# Beethoven's 9th



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Listening to it right now. How on earth did he do it? It's like something beyond human, and he was nearly deaf! It is indescribable beauty, that tears me to pieces, perfection that will never be matched, ever. Beethoven wasn't just a composer who lived from 1770-1827, he was a once in a world's existence. The greatest human who ever lived was Beethoven. Not only for his music but for his personality and his battle against suppression. I'm sure I was born with the opening 4 bars of the 5th imprinted in my brain.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Beethoven was stone deaf the last ten years of his life, so he was fully deaf when he wrote it ( He finished the work 1824 and he died 1827). 
It was his uncompromising dedication for his art, his moral values and his willpower and his faith to humanity what gave him the power to create those works.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

The sad thing is, modern medicine could easily cure his hearing loss.

But then again, who knows if he would write such a symphony if he had't been deaf.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Yeah, the 9th always gets me. _ Always._


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Thank you for clarifying that, I thought he only went stone deaf in his last two years, and was severely deaf in the previous 10 years.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

That is the crazy thing. The music he wrote before starting to go deaf is good but it only got great after that. He may have just been another Hummel otherwise, no disrespect to Hummel fans, I like his music but I do find some of it lazy. Then Schubert wouldn't have been so inspired, in a sort of a knock on effect. Oh well it didn't happen in this Universe.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

beetzart said:


> That is the crazy thing. The music he wrote before starting to go deaf is good but it only got great after that. He may have just been another Hummel otherwise, no disrespect to Hummel fans, I like his music but I do find some of it lazy. Then Schubert wouldn't have been so inspired, in a sort of a knock on effect. Oh well it didn't happen in this Universe.


Deafness didn't effect much for his composing abilities ( Of course it did, but not as much as someone might think).
Deafness for him mainly mean't shame, social isolation and not being able to perform live.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Beethoven's ninth symphony would be his best if it wasn't for the bloody last movement. The last movement should be a piece in itself and the symphony should have had a purely orchestral finale of the same quality as the first three movements. The 24 minute choral finale that we have now completely throws the rest of the symphony out of whack.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

jani said:


> Deafness for him mainly mean't shame, social isolation and not being able to perform live.


Yap, he was even thinking of committing suicide, he was very depressed when he realized he was getting deaf.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

Yeah, it's the bestest. The finale makes me laugh like hell at points. In a really good way. Schubert's 9th does too, when it gets into can-can mode. Fuggin' geniuses, man.

"Nobody will ever write anything better than this symphony." -Rachmaninov


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Beethoven's ninth symphony would be his best if it wasn't for the bloody last movement. The last movement should be a piece in itself and the symphony should have had a purely orchestral finale of the same quality as the first three movements. The 24 minute choral finale that we have now completely throws the rest of the symphony out of whack.


But this is Beethoven we are talking about. He made the rules but I do understand what you are saying. No contemporary would have dared risk what He did. He had to produce something that could never be matched and gave his life the ultimate purpose, to compose the greatest piece of music ever.

Am I right in thinking he formulated ideas for such a symphony as early as the 1790s?

Imagine being in that Theatre on the premiere of the 9th; how many minds then realised what they had just witnessed?

I'm sticking my neck right out here, but if you took every piece of art, from every genre, from every culture, throughout the entire history of mankind and metaphorically stacked it next to the 9th symphony it would be like comparing the height of Houses of Parliament to the Empire State Building. It really is that incredible, and no words exist to do it justice. Imagine a blind Michaelangelo painting the Sistine chapel, but the chapel has grown to the size of an Olympic Stadium! Or Shakespeare, by chance happening to still be alive today and still writing several plays a year. That is what other artists would need to do to get close to the 9th. And that is just one piece of music. What about the 5th? The opening four bars ingrained in developing brains from an early age. The man was a beast, a freak even. Totally mad but utterly beautiful and no human eyes will see the light from such a genius ever again.

I quite like Beethoven by the way!


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Beethoven's ninth symphony would be his best if it wasn't for the bloody last movement. The last movement should be a piece in itself and the symphony should have had a purely orchestral finale of the same quality as the first three movements. The 24 minute choral finale that we have now completely throws the rest of the symphony out of whack.


Start watching from 49:55


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

beetzart said:


> He may have just been another Hummel otherwise.


I'm not sure if that's the case. His early Sonatas, especially No. 2 and No. 6, I think are some of his best; in my opinion much better than some of the mid-period ones. He was already showing a craftsmanship far beyond Hummel's.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

REALLY DO NOT BLAME HIM i could not live that well without hearing music also.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Beethoven's ninth symphony would be his best if it wasn't for the bloody last movement. The last movement should be a piece in itself and the symphony should have had a purely orchestral finale of the same quality as the first three movements. The 24 minute choral finale that we have now completely throws the rest of the symphony out of whack.


Ironically, if there is one movement that people sometimes single out as problematic it is normally the 4th. Mendelssohn said something along the lines that there were sections he did not understand, but with such a great master as Beethoven it was probably his fault not the pieces.

I think the problem is that in the first three Movements Beethoven is being descriptive of the human condition, in the last he is suggesting his solution. In the first three there is less room to go wrong. I personally disagree with his solution, but I do think that the movement fits - it is almost supposed to throw the piece out of whack, it is supposed to be the focus of the symphony with the Ode to Joy and all that. It is the whole point


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Beethoven's ninth symphony would be his best if it wasn't for the bloody last movement. The last movement should be a piece in itself and the symphony should have had a purely orchestral finale of the same quality as the first three movements. The 24 minute choral finale that we have now completely throws the rest of the symphony out of whack.


That's putting into words something that always troubled me with the 9th.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Eh, it's never moved me the way it does so many other people. But whatever!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

On the topic of the last movement, I'd lust like to say that I love it and I think it is better than the first three. I would have preferred it as a stand alone piece because it isn't on the same level as the first three and the use of voices only in the finale kinda puts me off. If Beethoven wrote an instrumental finale like the first three movements that went for maybe 14 minutes it would feel more to me like a symphony in four movements. The extended choral finale that it has however makes me feel like the whole piece is made up of three symphonic movements of similar length and then a large 24 minute "variations for chorus, soloists and orchestra on Schiller's _An Die Freude."_ Even though this finale quotes from the previous movements, the rest of it seems to be very different, kind of separated from the first three.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

violadude said:


> Eh, it's never moved me the way it does so many other people. But whatever!


I second that emotion.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Ironically, if there is one movement that people sometimes single out as problematic it is normally the 4th. Mendelssohn said something along the lines that there were sections he did not understand, but with such a great master as Beethoven it was probably his fault not the pieces.


Sergiu Celibidache had his issues with the finale, too. During rehearsals with the Munich Philharmonic, he once noted, with obvious disappointment, that the finale was "quite vague". (A more literal translation would be "everything's very much hanging in the air".)

I used to like it much less, but that has changed. I still like the first two movements best, though. But I guess Beethoven felt the need to really transcend the symphonic form. And he sure did. Maybe it was rather experimental. But he sketched out the road ahead.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

I like the finale more than I used to, but I still can't get used to some parts with the soloists. The vocal lines always seem to clash rather than blend in with each other no matter how good the performance is, in a way that makes me uncomfortable. Some poster on a different forum described the finale as getting a big hug from an uncle you love and miss dearly, but one that hasn't shaved in some time and smells a bit funny.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

No other piece in the entire repertoire can even begin to be compared to the gravity that _"Beethoven's Ninth Symphony", _or_ "The Ninth"_ invokes on the mere utterance of its name. So it has that going for it. The music is also good.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think I have about 1/2 dozen versions of #9 (and all the other symphonies as part of the complete cycle). Money well spent.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Which sets do you have. I know you are into HIP recordings and so I presume you have Gardiner. Of the older recordings I have those of von Karajan (1963), Krips, and Cluytens. I'll probably pick up the Toscanini at some point, but what of the Immerseel? Do you have it? If so, what are your thoughts on it and how it compares to other recordings. It was far overpriced a few years back, but is far more reasonable now.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Which sets do you have. I know you are into HIP recordings and so I presume you have Gardiner. Of the older recordings I have those of von Karajan (1963), Krips, and Cluytens. I'll probably pick up the Toscanini at some point, but what of the Immerseel? Do you have it? If so, what are your thoughts on it and how it compares to other recordings. It was far overpriced a few years back, but is far more reasonable now.


I have Immserseel's box of 6, paid under US$30 if I remember correctly. It's a fine interpretation, and often played at brisk tempos (but not as fast as Norrington's in most) and although he appeared to use the forces for each symphony that matched the premiere of each as far as we scholars could tell, the recorded sound at times sounded a little smaller than some of the larger forces used in say #7 and #8. I am just nitpicking though. But a very fine set overall. I also have Gardiner's, Hogwood's, Norrington's, Harnoncourt's, Roy Goodman's, and Emmanuel Krivine's with La Chambre Philharmonique from Naive (bought in January this year, but yet unlistened) as far as period instruments/HIP are concerned (Harnoncourt's with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe was on modern instruments but the approach was HIP). All of these can now be bought at budget prices as they have been re-released from premium priced labels. So seven HIP Beethoven symphony sets in all. I'm a pig.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Slightly off-topic, but still topical.

This starts off innocently enough - but the innocence is lost when a conductor shows up...Still fun to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=GBaHPND2QJg&feature=youtu.be


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I have Immserseel's box of 6, paid under US$30 if I remember correctly. It's a fine interpretation, and often played at brisk tempos (but not as fast as Norrington's in most) and although he appeared to use the forces for each symphony that matched the premiere of each as far as we scholars could tell, the recorded sound at times sounded a little smaller than some of the larger forces used in say #7 and #8. I am just nitpicking though. But a very fine set overall. I also have Gardiner's, Hogwood's, Norrington's, Harnoncourt's, Roy Goodman's, and Emmanuel Krivine's with La Chambre Philharmonique from Naive (bought in January this year, but yet unlistened) as far as period instruments/HIP are concerned (Harnoncourt's with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe was on modern instruments but the approach was HIP). All of these can now be bought at budget prices as they have been re-released from premium priced labels. So seven HIP Beethoven symphony sets in all. I'm a pig.

What's your take on HIP recordings of the piano concertos. I have Gardiner's but can't really get into the piano forte for Beethoven... especially no.s 4 & 5. I'm fine with the instrument for Mozart and Haydn, but it sounds too weak for Beethoven. I have a whole slew of recordings (Fleischer, Perahia, Serkin, Kempff, Gilels, etc...) on modern grand piano that I find work far more for me. Of course I've never been a purist. The recordings of Bach's keyboard works that I most admire are almost all on piano.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

On the topic of the last movement, I'd lust like to say that I love it and I think it is better than the first three. I would have preferred it as a stand alone piece because it isn't on the same level as the first three and the use of voices only in the finale kinda puts me off. If Beethoven wrote an instrumental finale like the first three movements that went for maybe 14 minutes it would feel more to me like a symphony in four movements. The extended choral finale that it has however makes me feel like the whole piece is made up of three symphonic movements of similar length and then a large 24 minute "variations for chorus, soloists and orchestra on Schiller's An Die Freude." Even though this finale quotes from the previous movements, the rest of it seems to be very different, kind of separated from the first three.

The finale works fine for me... or rather brilliantly. I am struck with the notion that the composer simply needed to find a means of transcending all that went before... and thus pure orchestral music is left behind as the work breaks into song. Clearly Beethoven's innovation was central to Mahler... among other composers... who were no longer content with the traditional form of the symphony.


----------

