# BEETHOVEN vs SCHUBERT



## mtmailey

Who so you think is the better composer or are they equal in skill?


----------



## Guest

They are different. We are lucky to have had both.

(And "equal in skill" makes absolutely no sense at all in this context.)

((Edit: "better," too.))


----------



## crmoorhead

Unlike the other poll, this is no contest for me. Beethoven all the way.  Schubert probably had the edge in terms of pure genius, but Beethoven had the benefit of maturation and decades of experience. I place Beethoven second only to Bach.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I think Beethoven would be considered by expert's to be the far better composer in terms of skills and influence. However, I'd rather listen to Schubert any day of the week. It would be really interesting if they both lived thirty or forty more years. Then we could tell for sure. They are both two of the greatest for sure.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Schubert is the better melodist.


----------



## neoshredder

Schubert was more similar to Mozart in that sense. The melody was very important to him. Beethoven's complexity is over the roof but not as melodic. I still prefer Beethoven though.


----------



## drpraetorus

Schubert is like the little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead. When he is good he's very good and when he is bad he's horrid.

Schubert is kind of quirky. He can do wonderful things and then something totally pedestrian comes in. Quirky is not a bad thing, all the time. The slow movement from the piano trio is quirky in a fascinating way. Rosemunde is quirky in a not so good way.


----------



## Art Rock

Academically, Beethoven may have the clear advantage, but it is Schubert who gives me the most pleasure to listen to. If I had to list 10 favourite works by any of these two composers, seven or eight would be by Schubert (only the fifth and sixth symphony by LvB would qualify, and possibly the violin concerto).


----------



## Arsakes

Beet.. Beet.. Beethoven!


----------



## mensch

I'm not sure why people insist that "Beethoven is clearly the better composer" (or variations on that statement).

Beethoven has had a tremendous influence on many areas of classical music, but so has Schubert. Admittedly their relative strengths are in different areas. To me, what Schubert has done with the Lied is comparable to what Beethoven achieved in his symphonies and piano sonatas. I'm not sure why the melodical achievements Schubert is known for in his Lieder, string quartets and piano sonatas would somehow be deemed as a lesser quality compared to the technical/structural prowess of Beethoven.

Also, Schubert nearly reached 32 years of age, whereas Beethoven lived for 57 years. There are no late period pieces, there's only early and middle period Schubert.
Measuring the influence of Schubert is rather hard, as he was completely unknown during the majority of his short life and many pieces were only published posthumously. Beethoven, like Mozart and Haydn before him - was a far more well-known public figure, which partly explains his enduring popularity from the 19th century and onwards. Appreciation for Schubert and his music took a long while during the 19th century.


----------



## mtmailey

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Schubert is the better melodist.


What comes to mind is the symphonies 8 & 9 of schubert which sounded better than beethoven 8+9 symphonies.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Beethoven is the better composer except when it comes to writing melodic music.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

mtmailey said:


> What comes to mind is the symphonies 8 & 9 of schubert which sounded better than beethoven 8+9 symphonies.


Also Schubert's Symphony No. 5 which I value as high as the 8th and 9th. I would prefer Schubert's 5th Symphony to Beethoven's 5th Symphony any day.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Personally, I think Beethoven was more skilled. Of course, you hit me at a bad time; I'm marveling with what he did with his 5th and 6th symphonies. What was he, 37 when he wrote them? The 5th takes a three-note rhythmic theme and compresses it into a pervasive motif; the 6th takes a three-note rhythmic motif and expands it organically. It's not by accident they both were premiered together; he's taking the same basic idea and doing something completely different with it.


----------



## peeyaj

I'll take Schubert anytime, anywhere.  I love Schubert.


----------



## vamos

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Also Schubert's Symphony No. 5 which I value as high as the 8th and 9th. I would prefer Schubert's 5th Symphony to Beethoven's 5th Symphony any day.


I came here to say something similar to this. Maybe the form isn't as interesting but the melodies are very sweet. The form is quite solid as well. The 5th Symphony is a great piece of music. The melodic and harmonic progressions are really fun to listen to. I think people might mistake his music for a primitive side-quest of Mozart or Beethoven when it's actually its own thing.

So, I'm developing a real fondness of Schubert. His music is deceptively simple. The melodies are beautiful, which I think is very important in all music. If I could choose between melody and "form" I would choose melody.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Vamos said:


> Huilunsoittaja said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Schubert's Symphony No. 5 which I value as high as the 8th and 9th. I would prefer Schubert's 5th Symphony to Beethoven's 5th Symphony any day.
> 
> 
> 
> I came here to say something similar to this. Maybe the form isn't as interesting but the melodies are very sweet. The form is quite solid as well. The 5th Symphony is a great piece of music. The melodic and harmonic progressions are really fun to listen to. I think people might mistake his music for a primitive side-quest of Mozart or Beethoven when it's actually its own thing.
> 
> So, I'm developing a real fondness of Schubert. His music is deceptively simple. The melodies are beautiful, which I think is very important in all music. If I could choose between melody and "form" I would choose melody.
Click to expand...

Further discussion on this topic here: http://www.talkclassical.com/16191-schubert-great-symphonist.html


----------



## millionrainbows

For me, the "sweet melodies" of Schubert can not supercede the harmonic and rhythmic complexity of Beethoven. I can see, however, how a very conservative listener, not wanting to be distracted by the idiosyncratic stylistic devices and quirks of Beethoven, would prefer the more predictable, fluid stylings of Schubert. This difference reflects a certain type of listener personality type, rather than objective musical elements. My statement excluded, of course.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I suspect that Schubert was the far greater natural talent, and that given even just another 10 or 15 years he might very easily have surpassed Beethoven... but all that is supposition. As it stands the two composers both rank among the greatest ever. I would personally place them both within the top 5 of all time... but I feel that Beethoven has the clear edge for several reasons. While Schubert was undoubtedly very influential upon subsequent composers, Beethoven is continually acknowledged as perhaps the most influential composer in the history of the Western classical tradition. Certainly his impact is undeniably present in the symphonies of major symphonic composers who followed... including Schubert himself.

But perhaps we might make a comparison of the two composers achievements within the various genre.

Lets start with Lieder and get this out of the way. There is absolutely no doubt that Schubert dominates here. By all measures he is the greatest song-writer of all time. He takes a simple musical form and turns it into something far greater... not unlike Beethoven's achievement with the solo piano sonata. Having said this, we cannot wholly dismiss Beethoven's lieder. After all, he did compose some 300 of them, and his _An die ferne Geliebte_ is considered the first true Lieder Cycle, paving the way for Schubert's great achievements.






Moving to the symphony it would seem obvious the Beethoven has the advantages... regardless of the merits of Schubert's 5th, 8th, and 9th. Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th are all major... great symphonies and his symphonies as a whole traverse the distance from the late classicism of Haydn to the edge of Romanticism.

String Quartets? As brilliant as Schubert's _Death and the Maiden_ and several others are, Beethoven's achievement is simply far greater... and far more consistent.

Piano sonatas? Again Schubert's late sonatas are brilliant, but Beethoven must be credited with transforming this modest genre into something grandiose... even symphonic... and the sheer number of great works within this entire oeuvre easily surpasses Schubert. In the same realm of solo piano music Schubert has the Impromptus... among my favorite works of the whole piano repertoire... but then Beethoven has the great Diabelli Variations

Choral music? Well I am fully of the opinion that Schubert's choral music is sadly underrated... but then again, Beethoven has the brilliant _Mass in C-Major_, and _Missa Solemnis_ as well as the _Choral Fantasy_ and _Christus am Ölberge_.

Even if (and that would be a big "if) one could suggest that after considering all these works it seemed as if Schubert and Beethoven were still equal, from this point on there is no real possibility of comparison at all:

Opera? Schubert composed a slew of operas and singspiels... and yet only a few fragments... mostly from _Rosamunde_ survive. While Beethoven is no Mozart when it comes to opera, he did compose one major opera that is still frequently performed and recorded: _Fidelio_

Concertos? Beethoven composed 5 brilliant piano concertos, a magnificent violin concerto, and the great Triple Concerto. Schubert composed no concertos.

Chamber music? Schubert has the Trout Quintet, the String Quintet D. 956, a couple of piano trios, the _Arpeggione Sonata_, and the sonata for violin and piano. Listing only Beethoven's major achievements within the realm of chamber music (excluding the string quartets) one must include the 7 piano trios, the Trio for Piano, Clarinet, and Cello in B-flat major ("Gassenhauer"), the Quintet for piano and winds, the Septet for clarinet, horn, bassoon, violin, viola, cello and contrabass, 10 violin sonatas, and at least the last two cello sonatas.

All things considered, I cannot help but recognize that Beethoven is the greater composer... in spite of the fact that owing to my love of vocal music, I may just likely listen to Schubert (the lieder) more than I do Beethoven.


----------



## BurningDesire

I don't think of either as better. I just like Beethoven's music more.


----------



## Olias

Beethoven's 7th is way better than Schubert's 7th.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Beethoven's 7th is way better than Schubert's 7th.

No debate there.:lol:


----------



## Arsakes

Comparing Symphonies, the left ones are Beethoven's and the right ones are Schubert's:
L.B - F.S
1 < 1
2 < 2
3 > 3
4 > 4
5 > 5
6 > 6
7 > 7
8 < 8
9 < 9

5 - 4 Beethoven wins!

Also the Beethoven's Concertos are his huge advantage against Schubert.


----------



## crmoorhead

Arsakes said:


> Comparing Symphonies, the left ones are Beethoven's and the right ones are Schubert's:
> L.B - F.S
> 
> 9 < 9


Heresy! :O


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Oh I got another question for you all.

What makes being a good melodist _low priority_ in determining the quality of a composer?


----------



## drpraetorus

So Schubert was dead in his thirties. Tragic. Beethoven was stoney deaf. Most of what he is remembered for he wrote on sight only. and he continued to do it when most would have given up and found a different outlet for their talent. I am not a huge fan of Beethoven, but the sheer weight of his accomplishments overwhelms those of Schubert.


----------



## mtmailey

vamos said:


> I came here to say something similar to this. Maybe the form isn't as interesting but the melodies are very sweet. The form is quite solid as well. The 5th Symphony is a great piece of music. The melodic and harmonic progressions are really fun to listen to. I think people might mistake his music for a primitive side-quest of Mozart or Beethoven when it's actually its own thing.
> 
> So, I'm developing a real fondness of Schubert. His music is deceptively simple. The melodies are beautiful, which I think is very important in all music. If I could choose between melody and "form" I would choose melody.


Well i think the symphony 4 tragic sounds way better than his 5th!!!I brought the cd for like $1 at the dollar store.


----------



## mtmailey

millionrainbows said:


> For me, the "sweet melodies" of Schubert can not supercede the harmonic and rhythmic complexity of Beethoven. I can see, however, how a very conservative listener, not wanting to be distracted by the idiosyncratic stylistic devices and quirks of Beethoven, would prefer the more predictable, fluid stylings of Schubert. This difference reflects a certain type of listener personality type, rather than objective musical elements. My statement excluded, of course.
> 
> View attachment 7491


But SCHUBERT also used polyphony in his music like the symphony 8 & 4


----------



## mtmailey

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Beethoven's 7th is way better than Schubert's 7th.
> 
> No debate there.:lol:


 That is true since SCHUBERT did not complete his symphony 7 but someone did it after his death so we have a idea of what it would sound like but who knows if he wanted it to sound that way.


----------



## Humidor

I know this is old but I've gotta say... No way. Schubert was *not* the same caliber of composer that Beethoven was, point blank period. Sure it's a tragedy that he died so young, but unfortunately he did, so theory crafting about his hypothetical potential is a totally fruitless endeavor. My dear friends, must I even say this? I fear I must. The sheer gargantuan depth and magnitude of Beethoven's music is without question totally unparalleled. (Schubert also happened to know this) There is no contest here. There are only 2 composers in history who can hold their own when pitted against Beethoven, and they are, yup you guessed it, Bach and Mozart. Schubert's great and all, but Beethoven is one of the gods.

P.S. For those of you who disagree with me don't worry, Brahms, Liszt, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, and even Schubert himself have got my back on this one.. Actually wait, no... Yeah you should probably be worried;p


----------



## Turangalîla

They are both great, but I put Beethoven on an entirely different level. It would be more appropriate to compare Beethoven to Mozart, or Schubert to Schumann.


----------



## Humidor

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> They are both great, but I put Beethoven on an entirely different level. It would be more appropriate to compare Beethoven to Mozart, or Schubert to Schumann.


Indeed  Like I said



Humidor said:


> I know this is old but I've gotta say... No way. Schubert was *not* the same caliber of composer that Beethoven was, point blank period. Sure it's a tragedy that he died so young, but unfortunately he did, so theory crafting about his hypothetical potential is a totally fruitless endeavor. My dear friends, must I even say this? I fear I must. The sheer gargantuan depth and magnitude of Beethoven's music is without question totally unparalleled. (Schubert also happened to know this) There is no contest here. There are only 2 composers in history who can hold their own when pitted against Beethoven, and they are, yup you guessed it, Bach and Mozart. Schubert's great and all, but Beethoven is one of the gods.
> 
> P.S. For those of you who disagree with me don't worry, Brahms, Liszt, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, and even Schubert himself have got my back on this one.. Actually wait, no... Yeah you should probably be worried;p


----------



## GGluek

Silly question. Their skill sets were completely different.

Like, who's better, Dickens or Henry James? Rembrandt or Durer? Picasso or Monet? Benny Goodman or John Coltrane?


----------



## Eschbeg

millionrainbows said:


> For me, the "sweet melodies" of Schubert can not supercede the harmonic and rhythmic complexity of Beethoven.


However, the harmonic complexities of Schubert leave both the melodies and the harmonic complexities of Beethoven choking in the dust.


----------



## Ramako

Eschbeg said:


> However, the harmonic complexities of Schubert leave both the melodies and the harmonic complexities of Beethoven choking in the dust.


Um, no? But since you ask, Schubert's harmonic complexities are like his melodies - noteworthy - but Beethoven's are integrated together into an entirety which is just astounding. I would put IMO, but given that this is supposed to be unreadable, I shall take the liberty of stating my opinion as if it were fact XD


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Like, who's better, Dickens or Henry James? Rembrandt or Durer? Picasso or Monet? Benny Goodman or John Coltrane?

Dickens
Rembrandt
John Coletrane

Picasso vs Monet... that's a tough one... but really I think that its just my personal preference that's getting in the way. Really Picasso dominated the 20th century and was the key linchpin in the whole of Modernism to such an extent that I think only Rembrandt, Caravaggio, Rubens, Titian, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Giotto... and one or two others are of his caliber.


----------



## Vaneyes

Schubert is better in church music. Still waiting for the concerti.


----------



## tommaso

Let´s face it: Beethoven is one of four major composers of classical european music (Bach, Händel, Mozart, Beethoven), Schubert is great, but not in the Champions league.

Romanticists may add Wagner to the top league, some others might vote for Haydn or even Brahms, but in my opinion, the great 4 are way ahead of everybody else, with Bach and Händel at the very top.

Unfortunately, even Tommaso (Albinoni) can´t join them. But he is very special, at lest for Baroquians like me.


----------



## Carpenoctem

tommaso said:


> Let´s face it: Beethoven is one of four major composers of classical european music (Bach, *Händel*, Mozart, Beethoven), Schubert is great, but not in the Champions league.


Handel? Schubert, Brahms or Wagner are normally placed along with the "big three".


----------



## Ramako

Carpenoctem said:


> Handel? Schubert, Brahms or Wagner are normally placed along with the "big three".


I've never seen either Handel or Schubert placed alongside them, except here - Handel, Haydn and Schubert are clearly 'next tier' composers according to standard reference compared to their contemporaries. Wagner is on the boundary, and Chopin is closest 4th in terms of wider popularity, and also well-respected.

But then what use is standard reference?


----------



## Carpenoctem

I'm just saying that in all the pools I've seen, Handel wasn't in top 5. Schubert, Wagner and Brahms are very frequently seen in top 6, Haydn in top 10 etc.


----------



## Ramako

Carpenoctem said:


> I'm just saying that in all the pools I've seen, Handel wasn't in top 5. Schubert, Wagner and Brahms are very frequently seen in top 6, Haydn in top 10 etc.


Well, in greatness perceived terms, Haydn is probably worse off compared to Mozart than Handel to Bach or Schubert to Beethoven - although probably more people prefer him compared to his contemporary than the other two, although I don't know about that. Handel is more accessible than Bach - I mean the Hallelujah Chorus is really widely known - while Schubert's songs are better than Beethoven's (I suppose, I haven't got Beethoven's - there's something to get ), and he has a charm that Beethoven doesn't.

It's kind of neat that we can think of Handel and Bach, then Haydn and Mozart, then Beethoven and Schubert I always think.

Chopin, Wagner, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky etc., even Monteverdi, Palestrina, Josquin etc. are all composers very deserving of high places. But the 18th century seems to have the edge on accessibility combined with 'quality'.


----------



## Carpenoctem

Yeah, every composer has "weak points" in his music. I think classical and romantic era are the easiest to get into. I think it's easier for someone to love Haydn's Trumpet concerto or Mozart's Serenade for winds than Bach's Brandenburg concertos.

Also, classical and romantic era seem to have the most popular works. For example, listen to this video. It's a Flash mob with Beethoven's 9th. I'm sure most of the people recognized the melody that moment when the second instrument started playing.






I think it's hard to rate composers, even though it's easier to do it if they are in the same era.


----------



## Eschbeg

Ramako said:


> Um, no? But since you ask, Schubert's harmonic complexities are like his melodies - noteworthy - but Beethoven's are integrated together into an entirety which is just astounding. I would put IMO, but given that this is supposed to be unreadable, I shall take the liberty of stating my opinion as if it were fact XD


Mmmhmm, yes.

Heh... I'll guess I'll do the same and calmly assert that the sophistication of Schubert's modulations (switching between enharmonic equivalents, treating the closely-related tonalities of the minor key as closely related to the major key as well, etc.) has no equivalent in Beethoven, whose remote modulations tend to happen by just lifting up a melody and unceremoniously dumping it onto a different key. It's the difference between taking a trip through the cosmos to see the stars (Schubert), and hitting someone in the head until they see stars (Beethoven).


----------



## Ramako

Eschbeg said:


> Mmmhmm, yes.
> 
> Heh... I'll guess I'll do the same and calmly assert that the sophistication of Schubert's modulations (switching between enharmonic equivalents, treating the closely-related tonalities of the minor key as closely related to the major key as well, etc.) has no equivalent in Beethoven, whose remote modulations tend to happen by just lifting up a melody and unceremoniously dumping it onto a different key. It's the difference between taking a trip through the cosmos to see the stars (Schubert), and hitting someone in the head until they see stars (Beethoven).


Actually, ...
No.

For the very reason you mention Schuberts modulations lack the power of Beethoven's. Beethoven understood when to make a modulation subtle and when to make it sudden; because Schubert only knew the subtlety he never achieved the same power.


----------



## graaf

Both Beethoven and Schubert would say that Beethoven is better, so what's with all the fuss?


----------



## Eschbeg

Ramako said:


> Actually, ...
> No.
> 
> For the very reason you mention Schuberts modulations lack the power of Beethoven's. Beethoven understood when to make a modulation subtle and when to make it sudden; because Schubert only knew the subtlety he never achieved the same power.


_Au contraire,_ yes. Infinity!

I've yet to find a Beethoven modulation as hair-raisingly powerful as the one from E-flat Major to B Minor to G Minor, all in the space of five measures, at the beginning of the Sanctus from Schubert's Mass No. 6; and I have yet to find a Schubert modulation as clumsy as the one from E Major to C-sharp Minor to B Major in the beginning of Beethoven's Opus 109 piano sonata.


----------



## Dustin

I think they were equally "skilled" and gifted with genius. Beethoven gets the nod for overall body of work because he lived longer and was able to write more. I have no doubt if Schubert had lived to 57, he would be mentioned more alongside Beethoven as an equal.


----------



## KenOC

Dustin said:


> I think they were equally "skilled" and gifted with genius. Beethoven gets the nod for overall body of work because he lived longer and was able to write more. I have no doubt if Schubert had lived to 57, he would be mentioned more alongside Beethoven as an equal.


Alternatively, if Beethoven had died at 31, we would remember some of his works -- but nobody would be saying he was Schubert's equal, or even close to it.

Amended: On the other hand, what would Schubert have written without hearing Beethoven's finest works? Something to ponder.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Here is where emotional and musical terms diverge.


----------



## Bulldog

mtmailey said:


> What comes to mind is the symphonies 8 & 9 of schubert which sounded better than beethoven 8+9 symphonies.


On the contrary, Beethoven's 9th alone blows away all of Schubert's symphonies lumped together.


----------



## scratchgolf

Bulldog said:


> On the contrary, Beethoven's 9th alone blows away all of Schubert's symphonies lumped together.


Perhaps it does, if you're taking the average of all Schubert's symphonies. 9 vs 9 is a different story. Both are absolutely brilliant works of artistic genius. If symphonies were boxers, one would be very foolish to drop their guard vs. Schubert's 9th.


----------



## Dustin

scratchgolf said:


> Perhaps it does, if you're taking the average of all Schubert's symphonies. 9 vs 9 is a different story. Both are absolutely brilliant works of artistic genius. If symphonies were boxers, one would be very foolish to drop their guard vs. Schubert's 9th.


Agreed. Schubert's 9th is extraordinary.


----------



## KenOC

Dustin said:


> Agreed. Schubert's 9th is extraordinary.


I might argue that Schubert's 8th, incomplete though it is, may be more extraordinary than his 9th. The 9th is a "public" work, without shadows, a magnificent structure of rhetoric. The 8th, though, would be unthinkable from any other composer.


----------



## Dustin

KenOC said:


> I might argue that Schubert's 8th, incomplete though it is, may be more extraordinary than his 9th. The 9th is a "public" work, without shadows, a magnificent structure of rhetoric. The 8th, though, would be unthinkable from any other composer.


Wouldn't get an argument from me! They're neck and neck masterworks.


----------



## scratchgolf

I have outstanding Bohm recordings Schubert of 5,8, and 9 and typically listen to all three in one sitting. But that opening movement of Schubert 9........dear lord, it may be the most perfect music ever written.


----------



## Cosmos

Overall I like Beethoven more than Schubert, but that doesn't really constitute a "better" vote.


----------



## shangoyal

Beethoven is more powerful - there are moments in Schubert's music which move you to a feeling beyond words. But Beethoven is like a companion for life - invigorating, full blooded, entertaining and egoistic.


----------



## mtmailey

scratchgolf said:


> I have outstanding Bohm recordings Schubert of 5,8, and 9 and typically listen to all three in one sitting. But that opening movement of Schubert 9........dear lord, it may be the most perfect music ever written.


I like SCHUBERT symphony 9 more than BEETHOVEN you know


----------



## Morimur

Schubert is for sissies. Tee-hee!


----------



## KenOC

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Schubert is for sissies. Tee-hee!


Well, just let me put on that lace underwear...


----------



## Woodduck

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Oh I got another question for you all.
> 
> What makes being a good melodist _low priority_ in determining the quality of a composer?


It isn't a low priority for me. An inspired melody is a gift of the gods to one whom they love!


----------



## Beebert

If Schubert would have lived even half the length of a normal life, say 10 years longer than he did, and continued developing in the way he did the last 3 years or so of his life, he would have far surpassed Beethoven before he reached the age of 40. And I believe he would have surpassed him in all genres they shared and where Beethoven is considered the master; string quartets, piano sonatas, symphonies...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Beebert said:


> If Schubert would have lived even half the length of a normal life, say 10 years longer than he did, and continued developing in the way he did the last 3 years or so of his life, he would have far surpassed Beethoven before he reached the age of 40. And I believe he would have surpassed him in all genres they shared and where Beethoven is considered the master; string quartets, piano sonatas, symphonies...


Have you ever felt, while listening to Wanderer Fantasy, Piano Sonata D960, Trout Quintet, String Quintet in C major, Fantasy in F minor D940, Great Symphony in C major etc. Schubert's works could be "fixed", shortened to 1/2 their length and still not lose any meaning or expression? 
Take a look at this article: https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf


----------



## vtpoet

They were both geniuses, each with their own unique gifts. And there are too many provisos comparing Schubert's short life to Beethoven's (IMHO). I think if Schubert had lived as long as Beethoven, his Piano Sonatas, Quartets and Symphonies would have equaled Beethoven's. His songs certainly far surpassed Beethoven's.


----------



## Beebert

hammeredklavier said:


> Have you ever felt, while listening to Wanderer Fantasy, Piano Sonata D960, Trout Quintet, String Quintet in C major, Fantasy in F minor D940, Great Symphony in C major etc. Schubert's works could be "fixed", shortened to 1/2 their length and still not lose any meaning or expression?
> Take a look at this article: https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf


No I have never felt that. The length is heavenly, as Schumann said. Or what did Richter say? The longer the better, if you want it shorter, you don't like the music. Schubert had a divine inspiration that only Mozart and Bach could match. Who is this Wright? Who cares about his voice? I care more about Schubert's. And I also give more respect to the words of Uchida, Brendel, Schnabel, Schumann, Brahms, Anton Rubinstein, Dvorak, etc. about the greatness of Schubert, than I care for this man. It is a ridiculous text that you linked, and the man who wrote it is at best an amateur, but probably worse than that. He seems to be a bitter, heartless moron and musically illiterate.


----------



## Guest

Beebert said:


> No I have never felt that. The length is heavenly, as Schumann said. Or what did Richter say? The longer the better, if you want it shorter, you don't like the music. Schubert had a divine inspiration that only Mozart and Bach could match. Who is this Wright? Who cares about his voice? I care more about Schubert's. And I also give more respect to the words of Uchida, Brendel, Schnabel, Schumann, Brahms, Anton Rubinstein, Dvorak, etc. about the greatness of Schubert, than I care for this man. It is a ridiculous text that you linked, and the man who wrote it is at best an amateur, but probably worse than that. He seems to be a bitter, heartless moron and musically illiterate.


Well said. It's good to have another Schubert fan onboard here.

Since you are fairly new, you might not have spotted a couple of other recent threads discussing Schubert's abilities and how he compares with Beethoven especially.

They are given below. The first one is quite old. I started to get involved around post #285 onwards.

A Question of Melodists: Is Schubert really a more talented melodist than Beethoven?

Schubert: Classical or Romantic?

As you will see, there are a few people here who take every opportunity to "knock" Schubert along the lines you have already seen. This guy "Wright" referred to earlier is a joker, so don't be too concerned about him. His name sometimes gets brought up when someone is looking for an alleged "expert" opinion to bolster their own negative opinion about some composer.


----------



## Woodduck

Beebert said:


> No I have never felt that. The length is heavenly, as Schumann said. Or what did Richter say? The longer the better, if you want it shorter, you don't like the music. Schubert had a divine inspiration that only Mozart and Bach could match. *Who is this Wright?* Who cares about his voice? I care more about Schubert's. And I also give more respect to the words of Uchida, Brendel, Schnabel, Schumann, Brahms, Anton Rubinstein, Dvorak, etc. about the greatness of Schubert, than I care for this man. *It is a ridiculous text that you linked, and the man who wrote it is at best an amateur, but probably worse than that. He seems to be a bitter, heartless moron and musically illiterate.*


BRAVO!

Wright and his "wrightmusic" is a pretentious con which a few people like to invoke to justify the limitations of their own tastes.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I am not qualified to vote in this poll, but that didn't stop me from voting. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am not qualified to vote in this poll, but that didn't stop me from voting. :lol:


That's the TC spirit!


----------



## Bulldog

Wright is a well-known sexual prude who has hammered composers who "get around". His strongest venom is reserved for Britten because of his homosexual activities.


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> Wright is a well-known sexual prude who has hammered composers who "get around". His strongest venom is reserved for Britten because of his homosexual activities.


So he's even worse than he looks.


----------



## paulbest

mtmailey said:


> Who so you think is the better composer or are they equal in skill?


Equal, 
Bruckner was superior to both.


----------



## paulbest

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am not qualified to vote in this poll, but that didn't stop me from voting. :lol:


Same here, Not qualified,,thats why I said, but did not actually cast, a Equal.
and to cast my vote for Bruckner as superior to both.


----------



## EdwardBast

A zombie thread asserting the superiority of a zombie Schubert. Now we're getting somewhere!


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> A zombie thread asserting the superiority of a zombie Schubert. Now we're getting somewhere!


Yep. If Schubert came back as a zombie, he'd probably get his own reality TV show. Wonder what a good name for that series would be...


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Yep. If Schubert came back as a zombie, he'd probably get his own reality TV show. Wonder what a good name for that series would be...


The Unfinished Symphonist?

The Grateful Undead?

Worms 'R' Us?

Copyright Law for the Recently Disinterred? (life + 275)


----------



## flamencosketches

I had to vote Equal. As much as I love Schubert, Beethoven was the superior talent in many respects, especially as regards formal development, and something that one may not realize is very important: concision. Schubert, however, had a much better natural sense for melody and harmony, to my ears. The man wrote so many beautiful melodies. I'm not going to be an idiot and say Beethoven never wrote a beautiful melody. But even some of his most famous melodies are completely inane. The famous motifs from the 5th and 9th symphonies? Come on. There would be nothing at all compelling about either of them if not for the way he develops them. Schubert is so far superior to Beethoven in these VERY important aspect that he evens the playing field. 

Of course, this is one man's opinion...


----------



## KenOC

mtmailey said:


> Who so you think is the better composer or are they equal in skill?


It's an interesting question. In a series of best-works-by-decade games on the old Amazon forum, Beethoven swept the entire top ten for the first decade of the 1800s. He took 9 of the ten places in the 1810s as well. But then, in the 1820s, he went 5 versus 5 with young Franz, an astonishing occurrence in a decade that gave birth to some of the greatest music ever written and a time when Beethoven was at the top of his form.

You have to wonder whether Schubert, had he lived beyond his pitifully few 31 years, would have developed into a composer greater than Beethoven. Beethoven at that age was writing his first symphony...

Best of the 1820s:
1 - Schubert: String Quintet in C major D.956 (1828)
2 - Schubert: "Winterreise" D.911 (1827)
3 - Beethoven: Symphony #9 in D minor Op.125 "Choral" (1824)
4 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata #32 in C minor, Op.111 (1821-22)
5 - Schubert: String Quartet #15 in G major D.887 (1826)
6 - Beethoven: String Quartet #14 in C-sharp minor Op.131 (1826)
7 - Beethoven: String Quartet #15 in A minor Op.132 (1825)
8 - Schubert: Symphony #9 in C major D.944 "Great" (1826)
9 - Beethoven: Piano Sonata #30 in E major Op.109 (1820)
10 - Schubert: Fantasia in F minor for piano four hands D.940 (1828)


----------



## Guest

I decided to ignore all of the philosophical questions about what skill means in this context and pick Beethoven. I like Beethoven, a lot.


----------



## Woodduck

flamencosketches said:


> I had to vote Equal. As much as I love Schubert, Beethoven was the superior talent in many respects, especially as regards formal development, and something that one may not realize is very important: concision. Schubert, however, had a much better natural sense for melody and harmony, to my ears. The man wrote so many beautiful melodies. *I'm not going to be an idiot and say Beethoven never wrote a beautiful melody. But even some of his most famous melodies are completely inane. The famous motifs from the 5th and 9th symphonies? Come on. There would be nothing at all compelling about either of them if not for the way he develops them.* Schubert is so far superior to Beethoven in these VERY important aspect that he evens the playing field.
> 
> Of course, this is one man's opinion...


The mistake you're making is in thinking that the motifs that open the 5th and 9th symphonies - and any number of other such motifs in Beethoven - are melodies which can be compared to the expansive, songlike tunes in Schubert. If that were the case then we would obviously find them impoverished. The actual opening melody of the 5th symphony is 58 bars long, and takes us all the way to the movement's second theme. But because the opening motif of that melody is so strong and striking, and because Beethoven sounds it in isolation before his melody takes off, you - and many people, it seems - want to think of the melody as merely "the way he develops" the motif.

You might study what Wagner, who understood Beethoven, does with similarly pregnant motifs, expanding them into what he called "endless melody" - the preludes to _Tristan_ or _Meistersinger_ will serve to illustrate - and then look back at Beethoven and, for that matter, at Mozart, whose opening melody in his 40th symphony is a similar example of melodic expansion from a strong and simple motif.

Beethoven was able to build long, complex melodies which are simultaneously developments of basic motivic material in a manner which, to my hearing, Schubert did not equal; Schubert's long movements are consequently episodic in structure, to accommodate the sort of melody he was good at. To recognize the development while missing the melodic through-line is to misunderstand what Beethoven is doing and to underestimate his greatness as a melodist.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I would still regard Schubert as a great composer, it's just that he's really overrated. 
J Haydn, CPE Bach, JN Hummel, Mendelssohn deserve higher places than him. 
He's not much more than a great composer of songs and melodies. 
When it comes to large forms, there's too much repetition without development through rhythmic melodic, harmonic variation, counterpoint, structure etc. 
And none of Schubert's concertos are in quality like Hummel's Op.85, Op.89 or CPE Bach's WQ22, WQ23 for example.


----------



## flamencosketches

hammeredklavier said:


> And none of Schubert's concertos are in quality like Hummel's Op.85, Op.89 or CPE Bach's WQ22, WQ23 for example.


Did Schubert ever write a concerto...? Why have I never heard of any?


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> And none of Schubert's concertos are in quality like Hummel's Op.85, Op.89 or CPE Bach's WQ22, WQ23 for example.


And none of Bach's operas are as good as Handel's. :lol:


----------



## flamencosketches

Woodduck said:


> The mistake you're making is in thinking that the motifs that open the 5th and 9th symphonies - and any number of other such motifs in Beethoven - are melodies which can be compared to the expansive, songlike tunes in Schubert. If that were the case then we would obviously find them impoverished. The actual opening melody of the 5th symphony is 58 bars long, and takes us all the way to the movement's second theme. But because the opening motif of that melody is so strong and striking, and because Beethoven sounds it in isolation before his melody takes off, you - and many people, it seems - want to think of the melody as merely "the way he develops" the motif.


"Merely"? As I mentioned, this skill in motivic (and thus, melodic) development is the reason why Beethoven is vastly superior to Schubert in many ways.

Even still, I would say Schubert in any given 4 bars of the 8th symphony presents a melody that tops the Beethoven 5th melody which takes 58 bars to unfold (going back to my point about concision  ). Though I can see why one would consider this monothematicism (if we can call it that) that Beethoven employs so well to be an advantage that he has over Schubert.

I would also definitely put Mozart above Beethoven as a melodist. Beethoven is not a bad melodist by any stretch, and I recognize the "endless melody" you describe, and I'm glad that you've laid it out that way with the Wagner comparison, etc. I just don't think that among the greats, he really stacks up as a melodist (compared to Wagner, Schubert, Schumann, Mozart, Haydn, Handel).


----------



## Guest

Schubert wrote several concertante works, i.e. orchestral works with a part for a solo instrument. The term "concertante" was also used to refer to compositions for several solo instruments without an orchestra (see D 487 below):

D 345 - Concerto for violin and orchestra in D major​D 438 - Rondo for violin and string orchestra in A major
D 487 - Adagio & Rondo Concertante in F for piano, violin, viola, and cello
D 580 - Polonaise in B for violin and orchestra​
None of these compositions is very long: D 345 is just over 10 mins; D 438 about 15 mins; D 487 13 mins; D 580 about 6 mins. They're all single movements.

I don't the full story behind these works. Speculating, it's possible that some of them were originlally conceived as longer works, with the usual number of movements of a concerto, but finished up as shorter works for some reason. Or they might have been written as short works for specific purposes.

There doesn't appear to be anything that looks like the beginnings of a piano concerto anywhere in Schubert's entire output. There can be little doubt that he would have been capable of writing such a work, had he received a suitable commission. It's possible that because he was not a virtuoso piainist himself (like Mozart and Beethoven) he lacked sufficient incentive to write such a work, given that it would have meant finding a more talented pianist (plus an orchestra, of course) to perform it. This would have been difficult given Schubert's general lack of fame outside a few areas of music during his own life time.


----------



## Xisten267

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am not qualified to vote in this poll, but that didn't stop me from voting. :lol:


Amen to that, brother.  Same with me.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

Both are great IMO.


----------

