> 
> I do not have a crystal ball, who knows which composers will gain in strength, whose star will fall.
> 
> I think Bernstein is seeing what some of us hear in Beethoven.
> IHe just does not for us. Some of us here just don't have Beethoven represented in our cd collection.
> Now in Mozart, its completely dif,
> Beethoven's range of expression and style is truly outstanding, But its a type that we just don't want to listen to, regardless of how popular he is.
> 
> We are coming out of the closet so to speak.


You're hinting - hinting? - at a cultural movement away from Beethoven, but not away from Mozart. I wonder where you see this happening, besides in your own CD collection.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Of course Beethoven's music isn't a steady diet of it, or of anything else. His range of expression and style is immense. Generalizations won't do.


Don't blame me, blame Tolstoy! I think the quote relates to his novella _The Kreutzer Sonata_.


----------



## paulbest

I am saying anything is possible today, the world is a dif place day by day, Yesterday is not the same as today. that pace will accelerate , as time goes by. 
What the youths of tomorrow decide, who an say. Dif to predict.
But here is something that might be a speck of a glimpse into the future. 
Ck this out.

From MEXICO, not the USA. Perhaps Schnittke had been on some program in the USA past 15 yrs, I have no idea how to verify that yea/nay. But if nay, then Mexico trumps the USA as far as progressive culture in high musical art.






also on may 5, 2019

https://www.njfamily.com/events/st-...-westfield-will-celebrate-schubert-schnittke/


----------



## paulbest

btw its a very good performance although the pianist did cause the 2 masterful violinists to squench their faces a bit at the opening as he took it *a la Mexicana*,, 
Schnittke still would have loved the pianist adding his own personal touch. Schnittke 's music is not hard wired. 
Yet it does require virtuoso. 
How long shall we await any USA debut of Schnittke?


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Towering music for sure, Ravel and Debussy both knew Beethoven had genius. But it was a style that struck sour chords in their minds.
> This is what some of us are getting at here, No one can deny Beethoven his high genius in writing music. But it is a type that grates against many of us. This is what we are getting at.
> 
> Just because Beethoven rtaes #1 in the world today, has been, always will rate #1, at least for another 1/2 century, beyond that its anyones guess how Beethoven will end up on the charts.
> This world is a dif place daily now. Things are moving.
> 
> I do not have a crystal ball, who knows which composers will gain in strength, whose star will fall.
> 
> I think Bernstein is seeing what some of us hear in Beethoven.
> IHe just does not for us. Some of us here just don't have Beethoven represented in our cd collection.
> Now in Mozart, its completely dif,
> Beethoven's range of expression and style is truly outstanding, *But its a type that we just don't want to listen to,* regardless of how popular he is.
> 
> We are coming out of the closet so to speak.


Listening to Beethoven is a big deal - for certain.

I suppose Mozart, by comparison is easy listening.


----------



## KenOC

"In _A Clockwork Orange _it is the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony that echoes in the mind of Alex whenever he indulges in one of his orgies of violence. Alex's reaction may be rather extreme, but he is responding to something that is already there in this dark and frenzied setting of Schiller's Ode to Joy; the joy it invites one to feel is the joy of madness, bloodlust and megalomania. It is glorious music, and seductive, but the passions it stirs up are dark and menacing."

Yeah, I love this stuff!


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> But its a type that we just don't want to listen to, regardless of how popular he is.


No, it's a type _you _don't want to listen to. I'm very happy listening to Beethoven


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> "In _A Clockwork Orange _it is the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony that echoes in the mind of Alex whenever he indulges in one of his orgies of violence. Alex's reaction may be rather extreme, but he is responding to something that is already there in this dark and frenzied setting of Schiller's Ode to Joy; the joy it invites one to feel is the joy of madness, bloodlust and megalomania. It is glorious music, and seductive, but the passions it stirs up are dark and menacing."
> 
> Yeah, I love this stuff!


Where did you dig that one up?


----------



## DavidA

paulbest said:


> Towering music for sure, Ravel and Debussy both knew Beethoven had genius. But it was a style that struck sour chords in their minds.
> This is what some of us are getting at here, No one can deny Beethoven his high genius in writing music. But it is a type that grates against many of us. This is what we are getting at.
> 
> Just because Beethoven rtaes #1 in the world today, has been, always will rate #1, at least for another 1/2 century, beyond that its anyones guess how Beethoven will end up on the charts.
> This world is a dif place daily now. Things are moving.
> 
> I do not have a crystal ball, who knows which composers will gain in strength, whose star will fall.
> 
> I think Bernstein is seeing what some of us hear in Beethoven.
> IHe just does not for us. Some of us here just don't have Beethoven represented in our cd collection.
> Now in Mozart, its completely dif,
> Beethoven's range of expression and style is truly outstanding, *But its a type that we just don't want to listen to, regardless of how popular he is. *
> 
> We are coming out of the closet so to speak.


This make you a 'hater'?


----------



## paulbest

DavidA said:


> This make you a 'hater'?


A confessor and a hater. Been this closeted hater most of my 30 yrs into classical now. Nothing has changed in ME (someone made sure I clarify as a peculiarity concerning ONLY me,,yet there are others, I am not the only one) Few you will find that actually confess they hate Mozart,,I've yet to run across one, but perhaps there is that anomaly or 2
maybe some of the Beethoven fans hate Pettersson, So its a cordial hate. Makes us feel better , just to get it out.


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> A confessor and a hater. Been this closeted hater most of my 30 yrs into classical now. Nothing has changed in ME (someone made sure I clarify as a peculiarity concerning ONLY me,,yet there are others, I am not the only one) Few you will find that actually confess they hate Mozart,,I've yet to run across one, but perhaps there is that anomaly or 2
> maybe some of the Beethoven fans hate Pettersson, So its a cordial hate. Makes us feel better , just to get it out.


I dislike most of Mozart's music.


----------



## flamencosketches

Why can't we have both... 

I'm sure there are others like me who like Beethoven and Mozart equally. They are completely different, both extremely varied composers, that excel in some areas and don't deliver as much in others. Here on the boards at least, it always seems like it's one versus the other. 

Anyway, back to the OP, was there anyone so far who agreed with the article or found it insightful? Or can we all agree that the guy is kind of clueless?


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> A confessor and a hater. Been this closeted hater most of my 30 yrs into classical now. Nothing has changed in ME (someone made sure I clarify as a peculiarity concerning ONLY me,,yet there are others, I am not the only one) Few you will find that actually confess they hate Mozart,,I've yet to run across one, but perhaps there is that anomaly or 2
> maybe some of the Beethoven fans hate Pettersson, So its a cordial hate. Makes us feel better , just to get it out.


Closeted hater?

I thought that I recognised you from CMG days, some 13 years ago, with dear Corlyss and all.

I was there for a while, and I'm pretty sure you and I exchanged opposing views about Beethoven.

I'll give you a clue: Deep Purple!


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> I dislike most of Mozart's music.


Somehow I find this incredulous, your tone of the post lacks authenticity,,,,I mean sure , I have never cared for his 5 VC's. they are nothing great at all. 
Many of his sonatas are boring for VC/Piano,,,But his best operas? 
You don't like?
Have you heard the arias in those operas?


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> Closeted hater?
> 
> I thought that I recognised you from CMG days, some 13 years ago, with dear Corlyss and all.
> 
> I was there for a while, and I'm pretty sure you and I exchanged opposing views about Beethoven.
> 
> I'll give you a clue: Deep Purple!


Hey,,, Yeah , I remember you. 
How is it going with ya!

Yeah I see some of the old ganag are over here now.

Man we had some good times back over there. ,,,In my last days there, WOW I was like getting snides and slus from a lot of the hard core romantics/Beethoven fans.

I've toned it down a bit and have boarded by level of tolerance .

Deep Purple,,,can 't recall , what we discussed on DP.


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> Why can't we have both...
> 
> I'm sure there are others like me who like Beethoven and Mozart equally. They are completely different, both extremely varied composers, that excel in some areas and don't deliver as much in others. Here on the boards at least, it always seems like it's one versus the other.
> 
> Anyway, back to the OP, was there anyone so far who agreed with the article or found it insightful? Or can we all agree that the guy is kind of clueless?


Sure one can find any article on google to back up the most ludicrous ideas, like Beethoven ruined classical.

Beethoven wasa product of HIS OWN time,,Just like the Beatles were a product of THEIR epoch. The music had to be as it was for Beethoven. But being very dif composers, musically, it only stands to reason some will love one more than the other.
But as I say, you will not find many Mozart haters, more Beethoven haters. 
His music just sets itself up for a few haters, As it has its bombastic moments. Repetitive passages, which drive me loco


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> Somehow I find this incredulous, your tone of the post lacks authenticity,,,,I mean sure , I have never cared for his 5 VC's. they are nothing great at all.
> Many of his sonatas are boring for VC/Piano,,,But his best operas?
> You don't like?
> Have you heard the arias in those operas?


I can hardly get through his operas, though I have heard most of Don Giovanni.

Sull'Aria is good I think.

Classical era harmonic language isn't generally my thing.


----------



## Enthusiast

I think Mozart and Schubert are the composers most likely (outside of the modern) to get posts telling us how much the poster dislikes their music. And third comes Chopin.


----------



## millionrainbows

apricissimus said:


> He brings up the connection between music and mathematics. There is some connection, but it's just not something that has ever been meaningful to me...I mean, I _know_ intellectually what the connections are, but when I listen to music, I don't think, "Ah, listen to the lovely ratios in that chord!"
> 
> I personally think it's a bit ridiculous to pine for the days of Pythagoras when music was "pure."


As early as Bach's day, there was a general trend towards Equal Temperament, because of the desire to play in all 12 keys. Bach's "well-tempering" was an early attempt at this: all 12 keys sounded good, and there were no "wolf tones" or unbearable notes.

Precise Equal Tempering was not achieved until about 1919, when electric frequency counters were invented. Before that, it was close, but not perfect, as piano tuners had to use stopwatches and count the "beating" of adjacent pitches.

So, you don't necessarily "hear" mathematics as you listen to music, but you need to be aware of how this all affected the direction of music.

However, I think that Dylan Evans still is flawed in his conflation of any mathematical truth with subjectivity/objectivity.

Although he died in 1918, just before "true" equal temperament had been achieved, Debussy was probably affected by the more-or-less equal tuning, because he used the whole-tone scale often; in more-equal temperaments, and especially in 'true' Equal Temperament, all those major seconds of the whole tone scale sound really good; they create an even sheen of sound, like an aura.

All of this movement towards ET is a movement towards chromaticism, and moves away from the original principles of tonality, where one key sounded almost perfect, with perfect fifths and thirds.

But, alas, the Pythagoran-derived 12-note octave was flawed from the get-go; hence, all of the "mean-tone" tunings which arose in order to achieve better thirds and fifths. And this was before "all 12 keys" were desired. This was just to get a few closely-related keys to sound more consonant.

The Western system of 12 notes per octave would never achieve perfect consonant ratios, _and neither can ANY scale which spans and encloses one octave. _

There is a simple mathematical reason for this impossibility: an octave is the ratio 1:2, and the other "perfect" intervals which constitute our triad, are the fifth, 2:3 (and its inversion, the fourth, 3:4), and the major third, 4:5.

None of these "just" ratios is compatible with the 1:2 octave, since "1" can't be divided evenly by 3 (in the 3:2 fifth, 3:4 in the fourth) or 5 (the "just" major third 4:5).

To "close the octave," the intervals must fit into the octave with no "leftover."

In light of this, there is a grain of truth in the overall thrust of Dylan Evans' Telegraph article, although I don't blame Beethoven, and don't praise Pythagoras, either. The system was flawed from "perfection" from the start. Inevitably, Equal temperament would draw music into a vortex of chromaticism, away from tonality's original principles and desires for perfect consonance.

I think Dylan Evans is flawed in his conflation of this mathematical truth with subjectivity/objectivity, the latter I think has more to do with social and historical factors.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I am listening to Bruckner presently and laughing inwardly at the notion that Beethoven is "too much."


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Don't blame me, blame Tolstoy! I think the quote relates to his novella _The Kreutzer Sonata_.


I think that's right. I love the illustration. Note how she soldiers on with the accompaniment even mid-osculation!


----------



## paulbest

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am listening to Bruckner presently and laughing inwardly at the notion that Beethoven is "too much."


Can you expand on this,,somehow I missed this *too much*,,Did Bruckner say Beethoven was over done?
I hear Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert, Dvorak, Mendelsohn all as Beethoven's sons. 
When I hear these composers I think to myself, wow, Beethoven's spirit never died, He is still composing. 
I have no interest in any of those mentioned.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I think Mozart and Schubert are the composers most likely (outside of the modern) to get posts telling us how much the poster dislikes their music. And third comes Chopin.


I'd say Beethoven gets more dislikes than Mozart.

You will never find any composer in history who disdains Mozart, , in fact most, if not every major composer, has only offered the highest accolades for Mozart, ~~Schoenberg~~, Carter~~~ Henze~~~Schnittke~~ that list could be extended forever,,,Now try to find any composer ,,other than one of Beethoven's *Sons* to offer equal praise and accolades towards Beethoven. 
ye ain't.

btw add Chopin's concertos as Beethovenish.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

paulbest said:


> Can you expand on this,,somehow I missed this *too much*,,Did Bruckner say Beethoven was over done?
> I hear Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert, Dvorak, Mendelsohn all as Beethoven's sons.
> When I hear these composers I think to myself, wow, Beethoven's spirit never died, He is still composing.
> I have no interest in any of those mentioned.


I was responding to posts 41-44 in this thread. The notion that Beethoven is too emotional or "slams you against the wall" seems kind of laughable to me. I like the examples you mention - I love them all, and totally agree that they are elaborating on the style and language that Beethoven pioneered.

It sounds like there are just people who dislike romanticism and prefer classicism. Which is fine, of course, to each their own. I just find classical period stuff rather dry, and Beethoven is actually my "palate cleanser" as it were, after indulging in some of the sturmier stuff of the late romantic/early modern period.


----------



## paulbest

MatthewWeflen said:


> I was responding to posts 41-44 in this thread. The notion that Beethoven is too emotional or "slams you against the wall" seems kind of laughable to me. I like the examples you mention - I love them all, and totally agree that they are elaborating on the style and language that Beethoven pioneered.
> 
> It sounds like there are just people who dislike romanticism and prefer classicism. Which is fine, of course, to each their own. I just find classical period stuff rather dry, and Beethoven is actually my "palate cleanser" as it were, after indulging in some of the sturmier stuff of the late romantic/early modern period.


 Oh OK Well then I was wondering if janxharris does not care much for the classical textures/melodies, then I was curious , what his feelings were on the romantic era.

See for me, there is Mozart/Haydn ,,,then there is Beethoven and all his *sons. 
Mahler did not follow Beethoven , and is so is not his *son*,,,I'd say Mahler is more inspired by Mozart than he was of Beethoven.

Instead of breaking things down into classical/romantic/modern. I tend to haer composers as distinct from each century, 17th,18th,19th, 20TH.

The labels classical vs romantic is too varying and nebulous, too generalized.

Things happened at the turn of every century. Take the 20thC and 21st C. My music stops at the 20tC, that is the year 2000. Beyond that, I never venture. As well most of my cd collection, begins with Debussy's Prelude.

I live the the 2OTH C musical aura. which to me is the fruit and flowering of all that went before.

Now as for seeds droped from those fruits,,well we will have to wait some time for those seeds to develop,,right now I see the seeds falling on rocky soil, no rooting, just dry withered stuff in the 21st C.


----------



## EdwardBast

paulbest said:


> See for me, there is Mozart/Haydn ,,,then there is Beethoven and all his *sons.
> Mahler did not follow Beethoven , and is so is not his *son*,,,I'd say Mahler is more inspired by Mozart than he was of Beethoven.


So you are saying Mendelssohn, whom you listed as among Beethoven's progeny, is stylistically more like Beethoven than Mozart? This is so bizarre that I must ask if you've ever heard Mendelssohn.

Also, could you please flesh out how you think Mahler more closely relates to Mozart than Beethoven? Is it the choral symphonies Mozart wrote? Oh wait, that was Beethoven. Or is it the ubiquitous cyclic unity in his instrumental works? No, that's Beethoven too. Is it the tendency to employ sudden dislocating contrasts? Or dramatic sharp dissonance? Hmm, I think that might also be Beethoven. Is it the unprecedented length of his symphonies? I seem to remember something about the _Eroica_ in that regard. Is it programmaticism in his symphonies? No, that is definitely Beethoven, isn't it?


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> btw add Chopin's concertos as Beethovenish.


No, I don't think I will...


----------



## Haydn70

paulbest said:


> I'd say Beethoven gets more dislikes than Mozart.
> 
> *You will never find any composer in history who disdains Mozart*, , in fact most, if not every major composer, has only offered the highest accolades for Mozart, ~~Schoenberg~~, Carter~~~ Henze~~~Schnittke~~ that list could be extended forever,,,Now try to find any composer ,,other than one of Beethoven's *Sons* to offer equal praise and accolades towards Beethoven.
> ye ain't.
> 
> btw add Chopin's concertos as Beethovenish.


Your statement in bold is incorrect. Ives disliked (to put it mildly) Mozart's music; he believed Mozart was effeminate and a bad influence on music. And Boulez did not like his music.

The most universally admired composer is J.S. Bach.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> Can you expand on this,,somehow I missed this *too much*,,Did Bruckner say Beethoven was over done?
> I hear Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert, Dvorak, Mendelsohn all as Beethoven's sons.
> When I hear these composers I think to myself, wow, Beethoven's spirit never died, He is still composing.
> I have no interest in any of those mentioned.


I think "too much" means that, in his own way, Bruckner's music was an exagerration.

I see what you are saying, but the sense of "time stopping" I get in Bruckner is different. So I look at Bruckner as somewhat Beethovenish, but I tune-in to that sense of "moment time" in Bruckner. I see Bruckner as being in a timeless zone, almost like meditation music. Bruckner's an acquired taste, but once I stopped trying and just went into a trance-like state, I got it. Celibidache got it too, I think. He was into Zen.

I think Mozart embodies the Western major/minor system so well, with his craftsmanship, that he established himself as an "archetype" for Western music. In this sense, not even Charles Ives could deny that aspect of Mozart. But, stylistically that's another matter, and what Ives had trouble with.

Ives was a little homophobic, as well. He rejected Henry Cowell after Cowell went to prison, and only years later did he "get over it."


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> I think "too much" means that, in his own way, Bruckner's music was an exagerration.
> 
> I see what you are saying, but the sense of "time stopping" I get in Bruckner is different. So I look at Bruckner as somewhat Beethovenish, but I tune-in to that sense of "moment time" in Bruckner. I see Bruckner as being in a timeless zone, almost like meditation music. Bruckner's an acquired taste, but once I stopped trying and just went into a trance-like state, I got it. Celibidache got it too, I think. He was into Zen.


The only reason Celibidache was superior in ,,wait that's in Mahler,,,I do not know Celibidache ;s Bruckner, 
Celibidache has a superior orch vs Boulez's Vienna in Mahler. I would guess it is the same top notch Munich in Bruckner.

In Debussy, I did not care for Celibibadche 's meditative tempos. As we all know with Celibadche , either you love him or hate his slow, if not sluggish tempos. 
Boulez takes Debussy's Prelude the fastest, and Celibidache the slowest.

If Boulez had the Munich forces, he would have out performed Celibidache in Mahler and Bruckner.

Lets see I am in trouble above,,,I have a lot to answer for ,,and I am cornered at the cliffs edge,,,can you help me out a bit ...I think I will go ahead and just cave in without yeah I do not know what I am talking about in Beethoven and his influences in Mendelssohn , Bruckner . and many other of my comments that have been shot to pieces. 
woe is me


----------



## paulbest

Haydn70 said:


> Your statement in bold is incorrect. Ives disliked (to put it mildly) Mozart's music; he believed Mozart was effeminate and a bad influence on music.


I ain't buying. I will google after I get this post up,,,I do like to have verification. Besides exactly when in Ives life did he hold this belief,,perhaps as a young composer. 
Besides even if corroborated , how significant is Ives?
I have none of his music in my CD collection,,although I will admit Hahn's performance of Ives sonatas violin/piano are quite good, if not interesting.


----------



## paulbest

EdwardBast said:


> So you are saying Mendelssohn, whom you listed as among Beethoven's progeny, is stylistically more like Beethoven than Mozart? This is so bizarre that I must ask if you've ever heard Mendelssohn.
> 
> Also, could you please flesh out how you think Mahler more closely relates to Mozart than Beethoven? Is it the choral symphonies Mozart wrote? Oh wait, that was Beethoven. Or is it the ubiquitous cyclic unity in his instrumental works? No, that's Beethoven too. Is it the tendency to employ sudden dislocating contrasts? Or dramatic sharp dissonance? Hmm, I think that might also be Beethoven. Is it the unprecedented length of his symphonies? I seem to remember something about the _Eroica_ in that regard. Is it programmaticism in his symphonies? No, that is definitely Beethoven, isn't it?


 No I can not,,,I have no further comments to make. 
I recant all above opinions


----------



## Haydn70

paulbest said:


> I ain't buying. I will google after I get this post up,,,I do like to have verification. Besides exactly when in Ives life did he hold this belief,,perhaps as a young composer.
> Besides even if corroborated , how significant is Ives?
> I have none of his music in my CD collection,,although I will admit Hahn's performance of Ives sonatas violin/piano are quite good, if not interesting.


Here is what you wrote:

"You will never find any composer in history who disdains Mozart..."

I found one that did...and then you question Ives' significance and wonder at what point in his life he held this belief, etc., etc., etc.

How about just admitting you were ignorant about Ives.

And here is your verification:

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/21/archives/natural-american-natural-rebel-natural-avantgardist-charles-ives.html


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> I think Mozart and Schubert are the composers most likely (outside of the modern) to get posts telling us how much the poster dislikes their music. And third comes Chopin.


I agree that Mozart has attracted a lot of negative posts, but until fairly recently I'm not sure that Schubert has come in for a hard time on this Forum. I would have included Wagner, rather than Schubert, in the list of the most likely to to get posts telling us how much the poster dislikes their music.

Bach is the only main composer who tends to avoid conflict. There hasn't been all that much negative comment about Beethoven in the past, to my recollection. It has usually been confined to "who is better, Beethoven or Mozart", but most people tend to like both.

Other composers who have faced a similar type of criticism as Mozart, but to a lesser degree, have been Schumann and Liszt. Occasionally, Brahms and Handel have been included. I can't recall much criticism of Chopin, but there have been long gaps when I haven't been taking note of the situation.

And yet the odd think is that all of these composers come out very well or moderately well when it comes to polls of favourite composers. In the case of Mozart and Schubert, they have both come out very highly rated, and Wagner not far behind.

It suggests that poster expressing negative views are in a minority, but their comments typically generate much counter-reaction from the fans of those composers. That's why the relevant threads are so long: the negative posters won't change their mind, and the fans won't give up defending their favoured composers. As someone quite rightly has said recently, it's all a waste of time. But at least it provides a bit of fun, and it may have some educational value for those less familiar with the composers under discussion.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> The only reason Celibidache was superior in ,,wait that's in Mahler,,,I do not know Celibidache ;s Bruckner,
> Celibidache has a superior orch vs Boulez's Vienna in Mahler. I would guess it is the same top notch Munich in Bruckner.
> 
> In Debussy, I did not care for Celibibadche 's meditative tempos. As we all know with Celibadche , either you love him or hate his slow, if not sluggish tempos.
> Boulez takes Debussy's Prelude the fastest, and Celibidache the slowest.
> 
> If Boulez had the Munich forces, he would have out performed Celibidache in Mahler and Bruckner.


I'm not aware of Celibidache doing much Mahler, not in Munich anyway. For available recordings I'm only aware of a Kindertotenlieder with Brigitte Fassbaender. But he certainly recorded a lot of Bruckner in Munich. I'm not sure why your comparison is with Boulez, who did record the Mahler (the symphonies and lots more) but only recorded one Bruckner work (the 8th). Boulez and Celibidache took very different approaches and both achieved excellence so I don't know how you might compare their success profitably. I think if the choice is between the two orchestras then most would go for the Vienna Phil, which many think of as the world's greatest orchestra. So I'm surprised to see you saying that the Munich Phil was a better orchestra than the Vienna Phil - what makes you think that?


----------



## paulbest

Haydn70 said:


> Here is what you wrote:
> 
> "You will never find any composer in history who disdains Mozart..."
> 
> I found one that did...and then you question Ives' significance and wonder at what point in his life he held this belief, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> How about just admitting you were ignorant about Ives.
> 
> And here is your verification:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/21/archives/natural-american-natural-rebel-natural-avantgardist-charles-ives.html


Thank you very much for that find, I will most certainly have to revisit Ives,,i had many of his cds, and went into compare mode to find the superior performances ..I will make a note this week to pick back up on Ives after our parting of the ways.

I like his views and his rebellious attitude. I too am rebellious. We have a lot in common.

Now consider the other composers he felt were *dated*. Seems Mozart was not singled out in the list.
WE have to keep in mind, the context. Its my belief what Bruno Walter and his Columbia or Bohm/Berlin did with Mozart's Last 6 syms, these same forces were not around when Ives heard Mozart.

Mozart has been taken to more grand scale with these 2 masterful conductors. 
Its not like Ives got to hear Mozart's last PC's/last 6 syms, every weekend.

Mozart comes alive with Walter and Bohm,

The sour performances which Ives heard back in his day, may have cast a poor image on Mozart's greatest works.

Besides he may have just thrown Mozart's name in with that bunch, just on a whim, being such a agitated rebellious nature.

These assumptions on my part, we will never get a answer to.

I would have loved to see if he could possibly make any condescending statement about Mozart upon leaving a concert hall with Mozart's 40/41 syms on the program

Had he, he'd find himself eating at a local restaurant alone with friends nearby in joyful glee at what just transpired.

How would he feel then? 
I mean that article you posted has to be taken in a wide context, The nature of which is rather scanty and thin.

I am still nota believer,.

maybe he had some inferior complexes and so down inside, he asked himself *how could I ever score anything close to the magnitude of Mozart's 41st*
We just don't know the answers to all these Q's. ..Unless you wish to offer suggestions.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not aware of Celibidache doing much Mahler, not in Munich anyway. For available recordings I'm only aware of a Kindertotenlieder with Brigitte Fassbaender. But he certainly recorded a lot of Bruckner in Munich. I'm not sure why your comparison is with Boulez, who did record the Mahler (the symphonies and lots more) but only recorded one Bruckner work (the 8th). Boulez and Celibidache took very different approaches and both achieved excellence so I don't know how you might compare their success profitably. I think if the choice is between the two orchestras then most would go for the Vienna Phil, which many think of as the world's greatest orchestra. So I'm surprised to see you saying that the Munich Phil was a better orchestra than the Vienna Phil - what makes you think that?


 Oh, Ok, I was confused, I though Boulez did a lot of Bruckner and also Celibidache in Mahler,.,,My bad...

Well I havea petterssonian friend, who isa member here, suggest I take another listen to Bruckner,,,I told him, the Boulez/Vienna has some weakness in the orch, its not tight nor virtuoso, not like Celibidache's Munich in Bruckner

Look at the Bruckner 8th, Celi/Munich , Boulez/Vienna. 
The Munich palys with power, passion, commintment,,,whereas the Vienna under Boulez is sloppy, lack luster.
I felt had Boulez commanded the Munich, and Celibidache, the superior performance by far, would have been Boulez. Lets admit it, Celibidache is famous for offering slow and sluggish tempos.

That was my point,,,I was only confused as to which conductor was recording what composer.

As I follow neither composers music. 
If you don't believe me, compare the 2 live YT uploads.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I think that's right. I love the illustration. *Note how she soldiers on with the accompaniment even mid-osculation!*


Well spotted. However, the question is: what chord is she holding down?


----------



## paulbest

OK
Even IF we take Ives at face value, which I think he may have said off the record....
What would Mozart's reaction/opinions/comments be upon exiting a ~~Ives 4th sym concert~~
Ives to Mozart *well well what ya think?***
~~~ Mozart to Ives: *……* use your imagination.






BESIDES which, that's one minor composer, can you fish upm from the deeps another anti-Mozart comment from another minor./major composer?
Just 1 more, then I will believe.

Whereas I know there have been multiple majors who made some comments on Beethoven's music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Okay, I'll use my imagination:

Ives to Mozart: "Well well whattaya think?"

Mozart to Ives: "Well, first let's cut that beard off, and get you into some satin. That grey suit is soooo frumpy! Have you considered using a countertenor for your 144 Songs?"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Haydn70 said:


> The most universally admired composer is J.S. Bach.


http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach#General_Reflections_on_Bach
"Diary entry for 20 September/2 October 1886, in which Tchaikovsky reflects mainly on his contrasting feelings for Mozart and Beethoven:
As for the predecessors of these two, what I would say is that I like playing Bach because it is entertaining to play a good fugue, but I do not acknowledge in him (as others do) a great genius..."

"All Bach's last movements are like the running of a sewing machine." -Arnold Bax

"Berlioz disliked Bach and Palestrina and worshiped Beethoven, Gluck and Weber"
How music grew: from prehistoric times to the present day - Page 401
Marion Bauer, ‎Ethel Rose Peyser - 1925


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Also, could you please flesh out how you think Mahler more closely relates to Mozart than Beethoven? Is it the choral symphonies Mozart wrote? Oh wait, that was Beethoven. Or is it the ubiquitous cyclic unity in his instrumental works? No, that's Beethoven too. Is it the tendency to employ sudden dislocating contrasts? Or dramatic sharp dissonance? Hmm, I think that might also be Beethoven. Is it the unprecedented length of his symphonies? I seem to remember something about the _Eroica_ in that regard. Is it programmaticism in his symphonies? No, that is definitely Beethoven, isn't it?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler
_"his innovative productions and insistence on the highest performance standards ensured his reputation as one of the greatest of opera conductors, particularly as an interpreter of the stage works of Wagner, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky. Late in his life he was briefly director of New York's Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic."
_

https://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-mtblog-2009-11-the_baltimore_symphony_orchest-story.html
_"The last word Gustav Mahler uttered on his deathbed - according to his wife, Alma - was "Mozart." Perhaps the composer was already hearing sounds from the next world, or simply reliving some of his happiest memories from this one.
The deep connection Mahler felt to Mozart's music is never more apparent than in the Symphony No. 4, where Mahler offers a melodic directness and transparency of texture that produce a Mozartean grace."_

I think the beginning of Mahler 5th most closely resembles the ending of Mozart string quartet in D minor K421. 




There is a high upvoted comment in this video that says this piece sounds Mahlerish, what do you think?


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Somehow I find this incredulous, your tone of the post lacks authenticity,,,,I mean sure , I have never cared for his 5 VC's. they are nothing great at all.
> Many of his sonatas are boring for VC/Piano,,,But his best operas?
> You don't like?
> Have you heard the arias in those operas?


I see you joined this board recently. But post quite a lot.

I have been on here for about 10 years and can confirm that there are fewer Mozart haters than Beethoven - though - Mozart haters hate with a passion and combine it with belittling ridicule. Those who hate Beethoven - just dismiss him as pure bombast more or less - or overrated.

Those who reel off pages of quotes supporting Mozart - or make literally meaningless statements when the Austrian master's musical achievements are called into question - can be equally absurd.


----------



## paulbest

hammeredklavier said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler
> _"his innovative productions and insistence on the highest performance standards ensured his reputation as one of the greatest of opera conductors, particularly as an interpreter of the stage works of Wagner, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky. Late in his life he was briefly director of New York's Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic."
> _
> 
> https://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-mtblog-2009-11-the_baltimore_symphony_orchest-story.html
> _"The last word Gustav Mahler uttered on his deathbed - according to his wife, Alma - was "Mozart." Perhaps the composer was already hearing sounds from the next world, or simply reliving some of his happiest memories from this one.
> The deep connection Mahler felt to Mozart's music is never more apparent than in the Symphony No. 4, where Mahler offers a melodic directness and transparency of texture that produce a Mozartean grace."_
> 
> I think the beginning of Mahler 5th most closely resembles the ending of Mozart string quartet in D minor K421.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a high upvoted comment in this video that says this piece sounds Mahlerish, what do you think?


Hi 
can I get your approval to utilize this fantastic research which at least get me back into the boxing match,,,,with EdwardBast,,,I may veto my recantation. 
I had no idea my comment had any truth to it,,I only took a guess Mahler listened more carefully to Mozart than he did to Beethoven. There seems to be more poetry, lyricism, in Mahler which I can not connect with Beethoven;'s music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Thank you very much for that find, I will most certainly have to revisit Ives,,i had many of his cds, and went into compare mode to find the superior performances ..I will make a note this week to pick back up on Ives after our parting of the ways.
> 
> I like his views and his rebellious attitude. I too am rebellious. We have a lot in common.
> 
> Now consider the other composers he felt were *dated*. Seems Mozart was not singled out in the list.
> WE have to keep in mind, the context. Its my belief what Bruno Walter and his Columbia or Bohm/Berlin did with Mozart's Last 6 syms, these same forces were not around when Ives heard Mozart.
> 
> Mozart has been taken to more grand scale with these 2 masterful conductors.
> Its not like Ives got to hear Mozart's last PC's/last 6 syms, every weekend.
> 
> Mozart comes alive with Walter and Bohm,
> 
> The sour performances which Ives heard back in his day, may have cast a poor image on Mozart's greatest works.
> 
> Besides he may have just thrown Mozart's name in with that bunch, just on a whim, being such a agitated rebellious nature.
> 
> These assumptions on my part, we will never get a answer to.
> 
> I would have loved to see if he could possibly make any condescending statement about Mozart upon leaving a concert hall with Mozart's 40/41 syms on the program
> 
> Had he, he'd find himself eating at a local restaurant alone with friends nearby in joyful glee at what just transpired.
> 
> How would he feel then?
> I mean that article you posted has to be taken in a wide context, The nature of which is rather scanty and thin.
> 
> I am still nota believer,.
> 
> maybe he had some inferior complexes and so down inside, he asked himself *how could I ever score anything close to the magnitude of Mozart's 41st*
> We just don't know the answers to all these Q's. ..Unless you wish to offer suggestions.


Some odd reasoning here.

I doubt very much if Walter's Mozart would have changed Ive's mind. A top composer like Ives (though I dont rate him) would have had sufficient knowledge and exposure to Mozart to form an informed opinion.

You might equally claim that anyone who dislikes Mozart opera hasn't heard the Beecham magic flute, for example.

Unless there is compelling evidence for a proposition - there is no good reason to believe it.


----------



## Haydn70

hammeredklavier said:


> http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach#General_Reflections_on_Bach
> "Diary entry for 20 September/2 October 1886, in which Tchaikovsky reflects mainly on his contrasting feelings for Mozart and Beethoven:
> As for the predecessors of these two, what I would say is that I like playing Bach because it is entertaining to play a good fugue, but I do not acknowledge in him (as others do) a great genius..."
> 
> "All Bach's last movements are like the running of a sewing machine." -Arnold Bax
> 
> "Berlioz disliked Bach and Palestrina and worshiped Beethoven, Gluck and Weber"
> How music grew: from prehistoric times to the present day - Page 401
> Marion Bauer, ‎Ethel Rose Peyser - 1925


Not Brook but Ocean should be his name.
- Ludwig Van Beethoven 
("Bach" is the German word for "brook")

Now there is music from which a man can learn something.
- W. A. Mozart (on hearing Bach motets in Leipzig)

To strip human nature until its divine attributes are made clear, to inform ordinary activities with spiritual fervor, to give wings of eternity to that which is most ephemeral; to make divine things human and human things divine; such is Bach, the greatest and purest moment in music of all time.
- Pablo Casals

Bach is like an astronomer who, with the help of ciphers, finds the most wonderful stars.
- Friederick Chopin

And if we look at the works of JS Bach - a benevolent god to which all musicians should offer a prayer to defend themselves against mediocrity - on each page we discover things which we thought were born only yesterday, from delightful arabesques to an overflowing of religious feeling greater than anything we have since discovered. And in his works we will search in vain for anything the least lacking in good taste.
- Claude Debussy

...the greatest Christian music in the world...if life had taken hope and faith from me, this single chorus would restore all.
- Felix Mendelssohn

Bach is the beginning and end of all music.
- Max Reger

I had no idea of the historical evolution of the civilized world's music and had not realized that all modern music owes everything to Bach.
- Niccolai Rimsky-Korsakov

Music owes as much to Bach as religion to its founder.
- Robert Schumann

O you happy sons of the North who have been reared at the bosom of Bach, how I envy you.
- Giuseppi Verdi

...the most stupendous miracle in all music!
- Richard Wagner

Bach is a colossus of Rhodes, beneath whom all musicians pass and will continue to pass. Mozart is the most beautiful, Rossini the most brilliant, but Bach is the most comprehensive: he has said all there is to say. If all the music written since Bach's time should be lost, it could be reconstructed on the foundation which Bach laid.
- Charles Gounod

The poetry, the atmosphere, the intensity of expression, the beauty of the preludes and fugues grip, overwhelm, and stimulate us. Let us not be afraid of the supreme contrapuntal science of the fugues, nor be overawed by the stern appearance and heavy wig of Father Bach. Let us gather around him, feel the love, the noble goodness that flow from each one of his phrases and that invigorate and bind us by ties strong and warm.
- Carl Friedrich Zelter (letter to Goethe, 9 June 1827)
(Zelter was the teacher of Felix Mendelssohn)

Study Bach. There you will find everything.
- Johannes Brahms

Bach is the supreme genius of music... This man, who knows everything and feels everything, cannot write one note, however unimportant it may appear, which is anything but transcendent. He has reached the heart of every noble thought, and has done it in the most perfect way.
- Pablo Casals

Any musician, even the most gifted, takes a place second to Bach's at the very start.
- Paul Hindemith

If one were asked to name one musician who came closest to composing without human flaw, I suppose general consensus would choose Johann Sebastian Bach...
- Aaron Copland

In Bach, the vital cells of music are united as the world is in God.
- Gustav Mahler


----------



## eugeneonagain

Oh no...another quote stand-off.

It's likely possible to find anyone saying anything about the great figures of history. 

Honestly. I once said that Napoleon was a fine chap, but no-one quoted it.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> I see you joined this board recently. But post quite a lot.
> 
> I have been on here for about 10 years and can confirm that there are fewer Mozart haters than Beethoven - though - Mozart haters hate with a passion and combine it with belittling ridicule. Those who hate Beethoven - just dismiss him as pure bombast more or less - or overrated.
> 
> Those who reel off pages of quotes supporting Mozart - or make literally meaningless statements when the Austrian master's musical achievements are called into question - can be equally absurd.


Hi. Yes I am making up for being away so long,,,Honestly this is new to me, the few folks who take issues with Mozart.
I should add here though, I am picky on which performance.

Its good we can just brush off whatever comments are flung our way. 
Mozart needs no apologists. Neither Beethoven. 
The issue is not in their works, it is within the listener.
He has the hangup, and has to get over it and move on. 
Glad to see you after all these years.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> Some odd reasoning here.
> 
> I doubt very much if Walter's Mozart would have changed Ive's mind. A top composer like Ives (though I dont rate him) would have had sufficient knowledge and exposure to Mozart to form an informed opinion.
> 
> You might equally claim that anyone who dislikes Mozart opera hasn't heard the Beecham magic flute, for example.
> 
> Unless there is compelling evidence for a proposition - there is no good reason to believe it.


 Disagree, had Ives heard Szell/Cleveland/1955 , he may have a dif opinion of the sym , had he experienced Walter's Columbia SO performance.

I am not sure Szell's Mozart/41. is the best offering in Mozart

Whereas with Walter , sounds like the real deal
There are so many bad recordings in Mozart,,this may perhaps infect to some degree a certain sour note in some critics of Mozart..
Whereas with Beethoven, just about all 200+ recordings are rated either 7,8,910 stars out of 10.

It is not too dif to make a success in Beethoven,. With Mozart, the excellence standard bar is raised higher. 
Ives may possibly have heard a conductor such as szell in performance,which allows for some disdain. 
Then again come to think about it,,I could be all wrong here,,and it is possible the music we get from Ives may be as it is, due to his supposedly repugnance of Mozart. 
If you can understand what I am getting at in *the music we get from Ives*


----------



## Dimace

Beethoven has really destroyed the music! And, not to forget it, the earth is flat. 

The Spheres Theory (Η Θεωρία των Σφαιρών) is pure scientific and not artistic to be correlated with the classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler
> _"his innovative productions and insistence on the highest performance standards ensured his reputation as one of the greatest of opera conductors, particularly as an interpreter of the stage works of Wagner, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky. Late in his life he was briefly director of New York's Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic."
> _
> 
> https://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-mtblog-2009-11-the_baltimore_symphony_orchest-story.html
> _"The last word Gustav Mahler uttered on his deathbed - according to his wife, Alma - was "Mozart." Perhaps the composer was already hearing sounds from the next world, or simply reliving some of his happiest memories from this one.
> The deep connection Mahler felt to Mozart's music is never more apparent than in the Symphony No. 4, where Mahler offers a melodic directness and transparency of texture that produce a Mozartean grace."_
> 
> I think the beginning of Mahler 5th most closely resembles the ending of Mozart string quartet in D minor K421.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a high upvoted comment in this video that says this piece sounds Mahlerish, what do you think?


Quote competitions are indeed stupid and useless, but you and Mozart have it coming.

_"There was only Beethoven and Wagner, and after them, nobody." _(Gustav Mahler)


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Quote competitions are indeed stupid and useless, but you and Mozart have it coming.
> 
> _"There was only Beethoven and Wagner, and after them, nobody." _(Gustav Mahler)


Well if it is true, that Ives had more than just flippancy in his pithy quip about Mozart. well who did Ives look up to as inspiration? 
Beethoven, yes he appreciated Beethoven.. 
Well which composer did Carter find his inspiration? Mozart, 
Now which American composer do you prefer and /or think is the finer , more developed, more oeuvre offer of the 2. ?
JUst innocently asking, not staring any flaming deal here.
You can just as easily pass up


----------



## paulbest

I see no others are taking Ives serious, on his Mozart quip.

I am quite sure Ives would recant.
So with that recantation, which other composer in history had even the slightest demeanor 
toward Mozart?

How could anyone have a denunciation towards Mozart after experience this finale, starting at 23:05.

Has there been anything more glorious written? Well?






The coda, the coda, crushing, mountainness, pinnacle of majesty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Quote competitions are indeed stupid and useless, but you and Mozart have it coming.
> 
> _"There was only Beethoven and Wagner, and after them, nobody." _(Gustav Mahler)


I guess he was like Brahms and Chopin, who in their early periods appreciated Beethoven, but came to appreciate Beethoven's predecessors more as they aged.

Brahms (1896):
_"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135

Chopin (1849):
_"Where Beethoven is obscure and appears to be lacking in unity, it is not, as people allege, from a rather wild originality - the quality which they admire in him - it is because he turns his back on eternal principles."'_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ggkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## eugeneonagain

paulbest said:


> How could anyone have a denunciation towards Mozart after experience this finale, starting at 23:05.
> 
> Has there been anything more glorious written? Well?
> 
> The coda, the coda, crushing, mountainness, pinnacle of majesty.


Wait a minute, I thought you said Mozart and his like were all has-beens?


----------



## paulbest

Probably have to carry out on a stretcher any of the Mozart nay sayers. and get a text next morning,,,*I have to reconsider my assumptions, on Mozart...*


----------



## paulbest

eugeneonagain said:


> Wait a minute, I thought you said Mozart and his like were all has-beens?


I though I made this clear in many of my posts past few weeks, Mozart , is always characterized in the most glowing of descript terminology. you read the music critics/historians past 100 years ,all have such accolades and praises , the likes of which you will not see as they move on to discuss other composers. 
I've noted that yrs ago. 
Mozart is unique, stands alone in so many ways,.

Mozart for me has this timeless quality, it goes deep, broad . The expressiveness, power of his music is only limited by the person hearing. 
that is to say, he who is deepest will know Mozart the more profoundly


----------



## Ethereality

Baroque / Classical is not based more on mathematics than Beethoven / Romantic is. It's just simpler to see the more amateur mathematics within earlier music. Beethoven was mathematically more advanced.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Disagree, had Ives heard Szell/Cleveland/1955 , he may have a dif opinion of the sym , had he experienced Walter's Columbia SO performance.
> 
> I am not sure Szell's Mozart/41. is the best offering in Mozart
> 
> Whereas with Walter , sounds like the real deal
> There are so many bad recordings in Mozart,,this may perhaps infect to some degree a certain sour note in some critics of Mozart..
> Whereas with Beethoven, just about all 200+ recordings are rated either 7,8,910 stars out of 10.
> 
> It is not too dif to make a success in Beethoven,. With Mozart, the excellence standard bar is raised higher.
> Ives may possibly have heard a conductor such as szell in performance,which allows for some disdain.
> Then again come to think about it,,I could be all wrong here,,and it is possible the music we get from Ives may be as it is, due to his supposedly repugnance of Mozart.
> If you can understand what I am getting at in *the music we get from Ives*


There are other composer nay sayers of Mozart. Verdi considered him as a quartet composer - seemingly dismissing his operas entirely. Professional envy perhaps?
Gershwin said to Schoenberg - one day Im going to compose something as simple as a Mozart quartet. This put Schoenberg into a fury.

Not too many though - its mostly adulation.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Well if it is true, that Ives had more than just flippancy in his pithy quip about Mozart. well who did Ives look up to as inspiration?
> Beethoven, yes he appreciated Beethoven..
> Well which composer did Carter find his inspiration? Mozart,
> *Now which American composer do you prefer and /or think is the finer , more developed,* more oeuvre offer of the 2. ?
> JUst innocently asking, not staring any flaming deal here.
> You can just as easily pass up


"Developed"... Hmmm. I dunno. But Carter leaves me cold and Ives makes me smile. Some things - like photographic film and bodybuilders' physiques - can be overdeveloped, and other things - like luxury hotels in Azerbaijan and golf courses in Scotland - shouldn't have been developed in the first place. Development is overrated: Mozart is more developed than Weber, but I adore _Der Freischutz_ and can't get through _Cosi fan Tutte_ or _Figaro_ unless its a Met broadcast and there's a fun quiz between the acts and a big bag of chips by the computer.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> I though I made this clear in many of my posts past few weeks, Mozart , is always characterized in the most* glowing of descript terminology*. you read the music critics/historians past 100 years ,all have such accolades and praises , the likes of which you will not see as they move on to discuss other composers.
> I've noted that yrs ago.
> Mozart is unique, stands alone in so many ways,.
> 
> Mozart for me has this timeless quality, it goes deep, broad . The expressiveness, power of his music is only limited by the person hearing.
> that is to say, he who is deepest will know Mozart the more profoundly


yes - you could write your thesis on the style of language used by great composers and musicians to honour Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I guess he was like Brahms and Chopin, who in their early periods appreciated Beethoven, but came to appreciate Beethoven's predecessors more as they aged.
> 
> Brahms (1896):
> _"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135
> 
> Chopin (1849):
> _"Where Beethoven is obscure and appears to be lacking in unity, it is not, as people allege, from a rather wild originality - the quality which they admire in him - it is because he turns his back on eternal principles."'_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ggkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q&f=false


It just goes to show that smart people can be idiots on occasion. Digging up quotes in hopes of proving anything is more idiotic than smart.


----------



## mmsbls

paulbest said:


> I see no others are taking Ives serious, on his Mozart quip.
> 
> I am quite sure Ives would recant.
> So with that recantation, which other composer in history had even the slightest demeanor
> toward Mozart?
> 
> How could anyone have a denunciation towards Mozart after experience this finale, starting at 23:05.
> 
> Has there been anything more glorious written? Well?


Your comments remind me of Phil Goulding's comment on Mozart in his "Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works. He wrote, "It is not really possible to dislike Mozart's music." I have no idea which major composers did not like Mozart's music, but certainly there are a modest percentage of TC members who don't especially enjoy Mozart. That's true of any composer including Bach and Beethoven.

A very high percentage of both knowledgeable and casual listeners adore Mozart. Many speak in the highest terms about his ability to compose. Fine. He's my favorite composer. But why push this view on others? Those who don't enjoy Mozart don't enjoy him, for whatever reason. There are those who don't like chocolate cake. So what? They love other music and other food. Enjoy whatever you enjoy.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> It just goes to show that smart people can be idiots on occasion. Digging up quotes in hopes of proving anything is more idiotic than smart.


I think they do that to protect themselves. If they gave their own opinion, they'd be torn to shreds, or put through an inquisition.

BTW, I don't feel Mozart is being "pushed" on me. To the contrary, I love to see people enthuse about music. That's much more tolerable than negativity.

What, now you can get infractions for liking music too much?


----------



## PlaySalieri

mmsbls said:


> Your comments remind me of Phil Goulding's comment on Mozart in his "Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works. He wrote, "It is not really possible to dislike Mozart's music." I have no idea which major composers did not like Mozart's music, but certainly there are a modest percentage of TC members who don't especially enjoy Mozart. That's true of any composer including Bach and Beethoven.
> 
> A very high percentage of both knowledgeable and casual listeners adore Mozart. Many speak in the highest terms about his ability to compose. Fine. He's my favorite composer. But why push this view on others? Those who don't enjoy Mozart don't enjoy him, for whatever reason. There are those who don't like chocolate cake. So what? They love other music and other food. Enjoy whatever you enjoy.


True - somehow - when a TC member drags Mozart's name though the dirt - it provokes a reaction than someone, shall we say, deriding the music of almost any other composer save Bach and Beethoven.

Certainly though - Mozart is rated outside the top 10 by at least 20% of TC members - based on various top 10 polls I have done a straw count. That does not mean all the people who left him out of their top10 dont like any Mozart - as I noted many users who have praised him in various posts did not put him in their top 10.


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> It just goes to show that smart people can be idiots on occasion. Digging up quotes in hopes of proving anything is more idiotic than smart.


Don't discourage the digging up of quotes. It may not prove anything, but it's fun to dip into a thread and discover some stray comments by Chopin and Brahms.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> It just goes to show that smart people can be idiots on occasion. Digging up quotes in hopes of proving anything is more idiotic than smart.


In the case of this thread, quotes prove exactly what some great composers thought about other great composers.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Simon Moon

So then, this thread, is just another excuse to bash some 20th century (and contemporary) music then.



> This was a ghastly inversion that led slowly but inevitably to the awful atonal music of Schönberg and Webern. In other words, almost everything that went wrong with music in the 19th and 20th centuries is ultimately Beethoven's fault


Nothing more to see here, that hasn't already been on display at TC since its beginnings.

For me, it should be stated, *"In other words, almost everything that went right with music in the 19th and 20th centuries"*.


----------



## Flutter

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3617581/How-Beethoven-ruined-classical-music.html
> 
> This must be one of the great ****-takings I've ever read on the internet, which is saying something.


IMO Beethoven seeded the greatest coming century in the history of classical music (the 20th), but Beethoven's actually music means very little to me other than a historical note. Renaissance music is way better.


----------



## paulbest

mmsbls said:


> Your comments remind me of Phil Goulding's comment on Mozart in his "Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1000 Greatest Works. He wrote, "It is not really possible to dislike Mozart's music." I have no idea which major composers did not like Mozart's music, but certainly there are a modest percentage of TC members who don't especially enjoy Mozart. That's true of any composer including Bach and Beethoven.
> 
> A very high percentage of both knowledgeable and casual listeners adore Mozart. Many speak in the highest terms about his ability to compose. Fine. He's my favorite composer. But why push this view on others? Those who don't enjoy Mozart don't enjoy him, for whatever reason. There are those who don't like chocolate cake. So what? They love other music and other food. Enjoy whatever you enjoy.


Yes agree as is my forte , I am a bit more persistent in this case of disdain for Mozart.

I will accept the fact, just as others accept the fact that some have little feeling for Beethoven's music. 
On the quip of Gershwin, he never mentions Mozart is simple and so boring. That's not his intent at all, if you read the missing part to the story. 
I will refrain from pushing my agenda here, although I did have some more imput. Yet it will only lead us further away from the OP.,,,or yet, I think on the other hand, it does have something to do with the OP. Mozart and Beethoven are light years different composers. 
Its possible to enjoy both, and yet also possible to greatly prefer 1 over the other. As dif as their music is. 
I am not pushing any opinions on anyone. Its a fact , the critics have given testimony that each composer is *quite different*.


----------



## Flutter

paulbest said:


> OK
> Even IF we take Ives at face value, which I think he may have said off the record....
> What would Mozart's reaction/opinions/comments be upon exiting a ~~Ives 4th sym concert~~
> Ives to Mozart *well well what ya think?***
> ~~~ Mozart to Ives: *……* use your imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BESIDES which, that's one minor composer, can you fish upm from the deeps another anti-Mozart comment from another minor./major composer?
> Just 1 more, then I will believe.
> 
> Whereas I know there have been multiple majors who made some comments on Beethoven's music.


Mozart is child's music compared to Ives. Period.


----------



## Haydn70

Flutter said:


> Mozart is child's music compared to Ives. Period.


Mozart composed *much *greater music than Charles Ives...and he did it when he was a child.


----------



## Woodduck

Blancrocher said:


> Don't discourage the digging up of quotes. It may not prove anything, but it's fun to dip into a thread and discover some stray comments by Chopin and Brahms.


I _love_ quotes, but using them as weapons in disputes is silly and suggests that the quoters either can't think for themselves or need a shield against disagreement. But the shield generally shatters as soon as someone else finds a contrary quote. In some cases it's possible to quote a single source and get two or three contradictory opinions uttered at different times. Who was the greatest composer of all? If you quote Wagner, you can get Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, depending, I suppose, on which beret and cravat he was wearing that day.


----------



## Flutter

Haydn70 said:


> Mozart composed *much *greater music than Charles Ives...and he did it when he was a child.


Lol, nice try but Mozart's greatest work doesn't even touch Ives' lesser works.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> True - somehow - when a TC member drags Mozart's name though the dirt - it provokes a reaction than someone, shall we say, deriding the music of almost any other composer save Bach and Beethoven.
> 
> Certainly though - Mozart is rated outside the top 10 by at least 20% of TC members - based on various top 10 polls I have done a straw count. That does not mean all the people who left him out of their top10 dont like any Mozart - as I noted many users who have praised him in various posts did not put him in their top 10.


UNREAL, 
I had no idea what kind of territory I was wading through in these waters.
UNREAL,,, With your fair warning shot over my bow,,i will make a sharp turn of the wheel and run this ship in safer waters,,,
And will refrain from other thoughts that I have entertained over the years , from appearing on this board...

I can feel the moose already around my neck.
I've already been given 1 warning to back off. 
My views can be quirky and roughshod, as I lack rhetoric polish to express these queries properly. Combined with complete lack of all musical training, leaves my ideas flimsy and convoluted.


----------



## paulbest

Flutter said:


> Lol, nice try but Mozart's greatest work doesn't even touch Ives' lesser works.




This is the oddest post I've ever seen in my years on discussion forums. 
,No, please , don;'t try to explain that one,,


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> I _love_ quotes, but using them as weapons in disputes is silly and suggests that the quoters either can't think for themselves or need a shield against disagreement. But the shield generally shatters as soon as someone else finds a contrary quote. In some cases it's possible to quote a single source and get two or three contradictory opinions uttered at different times. Who was the greatest composer of all? If you quote Wagner, you can get Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, depending, I suppose, on which beret and cravat he was wearing that day.


ain't buying that.
If you sit 50 music prof's/critics down , and request a note as to which composers they feel is most important concerning every aspect of musical forms, pre 1900. Which composer will *most likely* show as either highest rank or just below..If they are completely honest mind you, no bias involved. 
Just google any music critics comments on Mozart, its right there. 
I know what I use to read on the back covers of LP's back in the day. One never forgets such glowing testimony.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> This is the oddest post I've ever seen in my years on discussion forums.


Odd indeed, but perhaps not surprising, since Ives is one of the oddest of composers.


----------



## Haydn70

Flutter said:


> Lol, nice try but Mozart's greatest work doesn't even touch Ives' lesser works.


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


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> ain't buying that.
> If you sit 50 music prof's/critics down , and request a note as to which composers they feel is most important concerning every aspect of musical forms, pre 1900. Which composer will *most likely* show as either highest rank or just below..If they are completely honest mind you, no bias involved.
> Just google any music critics comments on Mozart, its right there.
> I know what I use to read on the back covers of LP's back in the day. One never forgets such glowing testimony.


Evidently you like the game of competitive quoting, and think it proves something.


----------



## Flutter

paulbest said:


> This is the oddest post I've ever seen in my years on discussion forums.
> ,No, please , don;'t try to explain that one,,


So I'm supposed to think Mozart is better than Ives?


----------



## Flutter

Haydn70 said:


> ............................................................................................


Right back at ya


----------



## Haydn70

Flutter said:


> So I'm supposed to think Mozart is better than Ives?


No, you are supposed to *KNOW *that...


----------



## EdwardBast

paulbest said:


> Well if it is true, that Ives had more than just flippancy in his pithy quip about Mozart. well who did Ives look up to as inspiration?


He thought Carl Ruggles was the manliest of composers.


----------



## Flutter

Haydn70 said:


> No, you are supposed to *KNOW *that...


Well that's a ridiculous notion if you are serious. I respectfully agree to vehemently disagree.


----------



## mmsbls

paulbest said:


> I will refrain from pushing my agenda here, although I did have some more imput. Yet it will only lead us further away from the OP.,,,or yet, I think on the other hand, it does have something to do with the OP. Mozart and Beethoven are light years different composers.
> Its possible to enjoy both, and yet also possible to greatly prefer 1 over the other. As dif as their music is.
> I am not pushing any opinions on anyone. Its a fact , the critics have given testimony that each composer is *quite different*.


Just to be clear: I was not saying you definitely cannot push your agenda (I was not speaking as a moderator but rather as a member). You definitely can advocate for your favorites. In fact some members have pushed their favorites for years, and sometimes their advocacy moves others to give that composer or work a second (or first) chance resulting in appreciation of the music. That's all good.

I was simply saying that there are those who do not and will not view Mozart as wonderful (even though he is, of course )


----------



## Phil loves classical

Yes, Beethoven ruined music with his barbaric approach to composition. Fortunately for us homo sapiens, after the dearth of meaningful music left by Beethoven and others, true enlightenment came in the form of Babbitt, who succeeded more than any other composer in unifying musical parameters with mathematics. But then why does the author hate atonality? Check this out.

http://www.titanmusic.com/papers/public/Bemman_RMA_2014.pdf


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Odd indeed, but perhaps not surprising, since Ives is one of the oddest of composers.


In a curious manner, no hidden agenda here, How is Ives reputation among the musical community up in his home area, the northeast and all over America?
Seriously , does he continue to rank as a important American compose? Or should I just go over to wiki and see what they say? But that could be old news, or perhaps not so accurate. 
basically does anyone know if Ives is on concert programs, or is interest waning?

I tried Ives yrs ago and since, have lost what little interest that once was. I use to enjoy his 3 Places and his sym 3. I think those 2 are his finest orchestral works.

Hahn has just released cd with Ives sonatas for violin and piano, which held my attention,,,and IMHO his best chamber works. There are a few complaints on Hahn's choice of pianist partner.


----------



## mmsbls

paulbest said:


> In a curious manner, no hidden agenda here, How is Ives reputation among the musical community up in his home area, the northeast and all over America?
> Seriously , does he continue to rank as a important American compose? Or should I just go over to wiki and see what they say? But that could be old news, or perhaps not so accurate.
> basically does anyone know if Ives is on concert programs, or is interest waning?


I don't know how often he's performed (I believe that's KenOC's job), but I quite like his symphonies, string quartets, and orchestral works Central Park in the Dark and the Unanswered Question. I would certainly consider him a major composer.


----------



## mmsbls

Woodduck said:


> Evidently you like the game of competitive quoting, and think it proves something.


I believe the US competitive quoting championships will be in Baltimore in late August this year. As always, they expect large sellout crowds.


----------



## paulbest

mmsbls said:


> Just to be clear: I was not saying you definitely cannot push your agenda (I was not speaking as a moderator but rather as a member). You definitely can advocate for your favorites. In fact some members have pushed their favorites for years, and sometimes their advocacy moves others to give that composer or work a second (or first) chance resulting in appreciation of the music. That's all good.
> 
> I was simply saying that there are those who do not and will not view Mozart as wonderful (even though he is, of course )


No I can't. Everyone is now so sick and tired of my ~near~the~level~ of propaganda , I'
m done.

There 's the old saying, ~you can take the horse to the water , but you can't make him drink~.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I don't know how often he's performed (I believe that's KenOC's job), but I quite like his symphonies, string quartets, and orchestral works Central Park in the Dark and the Unanswered Question. I would certainly consider him a major composer.


Ask and your knowedge shall be augmented -- instantly! In the latest US orchestral season I have data for, Ives was programmed 19 times. This is less than a third the frequency of Copland (69 times), a later composer but one usually easier on the ear.

In fact I can't recall a single Copland work where two brass bands, playing different pieces, marched through each other.


----------



## philoctetes

Gone to a lotta concerts, heard some good Mozart, and some that was lackluster. The music is fine, but ensembles can sometimes mail it in. One of the best I've seen was a small-town production of Figaro in English. OTOH, I'll NEVER forget the time I heard the SFS play Ives 4th. And when I saw the Emersons, it was the Ives that stood out, not the Haydn.

This not to say that Ives is better, but as a live musical experience, he has an edge...


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> Ask and your knowedge shall be augmented -- instantly! In the latest US orchestral season I have data for, Ives was programmed 19 times. This is less than a third the frequency of Copland (69 times), a later composer but one usually easier on the ear.
> 
> In fact I can't recall a single Copland work where two brass bands, playing different pieces, marched through each other.


Not to get picky...but to get picky, the marching band incident(s) that Ives was trying to duplicate had to do with two bands in a parade, one band having already passed him, but still audible and another band approaching, it too audible...thus he heard two bands at once, each playing different music.


----------



## KenOC

Haydn70 said:


> Not to get picky...but to get picky, the marching band incident(s) that Ives was trying to duplicate had to do with two bands in a parade, one band having already passed him, but still audible and another band approaching, it too audible...thus he heard two bands at once, each playing different music.


Well, his father then. Close enough! "George had been a Union Army bandmaster in the Civil War and had a playful relationship with music that he that he passed on to his son. Once, George had two bands march toward each other while playing different songs, just to know what it would sound like."


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> In a curious manner, no hidden agenda here, How is Ives reputation among the musical community up in his home area, the northeast and all over America?
> Seriously , does he continue to rank as a important American compose? Or should I just go over to wiki and see what they say? But that could be old news, or perhaps not so accurate.
> basically does anyone know if Ives is on concert programs, or is interest waning?
> 
> I tried Ives yrs ago and since, have lost what little interest that once was. I use to enjoy his 3 Places and his sym 3. I think those 2 are his finest orchestral works.
> 
> Hahn has just released cd with Ives sonatas for violin and piano, which held my attention,,,and IMHO his best chamber works. There are a few complaints on Hahn's choice of pianist partner.


Ives is considered by those in the know one of America's most important composers. Some say he's our greatest. I'm not in the know, so I'd rather not opine, but he had an original turn of mind (to say the least) that prompted him to produce wild and fascinating stuff that by rights insurance agents should not be able to produce. If you doubt that last part, just play some Ives for your father and ask him, "Would you buy insurance from this man?"


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Ives is considered by those in the know one of America's most important composers. Some say he's our greatest. I'm not in the know, so I'd rather not opine, but he had an original turn of mind (to say the least) that prompted him to produce wild and fascinating stuff that by rights insurance agents should not be able to produce. If you doubt that last part, just play some Ives for your father and ask him, "Would you buy insurance from this man?"


haha, yes Ives has a look of a salesman.

WEll then, seems I better keep quite on my little secret about who I feel is the most important American composer,,,as it is most certainly not the one I am thinking,,,not even close...


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> Gone to a lotta concerts, heard some good Mozart, and some that was lackluster. The music is fine, but ensembles can sometimes mail it in. One of the best I've seen was a small-town production of Figaro in English. OTOH, I'll NEVER forget the time I heard the SFS play Ives 4th. And when I saw the Emersons, it was the Ives that stood out, not the Haydn.
> 
> This not to say that Ives is better, but as a live musical experience, he has an edge...


I got to see Itzhak Perlman play an Ives Sonata for violin and piano, and it was thrilling. He had the audience _laughing out loud with delight._ I'll never forget that one.


----------



## KenOC

Ives was not just an "insurance agent" but ran a good-sized firm that made him rich. He was the inventor of modern estate management, which is basically the art of structuring your wealth so that it can be passed on with a minimum of inheritance and other taxes. Life insurance is a key strategy in this.

His book _Life Insurance with Relation to Inheritance Tax_, published in 1918, made him quite famous in the industry.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Ives was not just an "insurance agent" but ran a good-sized firm that made him rich. He was the inventor of modern estate management, which is basically the art of structuring your wealth so that it can be passed on with a minimum of inheritance and other taxes. Life insurance is a key strategy in this.
> 
> His book _Life Insurance with Relation to Inheritance Tax_, published in 1918, made him quite famous in the industry.


That would explain why every time I talk to my insurance agent I hear _The Unanswered Question_ in my mind.


----------



## apricissimus

It's hard for me to reconcile the creativity of someone Ives with the awful dreariness of insurance and tax avoidance. But I'm not an especially creative person, so what do I know.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> That would explain why every time I talk to my insurance agent I hear _The Unanswered Question_ in my mind.


Whenever you buy life insurance, you're betting you're going to die. The insurance company is betting you're going to live. So who's your friend?


----------



## hammeredklavier

The thing about Ives is that he had low opinion of so many other canon composers: 
_"Charles Ives had no use for Mozart, Haydn Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and Wagner"_
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/21/...-rebel-natural-avantgardist-charles-ives.html
Same with Glenn Gould, he was indifferent to 90% of mainstream Romantic composers like Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninoff.

There are some contemporary composers hating canon composers just to be revolutionary against the convention, driven by extreme ideals of modernism. I think John Cage called Mozart and Beethoven "noise" with this mentality in mind. He would have thought all tonal music noise too, he just used Mozart and Beethoven as the most notable, well-known examples of tonal classical music composers. Some others are even jealous of the popularity of canon composers and would write about how their music isn't widely performed and loved as the canon composers'.


----------



## KenOC

apricissimus said:


> It's hard for me to reconcile the creativity of someone Ives with the awful dreariness of insurance and tax avoidance. But I'm not an especially creative person, so what do I know.


Ah, you've never had the rare joy of creating a table of whole-life premium rates from actuarial tables and future interest rate estimates.


----------



## Haydn70

American modernist poet Wallace Stevens spent most of his life working as an insurance executive at Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company. Another creative Connecticut man in the insurance biz.


----------



## Haydn70

hammeredklavier said:


> The thing about Ives is that he had low opinion of so many other canon composers:
> _"Charles Ives had no use for Mozart, Haydn Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and Wagner"_
> https://www.nytimes.com/1974/04/21/...-rebel-natural-avantgardist-charles-ives.html
> Same with Glenn Gould, he was indifferent to 90% of mainstream Romantic composers like Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninoff.
> 
> There are some contemporary composers hating canon composers just to be revolutionary against the convention, driven by extreme ideals of modernism. I think John Cage called Mozart and Beethoven "noise" with this mentality in mind. He would have thought all tonal music noise too, he just used Mozart and Beethoven as the most notable, well-known examples of tonal classical music composers. Some others are even jealous of the popularity of canon composers and would write about how their music isn't widely performed and loved as the canon composers'.


Boulez was a first-class hater of most canon composers.

I own the Joan Peyser biography of Boulez and will be sitting down in a few minutes compiling quotes from that book to support that statement.


----------



## Haydn70

Ives inherited his musically experimental ways from his father who was a conservatory-trained musician and a Civil War and post-Civil War bandmaster.

I have the Frank R. Rossiter biography of Ives, "Charles Ives and His America" from which I got this quote of Charles' which I was too lazy to type out but instead took a screenshot.









Gee, I hope it is OK to include this rather long quote...


----------



## Haydn70

Charles Ives accompanies himself on the piano singing one of his songs "They Are There!"

It has to be heard to be believed:






Can you imagine what the first take sounded like???? :lol:

Here is the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and Baltimore Symphony Chorus under the baton of David Zinman:






Beethoven ruined classical music????????


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> ain't buying that.
> If you sit 50 music prof's/critics down , and request a note as to which composers they feel is most important concerning every aspect of musical forms, pre 1900. Which composer will *most likely* show as either highest rank or just below..If they are completely honest mind you, no bias involved.
> Just google any music critics comments on Mozart, its right there.
> I know what I use to read on the back covers of LP's back in the day. One never forgets such glowing testimony.


There's danger that consensus views being so powerful that it stops us evaluating objectively. As a Mozart fan - I do take notice when anyone with any serious credentials come out against the consensus - its always worth re-evaluating.


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> I see no others are taking Ives serious, on his Mozart quip.
> 
> I am quite sure Ives would recant.
> So with that recantation, which other composer in history had even the slightest demeanor
> toward Mozart?
> 
> How could anyone have a denunciation towards Mozart after experience this finale, starting at 23:05.
> 
> Has there been anything more glorious written? Well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The coda, the coda, crushing, mountainness, pinnacle of majesty.


It's a decent composition - but that recording is seriously tinny is it not? This is much better imo:


----------



## Larkenfield

Haydn70 said:


> Charles Ives accompanies himself on the piano singing one of his songs "They Are There!"
> 
> It has to be heard to be believed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine what the first take sounded like???? :lol:
> 
> Here is the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra and Baltimore Symphony Chorus under the baton of David Zinman:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven ruined classical music????????


It's a Beethoven thread, but I will go ahead and comment on Ives, the great American patriot with his irrepressible spirit that comes through whether he's a great singer or not. He's not. But it doesn't matter because he's having a hell of a good time being true to the associations in his head, the natural stream of consciousness that he seems to be following and then adding an accompaniment... I don't know for sure, but it sounds like the words came first. I think he was a treasure because of his individuality, his outspokenness, his love of America in a Transcendental way like Emerson and Thoreau, and his completely natural love of clashing dissonances perhaps more than any composer who ever lived. It was completely natural to him and there's an eccentric outspokenness about him that I find delightful. Maybe there are still such characters around, but I don't see any Americans like this. I believe the America he represents is already long gone and fortunately the music remains.

Now back to Beethoven and that quote… I don't think he gave a damn about the music of the spheres; he bent music to his will and used it for his own purposes. He wrestled it from the gods and it probably saved his soul, his mind, his sanity, his spiritual life. What was he supposed to do? Give into everything?


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> It's a decent composition - but that recording is seriously tinny is it not? This is much better imo:


There's nothing "tinny" about Walter's Mozart! The recording is old but the music making is timeless. Jarvi is OK but there are many better.


----------



## Enthusiast

Flutter said:


> Lol, nice try but Mozart's greatest work doesn't even touch Ives' lesser works.


Whenever I see a post that makes a claim as if it were an obvious fact that the poster must know is not widely shared what the poster wants. I presume it is condemnation and disagreement. Very well, out of respect, I disagree with you and condemn your post.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> There's nothing "tinny" about Walter's Mozart! The recording is old but the music making is timeless. Jarvi is OK but there are many better.


Perhaps it's my ears - but it's tinniness hurt them.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> There's nothing "tinny" about Walter's Mozart! The recording is old but the music making is timeless. Jarvi is OK but there are many better.


 I go along with that. I hear nothing "tinny" about the Walter recording through audiophile headphones. It sounds fine and so does the performance, at least to my ears. He loved Mozart. Good sound quality in a good upload.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> ain't buying that.
> If you sit 50 music prof's/critics down , and request a note as to which composers they feel is most important concerning every aspect of musical forms, pre 1900. Which composer will *most likely* show as either highest rank or just below..If they are completely honest mind you, no bias involved.
> Just google any music critics comments on Mozart, its right there.
> I know what I use to read on the back covers of LP's back in the day. One never forgets such I agree that glowing testimony.


I agree that Mozart would definitely be very highly placed in a poll of the nature you allude to. But so too would Bach and Beethoven. Depending exactly on which "profs" were asked, you might also get Wagner included in the very top line up.

You may recall (from CMG days) that there were a few strong advocates of Robert Schumann being in the top group. This surprised me but I recall finding out at the time that that there are noticeable regional variations around the world about who are regarded as the most highly rated composers. In Germany, apparently, Robert Schumann is very highly rated, much more so than in the rest of the world. I don't know but would guess that Tchaikovsky might be more highly rated in Russia than elsewhere.

The fact that Ives did not have a high regard for Mozart is hardly devastating news, so I wouldn't worry about it. In any case I presumed that you were referring to major composers, and on most comparisons Ives is hardly regarded as being in the top echelons of composers. Even if he was a much more highly regarded composer, his comment that he doesn't like Mozart because he is "effiminate" is hardly going to make much difference to Mozart's very solid reputation. It sometimes takes an exception like this to prove a rule, in this case that Mozart is generally regarded as top rate.

I think that the first composer of any repute to question Beethoven's greatness was Ravel. I remember discussing this matter with you and others at CMG. For a time, Debussy shared Ravel's dislike of Beethoven to some extent, but he was rather ambivalent. These two fell out with each other and I'm not sure how things finished up with regard to Debussy's attitude towards Beethoven. For Ravel it was, I believe, outright dislike of Beethoven's style. For Debussy I think it was partly the view that Beethoven had dominated the music scene for too long, causing an excessive amount of influence on later composers, and that it was time for a big change. Basically, I suspect that both of them thought that the long shadow of Beethoven was crowding their new impressionist style to some extent.

Arguments about which of Beethoven or Mozart were the most influential on later composers have raged for many years without a clear consensus emerging. It could be said that Beethoven was the more influential since he was the major influence on Wagner and Brahms, both of whom were influential but especially Wagner. On the other hand Tchaikovsky and Dvorak were probably more influenced in their work by Mozart, even though they both greatly admired Beethoven. It's virtually impossible to work out who was the most influential in view of all these uncertainties about what later composers actually did rather than what they said in public about their antecedents.


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> It's a decent composition - but that recording is seriously tinny is it not? This is much better imo:


 I've been following the Frankfurt , as I was interested to observe Estrada conducting..He is a pleasure to watch, how he gentle coaxes the orchestra with tenderness and love for each and every member,,,even IF -EVER they are a bit off, he complexly disregards. He is completely opposite from the horrible Koussevitzky (try to spell that correctly!),,, who quite often ran off anyone who even had a sneeze of a suggestion as to how to take a tempo,,,and lets not forget old Iron Man, Fritz Reiner,,, Estrada is more like Bruno Walter, conducts with love and affection for both the music and the artist.

back to your suggestion here./
I prefer Neemi's (his father) conducting over Pavvo.

So right from the getgo, I already had bias.

Don't get me wrong here,,The Frankfurt is a very fine symphony, ,,but not a legendary. orchestra.

Now as a 30 yrs recording critic, as others back at GMG well recall I was the *1 minute amazon clip review master*,,,,I can only critique recordings in works I know well. I am less stringent toady than before, and also each composers music has varying degrees of ranges of performances quality. With some composers ,m just about any recording is acceptable. With Mozart, I am super duper picky, In fact of all/every composer, Mozart stands alone as far as my critical approach to recordings. 
Not sure why this is with me, but I've always sought perfection with my Mozart.

As I recall, other than the Walter/Columbia /1960(superior to his NYPO recording) the other which stood out as near a mirror to the Walter was the Bohm/Berlin Philharmonic /1962.

Finale 20:43, I've made attempts to compare the 2, others with a keen musical training, may hear subtilties in the 2 masterful performances, it was a exercise in futility to my ears. I gave up after several attempts.


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> I agree that Mozart would definitely be very highly placed in a poll of the nature you allude to. But so too would Bach and Beethoven. Depending exactly on which "profs" were asked, you might also get Wagner included in the very top line up.
> 
> You may recall (from CMG days) that there were a few strong advocates of Robert Schumann being in the top group. This surprised me but I recall finding out at the time that that there are noticeable regional variations around the world about who are regarded as the most highly rated composers. In Germany, apparently, Robert Schumann is very highly rated, much more so than in the rest of the world. I don't know but would guess that Tchaikovsky might be more highly rated in Russia than elsewhere.
> 
> The fact that Ives did not have a high regard for Mozart is hardly devastating news, so I wouldn't worry about it. In any case I presumed that you were referring to major composers, and on most comparisons Ives is hardly regarded as being in the top echelons of composers. Even if he was a much more highly regarded composer, his comment that he doesn't like Mozart because he is "effiminate" is hardly going to make much difference to Mozart's very solid reputation. It sometimes takes an exception like this to prove a rule, in this case that Mozart is generally regarded as top rate.
> 
> I think that the first composer of any repute to question Beethoven's greatness was Ravel. I remember discussing this matter with you and others at CMG. For a time, Debussy shared Ravel's dislike of Beethoven to some extent, but he was rather ambivalent. These two fell out with each other and I'm not sure how things finished up with regard to Debussy's attitude towards Beethoven. For Ravel it was, I believe, outright dislike of Beethoven's style. For Debussy I think it was partly the view that Beethoven had dominated the music scene for too long, causing an excessive amount of influence on later composers, and that it was time for a big change. Basically, I suspect that both of them thought that the long shadow of Beethoven was crowding their new impressionist style to some extent.
> 
> Arguments about which of Beethoven or Mozart were the most influential on later composers have raged for many years without a clear consensus emerging. It could be said that Beethoven was the more influential since he was the major influence on Wagner and Brahms, both of whom were influential but especially Wagner. On the other hand Tchaikovsky and Dvorak were probably more influenced in their work by Mozart, even though they both greatly admired Beethoven. It's virtually impossible to work out who was the most influential in view of all these uncertainties about what later composers actually did rather than what they said in public about their antecedents.


Excellent wonderful comment. 
For lack of time I can only touch on a few of your evocative insights.

Yes I searched google the other day as to Ravel's staunched opposition to Deethoven , even Debussy had to suggest to his friend to tone his acrimonious attitude towards the great composer. Ravel disliked Beethoven moreso than Debussy. I would imagine after both heard Wagner's Parsifal, they felt *whats the need for Beethoven any longer?*.
Sure many great composers went on to study and emulate the great Beethoven, and fell under his spell, going on to create their masterworks, Brahms, Dvorak, many others owe a huge debt to Beethoven;s inspiration.

Yet which of the great composers wished to emulate Mozart?
This was part of my argument. . 
If you can follow. Two of my favorite composers held Mozart is very high esteem, Schoenberg, Henze,, perhaps also ravel, another super fav of mine, also had favored Mozart over Beethoven. 
So is it possible, those composers who held Mozart in highest esteem, and Beethoven to a lesser degree, did this affection towards one and less so the other, may have some influence as to how they went on to score their masterpieces. 
Ives had some disdain for Mozart,,yet what did Ives feel of Beethoven?

Perhaps many of my 20thC favorite composers are those who held Mozart higher in appreciation, and less so Beethoven.

Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Schnittke..anyone know some opinions of these 3 masters, as far as appreciations for Mozart?

We know clearly there is the Beethoven connection, Schubert, Brahms Dvorak, etc.
But was there, or is there any such thing as *The Mozart connection*
I say there is such a transmission of genius.


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> The fact that Ives did not have a high regard for Mozart is hardly devastating news, so I wouldn't worry about it. In any case I presumed that you were referring to major composers, and on most comparisons Ives is hardly regarded as being in the top echelons of composers.


For a composer of his generation and musical styles, I'd say that Ives is certainly a top echelon composer.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> For a composer of his generation and musical styles, I'd say that Ives is certainly a top echelon composer.


I guess in the USA he's more highly regarded than he is in the UK. I'm not sure what the rest of Europe thinks because they got cut off in the last fog in the Channel we had. I hope they're coping OK without us.


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> I guess in the USA he's more highly regarded than he is in the UK.


That's my assumption also just as Vaughan Williams is more highly regarded in the UK than the U.S.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> Perhaps many of my 20thC favorite composers are those who held Mozart higher in appreciation, and less so Beethoven.
> 
> Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Schnittke..anyone know some opinions of these 3 masters, as far as appreciations for Mozart?
> 
> We know clearly there is the Beethoven connection, Schubert, Brahms Dvorak, etc.
> But was there, or is there any such thing as *The Mozart connection*
> I say there is such a transmission of genius.


The possible field of candidates is quite wide. It covers potentially all of the so-called "neo-classical" composers. There are quite a few: Bartok, Britten, Bernstein, Falla, Hindemith, Honegger, Hindemith, Milhaud, Nielsen, Poulenc, Rodrigo, Lutoslawaski, Syzmanowski, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Walton, Strauss (R), were some of the main ones.

During their careers several of these composers changed their style not just once but several times from neo-classical to neo-romantic, and to various other forms completely different from the classical/romantic model.

Arguably, Mozart's greatest influence was possibly upon Beethoven and Schubert. There's also the possibility that Haydn might have had his devoteees in later periods. Also, there's Wagner who changed things considerably, and who had huge influence on later composers.

In view of these complications I'd suggest that it would be very difficult to isolate the relative influence of Mozart vis-vis Beethoven so far down the line as the 20th C. The further into the 20th C one goes the greater the difficulty becomes as other styles become more prominent.

The only thing I would add is that, based on nothing more than my own personal casual empiricism, I don't recall much evidence of Beethoven type music being churned out in great abundance in the 20th C. Nothing quite sounds like Beethoven, except possibly some Brahms (which of course was all 19th C), but after that it seemed to change quite a lot.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> That's my assumption also just as Vaughan Williams is more highly regarded in the UK than the U.S.


Absolutely. Many of us Brits love RVW, and we're not amused with what Copland said about RVW's 5th Symphony:

"_Listening to the fifth symphony of Ralph Vaughan Williams is like staring at a cow for 45 minutes_."


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> The possible field of candidates is quite wide. It covers potentially all of the so-called "neo-classical" composers. There are quite a few: Bartok, Britten, Bernstein, Falla, Hindemith, Honegger, Hindemith, Milhaud, Nielsen, Poulenc, Rodrigo, Lutoslawaski, Syzmanowski, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Walton, Strauss (R), were some of the main ones.
> 
> During their careers several of these composers changed their style not just once but several times from neo-classical to neo-romantic, and to various other forms completely different from the classical/romantic model.
> 
> Arguably, Mozart's greatest influence was possibly upon Beethoven and Schubert. There's also the possibility that Haydn might have had his devoteees in later periods. Also, there's Wagner who changed things considerably, and who had huge influence on later composers.
> 
> In view of these complications I'd suggest that it would be very difficult to isolate the relative influence of Mozart vis-vis Beethoven so far down the line as the 20th C. The further into the 20th C one goes the greater the difficulty becomes as other styles become more prominent.
> 
> The only thing I would add is that, based on nothing more than my own personal casual empiricism, I don't recall much evidence of Beethoven type music being churned out in great abundance in the 20th C. Nothing quite sounds like Beethoven, except possibly some Brahms (which of course was all 19th C), but after that it seemed to change quite a lot.


Excellent post. Surely opens up this discussion in new ways.
Glad you mentioned Szymanowski, which I was about to, but decided last moment to delete such a connection. Szy is one of my newest major discoveries, OVERWHELMED with his music. 
Again, the possible *Mozart connection* albeit a far distant one, as you clearly exemplify. 
Thanks for the highly interesting insights you have provided for us. Especially those like myself who lack musical training.


----------



## DavidA

Partita said:


> Absolutely. Many of us Brits love RVW, and we're not amused with what Copland said about RVW's 5th Symphony:
> 
> "_Listening to the fifth symphony of Ralph Vaughan Williams is like staring at a cow for 45 minutes_."


Frankly listening to some of Copeland's music is like staring at a blank wall. At least the cow moves occasionally! :lol:


----------



## Lisztian

After reading the article was pretty sure that a look at the date of the article would reveal it to be an April Fools joke. Apparently not...


----------



## philoctetes

Before buying insurance from Charles Ives, I would be sure to get a quote from Wallace Stevens first.

Insurance is not so dreary if one is an actuary. But as jobs in mathematics go, it's still a bit too specialized for my taste.


----------



## Dimace

Again and again (and after all) the Austrian VS the German... (this time the duel based on something completely crazy and irrelevant).


----------



## superhorn

What poppycock ! There is nothing "narcissistic " about Beethoven's music . In music, narcissism is in the ear of the listener . And I doubt if music can even be narcissistic . This is a lot of pseudo intellectual hooey .


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> Absolutely. Many of us Brits love RVW, and we're not amused with what Copland said about RVW's 5th Symphony:
> 
> "_Listening to the fifth symphony of Ralph Vaughan Williams is like staring at a cow for 45 minutes_."


I have seen this quote one/twice here on TC..
Not sure when Copland made the quip, perhaps in his younger years, or perhaps is this quote accurate?, what was he implying/getting at?
I am being facetious here, as I do not take these tiny quips to mean much. Similar with Gershwin's comment to Shoenberg about how he would one day like to write a something *as simple as a Mozart SQ*,,Schoenberg got irritated and lashed back, *Mozart's SQ's were not considered simple in his day*...I have to side with Gershim on that one, Mozart's SQ's are simple, straightforward.
Same here with Copland, one has to take his words with a grain of salt. Lets not take the quip all out of proportions, as Schoenberg did with Gershwin's passing comment. 
The RVW 5th is in my opinion, the best work to come from the British shores. 
Copland may have not had time to register just how great the symphony is.

We all say things we wish we had not, and recant. the old cliché *foot in the mouth* comes to mind.

Lets not take it at face value.

I mean there have been worse thinsg said about Copland's music I am sure, yet we must overlook those as well as puerile and thought-less.

My 2 cents


----------



## paulbest

superhorn said:


> What poppycock ! There is nothing "narcissistic " about Beethoven's music . In music, narcissism is in the ear of the listener . And I doubt if music can even be narcissistic . This is a lot of pseudo intellectual hooey .


Your opinion does not represent all of us, it only speaks for you.

The 2 composers are light years apart, except for Beethoven's 4th, which is the only sym even remotely approaching Mozart's superior genius.
Why the angst in your post?


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> The 2 composers are light years apart, except for Beethoven's 4th, which is the only sym even remotely approaching Mozart's superior genius.


You must love making ridiculously biased statements such as the one above. Is it the shock value that you find appealing?


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> Your opinion does not represent all of us...


Actually.............


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> The 2 composers are light years apart, except for Beethoven's 4th, which is the only sym even remotely approaching Mozart's superior genius.


It becomes very difficult to participate in a conversation when it comes to be dominated by statements as gob-smackingly ignorant as this, to which the most appropriate response may be to sigh gently, avert one's eyes in embarrassment, and walk away.

I suppose it's futile to suggest that when people are about to say crazy things, they introduce themselves with something like, "I suspect I have no grounds for saying this, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about, and I hope I'm not about to commit an actual crime, but..."


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> It becomes very difficult to participate in a conversation when it comes to be dominated by statements as gob-smackingly ignorant as this, to which the most appropriate response may be to sigh gently, avert one's eyes in embarrassment, and walk away.
> 
> I suppose it's futile to suggest that when people are about to say crazy things, they introduce themselves with something like, "I suspect I have no grounds for saying this, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about, and I hope I'm not about to commit an actual crime, but..."


Your accurate comment, holds me to account. I s=wish I had your perspicuity , before blabber mouthing away .
I fully deserve all invectives , snides and, yet once again, have to recant...

I again went out of bounds.

Ok let me rephrase, Though both are considered foundational icons in classical music, in what ways have each influenced composers through the musical epochs?

I have just now received the Kalabis 3 cd set. 
I do not note anything even remotely resembling influences from Beethoven. But again perhaps there is a connection, via transference from other composers who Kalabis closely studied. 
In this sense, we all owe a sense of great gratitude for Beethoven;'s pioneering masterpieces.

Seriously, no tongue-in-cheek


----------



## paulbest

Bulldog said:


> You must love making ridiculously biased statements such as the one above. Is it the shock value that you find appealing?


3red recant of the day. When cornered at cliff's edge, best to snake away,,than walk proud and slip to ones perilous death.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> It becomes very difficult to participate in a conversation when it comes to be dominated by statements as gob-smackingly ignorant as this, to which the most appropriate response may be to sigh gently, avert one's eyes in embarrassment, and walk away.
> 
> I suppose it's futile to suggest that when people are about to say crazy things, they introduce themselves with something like, "I suspect I have no grounds for saying this, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about, and I hope I'm not about to commit an actual crime, but..."


It's a fact that not everybody is mad keen on Beethoven. Some folk go a lot further and openly profess that they don't like anything at all to do with any part of the Classical or Romantic era.

Paul is only saying that he doesn't like Beethoven, and considers Mozart to be by far the greater master. It's actually quite refreshing to see Beethoven being on the receiviing of criticism for a change, as it's usually Mozart who gets all the stick. He is perfectly entitled to take this view, just as people are at liberty to say they find the likes of Boulez to be awful, or can't stand Baroque, or find Schubert's counterpoint deficiencies to be important, etc.

I've seen Paul's view on Beethoven before now, many years ago, on another Forum. What he says is not surprising to me. Way back then, I found what he had to say very interesting. It made me think again about Beethoven, as before that I hadn't really come contact with someone with such a different views as myself, and nively I thought everbody liked Beethoven.

To an extent, I came round to accepting some of his points. Beethoven's music, although brilliant technically, can become tiring after a while, and some people, after a period of admiration, can become less enthusiastic. Mozart on the other hand, for some people, is just as skilled and his music is less tiring in the longer term.

I've thought about all this for some time, and have come round to the view now that I like both composers equally, but I can appreciate that other people may take a different view.


----------



## EdwardBast

paulbest said:


> Your opinion does not represent all of us, it only speaks for you.
> 
> The 2 composers are light years apart, except for Beethoven's 4th, which is the only sym even remotely approaching Mozart's superior genius.
> Why the angst in your post?


And you are citing superhorn for holding minority opinions? That's rich.

Since your opinion on Beethoven's symphonies is so, shall we say, eccentric, perhaps you could explain in what ways Beethoven's Fourth Symphony is superior to the Third or the Fifth? Or the ways in which those symphonies are surpassed by those of Mozart? Your posts #69 and #76 above have left us hungry for more of your unique insight into symphonic music.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> It's a fact that not everybody is mad keen on Beethoven. Some folk go a lot further and openly profess that they don't like anything at all to do with any part of the Classical or Romantic era.
> 
> Paul is only saying that he doesn't like Beethoven, and considers Mozart to be by far the greater master. It's actually quite refreshing to see Beethoven being on the receiviing of criticism for a change, as it's usually Mozart who gets all the stick. He is perfectly entitled to take this view, just as people are at liberty to say they find the likes of Boulez to be awful, or can't stand Baroque, or find Schubert's counterpoint deficiencies to be important, etc.
> 
> I've seen Paul's view on Beethoven before now, many years ago, on another Forum. What he says is not surprising to me. Way back then, I found what he had to say very interesting. It made me think again about Beethoven, as before that I hadn't really come contact with someone with such a different views as myself, and nively I thought everbody liked Beethoven.
> 
> To an extent, I came round to accepting some of his points. Beethoven's music, although brilliant technically, can become tiring after a while, and some people, after a period of admiration, can become less enthusiastic. Mozart on the other hand, for some people, is just as skilled and his music is less tiring in the longer term.
> 
> I've thought about all this for some time, and have come round to the view now that I like both composers equally, but I can appreciate that other people may take a different view.


I'm sorry, but this is feeble. Paul made no "point," and your attempt to explain him, "Beethoven's music, although brilliant technically, can become tiring after a while," is not a "point" either. Tiring is in the ear of the beholder, and some people may find ten minutes of a Mozart mass or minuet more tiring than ten hours of Beethoven. And what does "tiring" mean, anyway? And how is it any sort of criterion of value? Hiking is more tiring than watching soap operas.

All this "opinionating" tells us nothing about music. People are entitled to like or dislike whatever music they like or dislike. They should just say so - if they must - and be done with it. Ex cathedra pronouncements like Paul's and "diplomatic" excuses for such pronouncements like yours are equally meritless and equally useless to anyone else interested in the music in question. Maybe the two of you should just go to a bar somewhere and babble away the evening about how Beethoven tires you and how that proves Mozart's superior genius.

Just don't tell me about it. When my soap opera is over, I'll be off hiking.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Woodduck said:


> I'm sorry, but this is feeble. Paul made no "point," and your attempt to explain him, "Beethoven's music, although brilliant technically, can become tiring after a while," is not a "point" either. Tiring is in the ear of the beholder, and some people may find ten minutes of a Mozart mass or minuet more tiring than ten hours of Beethoven. And what does "tiring" mean, anyway? And how is it any sort of criterion of value? Hiking is more tiring than watching soap operas.
> 
> Just don't tell me about it. When my soap opera is over, I'll be off hiking.


Hiking's for suckers, Woodduck. Everyone knows that riding a Segway is better. People are saying.


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> It's a fact that not everybody is mad keen on Beethoven. Some folk go a lot further and openly profess that they don't like anything at all to do with any part of the Classical or Romantic era.
> 
> Paul is only saying that he doesn't like Beethoven, and considers Mozart to be by far the greater master. It's actually quite refreshing to see Beethoven being on the receiviing of criticism for a change, as it's usually Mozart who gets all the stick. He is perfectly entitled to take this view, just as people are at liberty to say they find the likes of Boulez to be awful, or can't stand Baroque, or find Schubert's counterpoint deficiencies to be important, etc.
> 
> I've seen Paul's view on Beethoven before now, many years ago, on another Forum. What he says is not surprising to me. Way back then, I found what he had to say very interesting. It made me think again about Beethoven, as before that I hadn't really come contact with someone with such a different views as myself, and nively I thought everbody liked Beethoven.
> 
> To an extent, I came round to accepting some of his points. Beethoven's music, although brilliant technically, can become tiring after a while, and some people, after a period of admiration, can become less enthusiastic. Mozart on the other hand, for some people, is just as skilled and his music is less tiring in the longer term.
> 
> I've thought about all this for some time, and have come round to the view now that I like both composers equally, but I can appreciate that other people may take a different view.


I only wish you had shown up sooner,,,I've had a lot of explaining to do lately and also looking over the cliffs edge, as they had me courned good, no escape routes,,in the nick of time you saved my life from a precipitous fall below on the rocks 

Really I could not have summed things up better myself. 
Bulls eye.

You see I never get feel at any time Mozart needs apologists, defenders, Not at all. 
Neither does Beethoven. Why all the angst?
Or iis it because of my at times bullish dumb **** opinions,,,well that's understandable


----------



## paulbest

EdwardBast said:


> And you are citing superhorn for holding minority opinions? That's rich.
> 
> Since your opinion on Beethoven's symphonies is so, shall we say, eccentric, perhaps you could explain in what ways Beethoven's Fourth Symphony is superior to the Third or the Fifth? Or the ways in which those symphonies are surpassed by those of Mozart? Your posts #69 and #76 above have left us hungry for more of your unique insight into symphonic music.


Can't /won't, One cliff hanger day is quite enough, Besides Partita has saved me from certain death, which is where you wish to lead me, 
Ain;t bitin sorry,
fish elsewhere


----------



## paulbest

wait just one minute,,,I've just came up with a brain storm.

Ok now I've retreated and regrouping all my forces,,,time for a counter attack.
OK so if Beethoven is so universally accepted, beloved for centuries now, as he does make every #1 on every list of top 10. fact can not be denied.

However, universal?
Nay, ain;'t buying that.

Ck this out, Go to the cd retailer, and look at Beethoven's ,,take the 6th, the only sym which might appeal to the French etiquette, as it is *Pastoral*,,a sym which raely ranks high on any Beethovenian list. 
Its always 3,5,7. 
1,2,8 are duds. 
The 9th has issues, the 4th always falls below the 5,7,3. on every's *Beethoven list*. No wait, the 6th is always the 4th fav, with the 4th as 5th fav, the 1,2,8th rarely if ever get even honorable mentions. The 9th, even the Beethovenians readily admit, *has issues*. 

That leaves let see, of the 9,,,,3,5,7,6 ,,= 4 major masterworks, the 4th as honorable mention, the 8th as OK, nothing spectacular , then the 9th which mertits the claim as *fantastic,,,but,,,,*


Now back to my thought as I went off on a random …
OK go to a cd retailer,,look up orchestras in performaing, say theb 6th whichn is the only one theb French *might* go for,,what do you see?
Nada, in francis orchestra.
and which proves??? you ask. 
Proves nothing.


Now go to any sym, look up French orch recording,,what did you find *unusual*?
Nada you say?
*and ???* you ask. Go figure, cause I know, and aint telling. 
You thought I might have missed that anomaly.
EDIT:
forgot to add, Berllin Phil/berlin SO, 20-50 recordings inn each sym,
Vienna 20-50 recordings in each sym...*and?????* you ask. Go figure, cause I ain;'t tellin ya.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> wait just one minute,,,I've just came up with a brain storm.
> 
> Ok now I've retreated and regrouping all my forces,,,time for a counter attack.
> OK so if Beethoven is so universally accepted, beloved for centuries now, as he does make every #1 on every list of top 10. fact can not be denied.
> 
> However, universal?
> Nay, ain;'t buying that.
> 
> Ck this out, Go to the cd retailer, and look at Beethoven's ,,take the 6th, the only sym which might appeal to the French etiquette, as it is *Pastoral*,,a sym which raely ranks high on any Beethovenian list.
> Its always 3,5,7.
> 1,2,8 are duds.
> The 9th has issues, the 4th always falls below the 5,7,3. on every's *Beethoven list*. No wait, the 6th is always the 4th fav, with the 4th as 5th fav, the 1,2,8th rarely if ever get even honorable mentions. The 9th, even the Beethovenians readily admit, *has issues*.
> 
> That leaves let see, of the 9,,,,3,5,7,6 ,,= 4 major masterworks, the 4th as honorable mention, the 8th as OK, nothing spectacular , then the 9th which mertits the claim as *fantastic,,,but,,,,*
> 
> Now back to my thought as I went off on a random …
> OK go to a cd retailer,,look up orchestras in performaing, say theb 6th whichn is the only one theb French *might* go for,,what do you see?
> Nada, in francis orchestra.
> and which proves??? you ask.
> Proves nothing.
> 
> Now go to any sym, look up French orch recording,,what did you find *unusual*?
> Nada you say?
> *and ???* you ask. Go figure, cause I know, and aint telling.
> You thought I might have missed that anomaly.
> EDIT:
> forgot to add, Berllin Phil/berlin SO, 20-50 recordings inn each sym,
> Vienna 20-50 recordings in each sym...*and?????* you ask. Go figure, cause I ain;'t tellin ya.


Would you mind stating your thesis in one sentence?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> It's a fact that not everybody is mad keen on Beethoven. Some folk go a lot further and openly profess that they don't like anything at all to do with any part of the Classical or Romantic era.
> 
> Paul is only saying that he doesn't like Beethoven, and considers Mozart to be by far the greater master. It's actually quite refreshing to see Beethoven being on the receiviing of criticism for a change, as it's usually Mozart who gets all the stick. He is perfectly entitled to take this view, just as people are at liberty to say they find the likes of Boulez to be awful, or can't stand Baroque, or find Schubert's counterpoint deficiencies to be important, etc.
> 
> I've seen Paul's view on Beethoven before now, many years ago, on another Forum. What he says is not surprising to me. Way back then, I found what he had to say very interesting. It made me think again about Beethoven, as before that I hadn't really come contact with someone with such a different views as myself, and nively I thought everbody liked Beethoven.
> 
> To an extent, I came round to accepting some of his points. Beethoven's music, although brilliant technically, can become tiring after a while, and some people, after a period of admiration, can become less enthusiastic. Mozart on the other hand, for some people, is just as skilled and his music is less tiring in the longer term.
> 
> I've thought about all this for some time, and have come round to the view now that I like both composers equally, but I can appreciate that other people may take a different view.


Well yes. So long as it isn't your best mate Counterpoint-fail McPudgy any sort of honest critique is fine.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Would you mind stating your thesis in one sentence?


Now that you ask
The French folks, do not appreciate Beethoven as much as the Germans , the Austrians, the British, the Americans. 
And neither do I , I am so un-American. What they rate high, I most often oppose. .Like Copland, Ives, , high scores in American musical culture, Carter rates low score
To each his won I guess.
I tried 1 sentence.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Now that you ask
> The French folks, do not appreciate Beethoven as much as the Germans , the Austrians, the British, the Americans.
> And neither do I , I am so un-American. What they rate high, I most often oppose. .Like Copland, Ives, , high scores in American musical culture, Carter rates low score
> To each his won I guess.
> I tried 1 sentence.


Not bad. Try to do that each time and I might actually read what you write.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I thought the argument was going to run:

1. The French don't like Beethoven,
2. I don't like Beethoven,
3. Therefore I am French.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> I thought the argument was going to run:
> 
> 1. The French don't like Beethoven,
> 2. I don't like Beethoven,
> 3. Therefore I am French.


Nah, more like:
1. The French don't like Beethoven,
2. I don't like the French,
3. Therefore I am Beethoven.​


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I thought the argument was going to run:
> 
> 1. The French don't like Beethoven,
> 2. I don't like Beethoven,
> 3. Therefore I am French.


Well, Paul is from Louisiana, Cajuns are from Louisiana, and Cajuns have French ancestry...


----------



## JeffD

I think this conversation fails to distinguish between what a piece of music expresses and how a piece of music expresses. The "how" has evolved gigantically. The "what" I think has not changed much. Certainly the "what" need not be and rarely is the "how".


----------



## millionrainbows

1. The French don't like Beethoven,
2. I don't like Beethoven,
3. Therefore, I am Napoleon.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Not bad. Try to do that each time and I might actually read what you write.


Yes I agree, my posts are quite often ,,,,convoluted,,to put it nicely,,which deters my level of argument from any success.

Try as best you can to tread ,,the shi,,,waters
maybe there is something of interest,,or better amusing. I try as best I can to slip in a bit of humor,,,thats the best way to read my posts.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Well, Paul is from Louisiana, Cajuns are from Louisiana, and Cajuns have French ancestry...


My mother was german, 100%, father 100% English, (Horace Bushnell my great ancestor, the greatest genius in american history,,no I did not follow his path in genius/scholarship) ,,,so I should take to Beethoven. But I am more French in that regard.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> My mother was german, 100%, father 100% English, (Horace Bushnell my great ancestor, the greatest genius in american history,,no I did not follow his path in genius/scholarship) ,,,so I should take to Beethoven. But I am more French in that regard.


Eh, bien! Laissez les bon temps rouler!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> 1. The French don't like Beethoven,
> 2. I don't like Beethoven,
> 3. Therefore, I am Napoleon.


The cheese-eater surrender monkeys might know something about classical music that could teach some of the Talk-Classical long-term hangouts a thing or two. After all they got it right in two World Wars, being on the right side that is, and have managed to keep themselves out of most major conflicts since then.


----------



## eugeneonagain

In that case the Dutch and the Swiss must be even bigger geniuses.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I that cased the Dutch and the Swiss must be even bigger geniuses.


I see you are well-versed in cheese. Is there any limit to your field of talents?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> I see you are well-versed in cheese. Is there any limit to your field of talents?


Yes, like the Swiss cheese it is full of holes.


----------



## Razumovskymas

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3617581/How-Beethoven-ruined-classical-music.html
> 
> This must be one of the great ****-takings I've ever read on the internet, which is saying something.


Tortured but redeemed!!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Eh, bien! Laissez les bon temps rouler!


Hah! Sounds a bit too much like a literal translation, mais nous voyons d'où vous venez !!
Nah, _éclatons-nous! _is probably a more colloquial translation.


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm surprised you haven't heard that phrase before. "Let the good times roll" is really just a literal English translation of that very popular Louisiana French phrase.


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> Hah! Sounds a bit too much like a literal translation, mais nous voyons d'où vous venez !!
> Nah, _éclatons-nous! _is probably a more colloquial translation.


Je suis certain que "Laissez les bon temps rouler!" est la devise officieuse de la vie Cajun.


----------



## CnC Bartok

It seems the French continue to divide opinion. One either dislikes them, or hates them.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> It seems the French continue to divide opinion. One either dislikes them, or hates them.


I think you exaggerate. There must also be a large body of people who take an intermediate position.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Je suis certain que "Laissez les bon temps rouler!" est la devise officieuse de la vie Cajun.


D'accord, si vous le dites.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> It seems the French continue to divide opinion. One either dislikes them, or hates them.


Hah! Well, there is a middle ground, you know...
Completely agree when it comes to French civil servants (les fonctionnaires), especialy those working in the tax offices. But I imagine it's the same all over the world.


----------



## superhorn

So I suppose music would not have been "ruined " if Beethoven had just kept on writing nice, sparkling symphonies and concertos in the manner of Haydn and Mozart instead of having written towering revolutionary masterpieces such as his symphonies 3-9 , his late quartets , the Missa Solemnis and the Hammerklavier sonata and other things ? Give me a break !


----------



## KenOC

superhorn said:


> So I suppose music would not have been "ruined " if Beethoven had just kept on writing nice, sparkling symphonies and concertos in the manner of Haydn and Mozart instead of having written towering revolutionary masterpieces such as his symphonies 3-9 , his late quartets , the Missa Solemnis and the Hammerklavier sonata and other things ? Give me a break !


Naw, the damage was done with the third of his Opus 1 trios. Haydn begged him not to publish, but did Ludwig listen? Of course not!


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Naw, the damage was done with the third of his Opus 1 trios. Haydn begged him not to publish, but did Ludwig listen? Of course not!


Huh... So Haydn tried to save music.

People never seem to act until there's a crisis, and then its too late.


----------



## Larkenfield

paulbest said:


> I ain't buying. I will google after I get this post up,,,I do like to have verification. Besides exactly when in Ives life did he hold this belief,,perhaps as a young composer.
> Besides even if corroborated , how significant is Ives?
> I have none of his music in my CD collection,,although I will admit Hahn's performance of Ives sonatas violin/piano are quite good, if not interesting.


It's true that Ives did not care for Mozart, not to mention a number of other well-known composers:

In reality, there was very little music that Ives did like, apart from Bach and Beethoven and, to a lesser extent, Brahms. He had nothing but contempt for what he called music of manner, as opposed to music of substance, and most of the repertory was to him mannered music. He did not care for Mozart, whom he considered "effeminate." Wagner helped "emasculate" art. He did not care for Haydn, Mendelssohn, Tchalkovsky, Gounod, Massenet. They were composers who produced druglike, oversweet, habit‐forming sounds that did not toughen the musical muscles. Debussy needed more Thoreau in him; he was "the city man with his weekend flights into country estheticsm" and his eternal chords of the ninth and eleventh were beginning, to sound "slimy." Chopin was "pretty soft," though Ives did not mind that so much in Chopin "because one just naturally thinks of him with a skirt on, but one he made himself. -NY Times, April 21, 1974, Harold C Schonberg


----------



## hammeredklavier

superhorn said:


> So I suppose music would not have been "ruined " if Beethoven had just kept on writing nice, sparkling symphonies and concertos in the manner of Haydn and Mozart instead of having written towering revolutionary masterpieces such as his symphonies 3-9 , his late quartets , the Missa Solemnis and the Hammerklavier sonata and other things ? Give me a break !


if you judge the artistic quality of a classical period orchestral work only by how "nice" it is, you're approaching it the wrong way. Because that would mean the "nicer" Beethoven symphonies like 8th would be artistically worse than Prokofiev 2nd, for example. Bernstein explained the "classical containment" in his lecture on Mozart's 40th, the sort of things to look for in a classical symphony.


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> I think you exaggerate. There must also be a large body of people who take an intermediate position.


The French , british, german's are different.
I prefer French classical vs the Germanic traditions, Beethoven and all his *sons* music is not very popular in france. 
I think the French have good taste. 
Cusine,clothes designers, chalets, painters, all fine products of france, So yes I prefer the French etiquette.


----------



## infracave

paulbest said:


> The French , british, german's are different.
> I prefer French classical vs the Germanic traditions, Beethoven and all his *sons* music is not very popular in france.
> I think the French have good taste.
> Cusine,clothes designers, chalets, painters, all fine products of france, So yes I prefer the French etiquette.


We only have good taste when it comes to cheese and wine.
The general public in France is as clueless about classical music as anywhere else in the world.
For instance, a friend of mine, 25yo female from upper middle class, didn't know Beethoven was the one who wrote the Ode to Joy "song".


----------



## Captainnumber36

As Haydn came on my radio this morning, followed by a Baroque piece, I was sort of thinking my ranking of the eras goes something like this which surprised me.

French Impressionism
Classical/Baroque tied
Romantic


----------



## Captainnumber36

Beethoven and The Beatles both changed music for the worse!


----------



## millionrainbows

infracave said:


> For instance, a friend of mine, 25yo female from upper middle class, didn't know Beethoven was the one who wrote the Ode to Joy "song".


But she sure smelled good, didn't she?


----------



## Guest

infracave said:


> We only have good taste when it comes to cheese and wine.
> The general public in France is as clueless about classical music as anywhere else in the world.
> For instance, a friend of mine, 25yo female from upper middle class, didn't know Beethoven was the one who wrote the Ode to Joy "song".


Actually it was the German poet Friedrich von Schiller who wrote the Ode to Joy. Beethoven famously "musicalised" it in the 4th movement of the Ninth symphony.

Schiller's poetry was also a major source of material for Schubert's lieder, providing some 40+ songs to which Schubert provided the music.


----------



## paulbest

infracave said:


> We only have good taste when it comes to cheese and wine.
> The general public in France is as clueless about classical music as anywhere else in the world.
> For instance, a friend of mine, 25yo female from upper middle class, didn't know Beethoven was the one who wrote the Ode to Joy "song".


Yet she most likely knows more about classical music than most 25 yr old women here in the US. Glad you brought that up, which kind of adds to my assumptions that not only Beethoven, but the entire Germanic tradition is not so well greeted in france.

oops spoke too soon, w/o knowing what the hell i'm saying

https://www.classictic.com/en/speci...MI-Z3u6uee4gIV0hx9Ch3IXg0nEAAYASAAEgLk5_D_BwE
.

You might figure, I'd be drawn to the great powerful romantic Germanic composers, having a Germanic mother. 
Yet not.

Ravel and Debussy always remain the most archetypal in beauty.

So yes, it is not big deal she missed the Q. Its only Beethoven. ,,,On that note, how many French know about the music of their 2 greatest composers?


----------



## infracave

paulbest said:


> Yet she most likely knows more about classical music than most 25 yr old women here in the US. Glad you brought that up, which kind of adds to my assumptions that not only Beethoven, but the entire Germanic tradition is not so well greeted in france.
> 
> oops spoke too soon, w/o knowing what the hell i'm saying
> 
> https://www.classictic.com/en/speci...MI-Z3u6uee4gIV0hx9Ch3IXg0nEAAYASAAEgLk5_D_BwE
> .
> 
> You might figure, I'd be drawn to the great powerful romantic Germanic composers, having a Germanic mother.
> Yet not.
> 
> Ravel and Debussy always remain the most archetypal in beauty.
> 
> So yes, it is not big deal she missed the Q. Its only Beethoven. ,,,On that note, how many French know about the music of their 2 greatest composers?


The average french guy might know Debussy's Clair de lune (since it was featured in Twilight) and Ravel's Boléro. That's it.
Although I must admit that I'm not much better when it comes to Ravel. Don't know many of his pieces except for his Gaspard de la nuit, Jeux d'eau and Concerto pour la main gauche.

So I guess, we're kind of polar opposites because french impressionim doesn't do it for me and I mainly listen to Beethoven.
The only french composers that I really like are the ones from the Franco-flemish school of renaissance polyphony.

That being said, I wasn't formally trained in music. So maybe in the conservatoires (french music schools), there might exist a certain chauvinism towards french composers. I wouldn't know about that, sorry, but the french concert halls, on the other hand, sure do play a lot of german composers.



millionrainbows said:


> But she sure smelled good, didn't she?


Still does.


----------



## paulbest

What the French can truly boast about, is their spectacular outstanding group, (but only when they are recording/performing mod composers I like)



Ensemble InterContemporain


----------



## superhorn

Hammerklavier, I'm not disparaging the music of Haydn and Mozart . The only thing I question is the notion that Beethoven, with his brilliant innovations, somehow "ruined " music, a notion which is absolutely preposterous .


----------



## paulbest

When someone years ago suggested the earth was not flat, but actually round, ,, the local folks laughed him off all the way to the tavern ,,, the slogan used was ~~~*absolutely preposterous*


----------



## EdwardBast

paulbest said:


> When someone years ago suggested the earth was not flat, but actually round, ,, the local folks laughed him off all the way to the tavern ,,, the slogan used was ~~~*absolutely preposterous*


Actually, they didn't laugh. They checked the methodology and calculations and concluded the finding was correct. It wasn't a stretch because the Greeks had already guessed the shape of the earth from studying lunar eclipses.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Actually, they didn't laugh. They checked the methodology and calculations and concluded the finding was correct. It wasn't a stretch because the Greeks had already guessed the shape of the earth from studying lunar eclipses.


Even more. In about 240BC, Eratosthenes actually calculated the circumference of the earth by comparing shadow lengths at two widely separated places. He was off by less then ten percent.


----------



## MarkW

I've stayed out of this until now, but I guess I'll just say that if Beethoven ruined classical music, I'm happy to stand among the ruins.


----------



## JeffD

During the 70s and 80s on television talk shows around the US, it was not uncommon to hear the interviewed movie stars and elites proudly proclaim they did not watch television. It was a "thing" to not watch television, displaying one's superior taste by eschewing entertainments enjoyed by the rabble.

My comment has nothing to do with the quality or lack of it in 70s and 80s American television, or whether one should or shouldn't watch (about which i have no opinion), but just this "thing" of needing to be seen looking away from popular things.

I can't help smelling a little of the same odor when I hear so many not liking Beethoven.

Again, not saying anything about the quality or lack of it or whether one should or shouldn't listen to Beethoven. Just this thing of needing to be seen as so sophisticated.

Beethoven, however, is IMO much better than 70s or 80s American television.


----------



## apricissimus

JeffD said:


> Beethoven, however, is IMO much better than 70s or 80s American television.


True. I would also add that American television of the last two decades is also vastly superior to American television of the 70s and 80s.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> When someone years ago suggested the earth was not flat, but actually round, ,, the local folks laughed him off all the way to the tavern ,,, the slogan used was ~~~*absolutely preposterous*


So, you're suggesting that to reject the idea that Beethoven ruined music is like rejecting the idea that the Earth is round?


----------



## PlaySalieri

apricissimus said:


> True. I would also add that American television of the last two decades is also vastly superior to American television of the 70s and 80s.


what - the decades that gave us Cheers and Taxi, Frasier, Hill Street Blues etc

what has the last 20 years got that can beat those?


----------



## apricissimus

stomanek said:


> what - the decades that gave us Cheers and Taxi, Frasier, Hill Street Blues etc
> 
> what has the last 20 years got that can beat those?


Well, let's see . . .

The Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Orange Is the New Black, Narcos . . . The last couple of decades has sometimes been called "the Golden Age of Television."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Television_(2000s–present)


----------



## Sid James

I think that the writer has got a point, but I don’t agree with the conclusions he makes. Blame Beethoven or whoever - say composers of the Baroque who developed the diatonic system - music did become more focussed on expression of subjective emotions in the 19th century. It hasn’t stayed that way since though, for example composers like Debussy, Stravinsky and Cage composed music which aimed to be detached from their personal emotions.

Maybe there’s always been a struggle between objective and subjective aesthetics? Where I am in my own life now is that I’m finding less and less need for what Cage labelled as ego music - which includes Beethoven. I still connect with some of his music, but can do without such grandiose statements like Ode to Joy.

Coming home from a strenuous day at work - and then needing to do more work! - I’m usually not inclined to listen to a Beethoven symphony. Depends, but something like Debussy in relaxing piano mode might more match my needs. Or maybe some Mozart. It’s probably the wrong way to approach Debussy or Mozart according to purists - but it suits my own needs quite well. I can just have it playing in the background. Then there’s also silence, or at least avoiding canned music altogether.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, I'm finding as my nervous system gets older that I need more "space" in my music.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Beethoven's 6th is my happy place. If I were to have a particularly stressful day, it would be atop my list of therapeutic music.


----------



## Sid James

MatthewWeflen said:


> Beethoven's 6th is my happy place. If I were to have a particularly stressful day, it would be atop my list of therapeutic music.


There is a lighter side to Beethoven. My favourite symphony is probably the 8th, which carries forward the jocular world of Haydn and Mozart.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I'm going to be hearing the 8th this Friday at the free concert in downtown Chicago. I expect it to be relaxing.


----------



## Larkenfield

How can anyone be "blamed" - the new all-purpose unhappy catchword - for following what he was born to do? If Beethoven "ruined" anything, maybe it needed ruining. Imagine how he would feel if he read something like that? - that is if he cared. Now, the question of the moment is who to blame for the next thing in the history of music that someone is unhappy with? How about blaming Mozart, Schubert, and Scriabin for dying too young? So thoughtless. That ruined the entire 18th, 19th, and 20th-century for me and I'm waiting to see who's going to "ruin" the 21st. May the person hasn't been born yet, but one can still hope.


----------



## Sid James

We should never question the legacy of cultural artefacts like Beethoven. Being tut-tutted for being irreverent about Chopin is one thing, but Beethoven is another thing entirely. Sacrilege.


----------



## KenOC

Sid James said:


> We should never question the legacy of cultural artefacts like Beethoven. Being tut-tutted for being irreverent about Chopin is one thing, but Beethoven is another thing entirely. Sacrilege.


Sacrilege has a long and glorious history. "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags - with here and there a dropped hammer." --John Ruskin


----------



## Sid James

Outside sacrilege there's only one way of thinking about Beethoven.

_You can have any colour you want, as long as it's black._


----------

