# Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever



## TooMainstream

I do like Beethoven and i enjoy his ninth symphony. But why is it that Classical fans regard it as the greatest ever? I just can't hear it. There are plenty of better works out there (in my opinion).


----------



## Guest

"People," eh?

Well, Beethoven's ninth is pretty OK by me. And since I can only listen to it with my own pair of ears, that's as far as I'd take it. I've even found that that very questionable last movement gets less and less questionable the more I hear it. The gaggy bits are still gaggy, but there really aren't that many of them, and they're really not all that gaggy.

Remember when you first saw "The Meaning of Life"? So many gross scenes in that movie, and after awhile expecting the next scene to be even worse. And then you saw it again. So few gross scenes, and not really all that gross, either.

But some people like to play around with ideas of greatness, it's true. Don't even get me started.

There are plenty of _other_ works out there is how I'd put it.

Greatness only becomes an issue for me when music I find attractive is not recorded enough or even at all. But even then. Plenty of music in the world. Enough and more to keep me busy for this lifetime. Is there more? I just don't know.


----------



## PetrB

Ah, your mistake, as has been pointed out above, is in believing in the premise of and hyperbole about "the greatest compositions (like) ever."

I wish I had one dollar for every time it has been said of some composer, "The greatest composer, ever" and "The greatest composition, ever." 

Here is why: it has been said so many times about so many composers and different masterworks and some not masterworks, millions of times about a particular pop song of the moment, that I would be one very wealthy fellow.

Beethoven's 9th symphony is generally thought of as one great piece, but so are his 5th, 6th, 7th symphonies, and depending upon whom you ask, about three of his five piano concerti, the one violin concerto, a number of his sixteen string quartets, and another goodly handful of his 32 piano sonatas, his Missa Solemnis, and... well you get the idea.

Then we get to Bach, then Mozart, Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, Claudio Monteverdi, Wagner, Guillaume de Machaut, Jean-Phillipe Rameau, Mahler, Alban Berg, Schoenberg, Webern, Stravinsky, Luciano Berio, Charles Ives, uh... and quite a few more.

Don't worry about 'the greatest ever,' but do keep in mind if 99% of the people in the room call that thing standing on the floor in the middle of a room 'a table' -- it is most likely a table. You only have to think if you would agree it is a table, not if you personally like it as much as the others in the room.

I would recommend putting Beethoven's 9th away for several years, shelve those recordings, turn off the radio if it is announced. Then, perhaps two years from now sit down and give it another go. You may feel the same, maybe not: what will not happen right now is beating your head against a brick wall trying to hear why other people think whatever they do about it when you do not.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven's 9th? Well, it's way long. And people sing in the last movement (if you can believe that!) Some good tunes but overall a kind of misfire, I'd say.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Beethoven's 9th? Well, it's way long. And people sing in the last movement (if you can believe that!) Some good tunes but overall a kind of misfire, I'd say.


I'tain't pretty, that's fo shoh....


----------



## celegorma

1. Its the first choral symphony and requires a huge orchestra
2. Its uber long, and was longest symphony for quite some time
3. Its the last of a great cycle of symphonies, so by saying 9 is great is like saying the cycle is great
4. Like all Beethoven works, this symphony has great motivic development, especially the first movement. The way he builds on the motive and drives the music forward is just magnificent. And the same motive gets carried into the 2nd movement seamlessly. Just wonderful.
5. Structurally complex last movement. It has no overall structure at all, and yet it contains a theme and variations, a scherzo, and a fugue, ending with one of the longest coda ever written. And its great because of how Beethoven can merge these forms into one coherent movement, with a unified theme. 
6. The message it carries, of universal brotherhood, is great


----------



## neoshredder

I agree. It's overrated. I prefer his earlier Symphonies tbh. I know that is blasphemy to some.


----------



## Guest

celegorma said:


> 3. Its the last of a *great *cycle of symphonies, so by saying 9 is *great *is like saying the cycle is *great*
> 4. Like all Beethoven works, this symphony has *great *motivic development, especially the first movement. The way he builds on the motive and drives the music forward is just magnificent. And the same motive gets carried into the 2nd movement seamlessly. Just wonderful.
> 5. Structurally complex last movement. It has no overall structure at all, and yet it contains a theme and variations, a scherzo, and a fugue, ending with one of the longest coda ever written. And its *great *because of how Beethoven can merge these forms into one coherent movement, with a unified theme.
> 6. The message it carries, of universal brotherhood, is *great*


I'm not going to disagree with the overall judgement: I like the 9th a lot. But I'm not sure that breaking down the symphony and calling the component parts simply calling them great gets us much nearer a reason for greatness. Though pointing to, for example, 'motivic development' might help narrow it a little, you then have to ask, "What's great about the motivic development?" and "What's special about motivic development (in symphonies generally)?"

At the time it was written, it was only the latest, not the last, and was not part of a 'cycle' at all, surely.


----------



## Art Rock

I don't get it either. For me it is not the best piece of music ever by a very long shot, not even the best symphony by a very long shot, not even the best Beethoven symphony (I prefer 6/5/3/7 over the 9th).


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> not even the best Beethoven symphony (I prefer 6/5/3/7 over the 9th).


"The best" and what "you prefer"? Don't even go there!


----------



## Ramako

Because it is


----------



## Art Rock

MacLeod said:


> "The best" and what "you prefer"? Don't even go there!


I agree, let's not have that discussion again. That's why I included "For me" with "the best".


----------



## Sonata

I like the first three movements very much. I appreciate the use of the vocals in the final movement as it paved the way for other works. But I don't like the fourth movement on its own merit at all. It's simply my own personal preference, but I'm not a fan of "bombastic" singing. I prefer Mahler's use of symphonic vocals.


----------



## Ukko

Sonata said:


> I like the first three movements very much. I appreciate the use of the vocals in the final movement as it paved the way for other works. But I don't like the fourth movement on its own merit at all. It's simply my own personal preference, but I'm not a fan of "bombastic" singing to me. I prefer Mahler's use of symphonic vocals.


You have 'an attitude'. Contrary to the opinion of high school principals, that is not a bad thing. I seem to have retained enough testosterone in my dotage to sometimes be 'lifted up' by bombast. Some performances of the 9th are a chariot ride from start to finish.


----------



## Manxfeeder

"Why classical_ fans_ regard it as the greatest ever." From a _fan_ standpoint, probably because of its transcendence. All those forces assembled together, then rising at the end singing of uniting mankind through the love of God and the love for our brother, speaks to the core of the human condition.

There are many pieces like it, maybe pieces better than it, but many still agree with the old pop song* which said, "Other guys imitate us, but the original is still the greatest."

[*Dobie Gray's _The In Crowd_]


----------



## starthrower

I listen to it about once every ten years. This gives me plenty of time for other music.


----------



## millionrainbows

*"Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?"*

It's not just "music" like Haydn; this has extra-musical attachments. Not just "music," this is *IDEA.* This is "art." It's iconic. The chorus at the end represents Humanity in harmony, working together for a better world of love. It's more inspiring than a mere religious-based Mass. It does mention God (behind the star-canopy) but it transcends mere religion by making God seem available to all. It is a "giving" symphony. Beethoven forgot about his own ego, and reached out to Humanity. The finale is ultimate; the last finale for Beethoven, and the real feeling of a true finale, with fireworks. This is spectacle; the sheer forces involved, of the human voice, adding speech (extra-musical text). No, this is not scripture, this is poetry. Beethoven was a Mason, and the Masons were eclectic. Beehoven was also cognizant of the nineteenth century interest in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. The openings of the early movements have a "drone" quality to them; Beethoven had obviously "tuned-in" to the _drone, __the cosmic note,_ *the BIG NOTE.*

*"Why are some people less than enthusiastic about Beethoven's 9th Symphony, one of the greatest compositions ever?"*

I guess for the same reasons some people don't care about the middle class. "I've got my stack, Jack! I don't need no _ideas_ in my music! Survival of the fittest, I'm a good Christian, and I don't need no Beethoven telling me I have to "love my brother!"


----------



## moody

"Bombastic" ? I never noticed that. It is a wonderful piece of music --including the last movement--and I never tire of it .
i
It has to be done by the right people of course but when it is,it's a knockout!!

I know of nothing comparable and certainly see no point doing so in any case and most certainly not with Mahler.


----------



## neoshredder

Another good question. Why does it seem people think longer=better when it comes to Symphonies? Mahler and Bruckner get mentioned all the time and I think I know why.


----------



## Ukko

neoshredder said:


> Another good question. Why does it seem people think longer=better when it comes to Symphonies? Mahler and Bruckner get mentioned all the time and I think I know why.


IMO that is not a 'good question'. Guess it's a matter of whose 'people' concept we use.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, it is _rather_ long, isn't it? But it certainly is a most engaging piece.


----------



## Sonata

neoshredder said:


> Another good question. Why does it seem people think longer=better when it comes to Symphonies? Mahler and Bruckner get mentioned all the time and I think I know why.


Not to get too off-tangent, but I don't think longer=better. My enjoyment of Mahler has nothing to do with the length of his symphonies


----------



## drpraetorus

It is herasy to say otherwise.


----------



## neoshredder

Hilltroll72 said:


> IMO that is not a 'good question'. Guess it's a matter of whose 'people' concept we use.


Maybe not a good one but still interesting to know why people are fascinated with length.


----------



## moody

neoshredder said:


> Maybe not a good one but still interesting to know why people are fascinated with length.


I have seen absolutely no evidence that they are and very little discussion of Bruckner.


----------



## Art Rock

As one of the members who loves both Bruckner and Mahler, length does not come into my appreciation at all (in fact, my favourite Mahler symphony is the 4th, the shortest).


----------



## neoshredder

moody said:


> I have seen absolutely no evidence that they are and very little discussion of Bruckner.


Plenty of Bruckner discussion. Not all good of course but people seem to think of it as a big event to hear a long Symphony. While the shorter Baroque Concertos hardly get talked about. I don't understand the bias but I guess people find it easier to discuss later works as there are less to keep track of since the Composers aren't as prolific. Anyways, Beethoven's 9th is like a springboard for many Composers to produce lengthier Symphonies.


----------



## Sonata

You don't think the Vivaldi Concertos or the Brandenburg's get enough love neo? Yes, I know that there's far more beyond those. But I think there's simply emphasis on other Baroque era compositions in addition to those pieces. Where modern music you hear more discussion of symphonies, but there is rarely discussion of modern choral works. It's more of what's the more popular genre of the era, and less of a "longer is better" Last time I checked, it was Bach that was dubbed the greatest composer by TalkClassical participants....not Bruckner, not Mahler, not even Beethoven.

For me, if anything, length has served as a DETERRENT in the past, in progressive metal (my other favored genre) as well as classical. I'm more accustomed to it now. But it's what Mahler DOES with his time that astounds me so, whether it's 5 minutes or 75


----------



## neoshredder

Yes Bach tends to be the favorite though I think there is more to Baroque than Bach. Anyways, Baroque gets neglected by many here imo. Romanticism seems to draw people here. I guess it is a more serious style of music. Not for the casual fan.


----------



## trazom

It's one of the greatest, but there are too many other masterpieces to call it greater than everything else. Maybe it's the greatest piece used in TV commercials.


----------



## arpeggio

*Why Beethoven's Ninth*

I feel a little hesitant to jump into this discussion because most of you guys know more about Beethoven than I do, but I will give it a try. Most of you probably already know this.

Throughout the history of Western European Classical Music there have been seminal works that when they appeared the audience heard something completely new. Two examples of this are Wagner's _Tristan and Isolde_ and Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. Beethoven appears to have accomplished this several times in his career. Along with the _Ninth_ the ones I can think of are his _Third Symphony_ and his late string quartets. I am sure that many can think of a few more.

I have had the opportunity to have performed the Contrabassoon in the _Ninth_ twice with my community orchestra. This is one of the first great contrabassoon parts in the orchestra literature and by today's standards is still one of the most challenging to perform. The first time I played it I had only been playing the contra a few years and I could not cut it. After twenty years experience, I did a much better job of it last spring. With a community group one actually spends several weeks working and living with a piece. Performing the _Ninth_ was one of the most awesome experiences in my life.

In order to understand the greatness of the _Ninth_ one must put themselves in the audience that heard it for the first time. There are several innovations in this work including the use of a choir in a symphony. To out modern ears, after being exposed to Bruckner, Mahler and Shostakovitch, there is really nothing that earth shattering about it. For many the music is trivial and bombastic. But try to put yourself in that audience in 1824. Up until then audiences were primarily exposed to the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart and their contemporaries. I have read that Beethoven wanted to premier the work in Berlin instead of Vienna because he did not think the Viennese audience could handle it. Although the work was under rehearsed and it was a sloppy performance the audience was overwhelmed.

Sorry if I appear too much in awe of this work or stating the obvious.


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> I agree. It's overrated. I prefer his earlier Symphonies tbh. I know that is blasphemy to some.


I wouldn't put much stock in folks who make accusations of blasphemy.


----------



## KenOC

Historically, the criticisms of the 9th Symphony mostly involved the final movement, which remains somewhat controversial. A fairly early comment from Spohr: "The fourth movement is, in my opinion, so monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's Ode, so trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could have written it."


----------



## moody

trazom said:


> It's one of the greatest, but there are too many other masterpieces to call it greater than everything else. Maybe it's the greatest piece used in TV commercials.


I doubt that anyone with any musical sense says it is the greatest of all because that means nothing whatever.
When did you last hear it on TV in an advert as a matter of interest?


----------



## Guest

Not sure about adverts, but you can look up Ludwig at IMDB and find some of the movies/TV where his symphonies have been used...

http://uk.imdb.com/name/nm0002727/


----------



## Manxfeeder

arpeggio said:


> I have had the opportunity to have performed the Contrabassoon in the _Ninth_ twice with my community orchestra. This is one of the first great contrabassoon parts in the orchestra literature and by today's standards is still one of the most challenging to perform.


Thanks for sharing that. I've never paid much attention to the contrabassoon part, but it does look like you do a fair share of skittering around in the last movement. I'm going to pull out my score and follow along tonight. I'll be thinking of you! :tiphat:


----------



## Xaltotun

It's a piece that has grown on me; the more I listen to it, the more I love it. It's not a simple affair. Give it time and several listens. I love the fact that Beethoven sounds _even more serious_ in the 9th than in his other symphonies!

p.s. I know the 8th is pretty funny and non-serious at times, and also great because of it.


----------



## lostid

I love B's 9 very much, but D's 9 even better personally.


----------



## samurai

lostid said:


> I love B's 9 very much, but D's 9 even better personally.


I just listened to Dvorak's *Ninth* last night on *Spotify*, and it still sounds as fresh and exciting to me as when I first heard it as a teenager in junior high-school.


----------



## KenOC

samurai said:


> I just listened to Dvorak's *Ninth* last night on *Spotify*, and it still sounds as fresh and exciting to me as when I first heard it as a teenager in junior high-school.


Oh, I thought he meant *Dmitri's *Ninth...


----------



## lostid

KenOC said:


> Oh, I thought he meant *Dmitri's *Ninth...


 Sorry, I meant Dvorak's.


----------



## Cheyenne

I did not value Beethoven's 9th symphony very much when I heard it the first few times... Then I got Furtwänglers 1942 performance, Furtwänglers 1951 performance an Furtwänglers 1954 performance. I've listened to each a single time, and all of them landed me in an inexplicable state of rioting emotions and eventually, submerged joy. That man was made for this symphony, like Bernstein was made for Mahler.


----------



## MJongo

I like it because it is one of the most emotionally powerful works of music I have ever heard.


----------



## DavidA

I think people consider Beethoven's ninth symphony to be the greatest because it basically sums up all the great composer had to say. It has tremendously high ideals. Most of them, like the brotherhood of man, the composer himself didn't live up to in real life. But when it comes to the music it is all there. 
Then of course there are the circumstances in which it was written - by a man who was totally deaf and had to be turned around to actually see the applause. All of this adds to the legend the ninth symphony.
When the ninth is played properly it can be a shattering experience. Even when it is played by an amateur group (as I once heard it played at University) it can be a tremendous experience both for the performance and the listeners. Music and emotionally it is in my opinion the greatest symphony ever written. Of course the opinion is purely subjective. But I have a feeling that the same people who despise the ninth symphony are those who despise greatness.


----------



## Art Rock

DavidA said:


> But I have a feeling that the same people who despise the ninth symphony are those who despise greatness.


Try to get rid of that feeling. It is wrong.


----------



## DavidA

Art Rock said:


> Try to get rid of that feeling. It is wrong.


Sorry, buddy! It's true!


----------



## Art Rock

So you are saying that I despise greatness?


----------



## neoshredder

Beethoven's 3rd is better.


----------



## Art Rock

I prefer his 6th personally.


----------



## clavichorder

Beethoven's 9th has some incredible moments, but I'm not always so excited to listen to the whole thing, and I'm a fan of some Bruckner and Mahler symphonies. Bruckner and Mahler benefit from more advanced harmonies and more orchestral options. I take the 9th for the movements that I enjoy, and that would be the Scherzo most unreservedly. The finale, and even the chorale finale is actually pretty fun, though too long, but the slow movement and 1st movement, not so interesting to me. Brahms' 1st symphony is far more interesting to me than Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## Vaneyes

And just where is TooMainstream now? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

clavichorder said:


> Beethoven's 9th has some incredible moments, but I'm not always so excited to listen to the whole thing, and I'm a fan of some Bruckner and Mahler symphonies. Bruckner and Mahler benefit from more advanced harmonies and more orchestral options. I take the 9th for the movements that I enjoy, and that would be the Scherzo most unreservedly. The finale, and even the chorale finale is actually pretty fun, though too long, but the slow movement and 1st movement, not so interesting to me. Brahms' 1st symphony is far more interesting to me than Beethoven's 9th.


I'm surprised that someone who is a fan of Bruckner and Mahler could find the finale of Beethoven's ninth symphony too long. I can remember listening to Mahler's second symphony at the Proms I'm finding it totally interminable. But then that's the subjective nature of music.


----------



## neoshredder

Yeah not too fond of interminable pieces. Sorry Bruckner, Mahler, and Late Beethoven.


----------



## clavichorder

DavidA said:


> I'm surprised that someone who is a fan of Bruckner and Mahler could find the finale of Beethoven's ninth symphony too long. I can remember listening to Mahler's second symphony at the Proms I'm finding it totally interminable. But then that's the subjective nature of music.


I'm not sure it makes much sense. Maybe I'll figure it out one day.

I will say that Mahler's symphonies are hard for me to take all at once. But I enjoy having them wash over me live in the concert hall more than Beethoven's 9th, thanks to the sheer size of their orchestration. I feel like these works were made for the modern concert hall acoustics sometimes.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I'm surprised that someone who is a fan of Bruckner and Mahler could find the finale of Beethoven's ninth symphony too long. I can remember listening to Mahler's second symphony at the Proms I'm finding it totally interminable. But then that's the subjective nature of music.


Anything you don't like seems long. To me, Mahler and Bruckner symphonies fly by, while listening to Tchaikovsky's 5th feels very long indeed. To anyone who says that Mahler (or Beethoven's 9th) should be cut, I would ask, where? I would not cut a single bar out of either. On the other hand, I would happily cut down the finale of Tchaikovsky's 2nd.


----------



## moody

clavichorder said:


> Beethoven's 9th has some incredible moments, but I'm not always so excited to listen to the whole thing, and I'm a fan of some Bruckner and Mahler symphonies. Bruckner and Mahler benefit from more advanced harmonies and more orchestral options. I take the 9th for the movements that I enjoy, and that would be the Scherzo most unreservedly. The finale, and even the chorale finale is actually pretty fun, though too long, but the slow movement and 1st movement, not so interesting to me. Brahms' 1st symphony is far more interesting to me than Beethoven's 9th.


The first movement is the best movement and incredible to boot!


----------



## moody

Vaneyes said:


> And just where is TooMainstream now? :lol:


This was his only effort ,so far at least, and now he seems to have sunk without trace.


----------



## Renaissance

neoshredder said:


> Yes Bach tends to be the favorite though I think there is more to Baroque than Bach. Anyways, Baroque gets neglected by many here imo. Romanticism seems to draw people here. I guess it is a more serious style of music. Not for the casual fan.


Baroque music is mostly "cerebral" music, and more architectural than romanticism or classicism. In Baroque music every note is important and has its role...It is music for people with different kinds of expectation...most see it as mere background music but I consider it more than that. Every style has its beauty, strong or not-so-strong aspects, it only depends which ones are you interested in. I prefer Baroque because it is highly organised music, harmonious (one can say that about Mahler too, but I often find myself bored by the ambiguous harmonic language used by post-beethovenian composers)...it is music that serves as aesthetic, which brings pure emotions...maybe some people find these things boring, and head toward romanticism since it is more varied-emotionally, vaguer and it is their choice.


----------



## Mahlerian

Renaissance said:


> Baroque music is mostly "cerebral" music, and more architectural than romanticism or classicism. In Baroque music every note is important and has its role...It is music for people with different kinds of expectation...most see it as mere background music but I consider it more than that. Every style has its beauty, strong or not-so-strong aspects, it only depends which ones are you interested in. I prefer Baroque because it is highly organised music, harmonious (one can say that about Mahler too, but I often find myself bored by the ambiguous harmonic language used by post-beethovenian composers)...it is music that serves as aesthetic, which brings pure emotions...maybe some people find these things boring, and head toward romanticism since it is more varied-emotionally, vaguer and it is their choice.


I find some of the most beautiful and striking moments in music to be the ones where the harmony is suspended between rival interpretations. It's that luxuriant sound of impressionism's extended chords, of the sudden reinterpretation of a note in Mahler or Wagner, that could lead away from the tonic, or it could lead back. But if the architecture is sound, and architecture is crucial to late romanticism, it will hold up despite the weight of all that ambiguity.

Of course, I would be the first to say that Bach's music is among the greatest achievements of Western music, and find it anything but boring. I disagree with those who disregard a whole era of music simply on the grounds of its outward characteristics.


----------



## neoshredder

Renaissance said:


> Baroque music is mostly "cerebral" music, and more architectural than romanticism or classicism. In Baroque music every note is important and has its role...It is music for people with different kinds of expectation...most see it as mere background music but I consider it more than that. Every style has its beauty, strong or not-so-strong aspects, it only depends which ones are you interested in. I prefer Baroque because it is highly organised music, harmonious (one can say that about Mahler too, but I often find myself bored by the ambiguous harmonic language used by post-beethovenian composers)...it is music that serves as aesthetic, which brings pure emotions...maybe some people find these things boring, and head toward romanticism since it is more varied-emotionally, vaguer and it is their choice.


Great post. Though I wouldn't say all Post-Baroque is boring. I do like Impressionism and neo-classical works. But Baroque and Early Classical will always be my goto selections. The majestic sound puts me instantly in a good mood.


----------



## millionrainbows

Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?

"Lady, if you don't know what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means by now, don't ask!"


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven's 9th has drawn all sorts of comments. Yes, all sorts. Here's musicologist Susan McClary, writing in 1987: "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."


----------



## neoshredder

I guess there is a difference between 'greatness' and what you enjoy listening to. I guess where people get in trouble is when they put down a piece as not great just because they don't enjoy it.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Beethoven's 9th has drawn all sorts of comments. Yes, all sorts. Here's musicologist Susan McClary, writing in 1987: "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."


But, according to wiki, she rephrased it to,

"_The point of recapitulation in the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony unleashes one of the most horrifyingly violent episodes in the history of music. The problem Beethoven has constructed for this movement is that it seems to begin before the subject of the symphony has managed to achieve its identity."_

Her analysis - which I've not seen before, nor read in context - seems to be from a specifically feminist viewpoint, where the music is regarded as representing the 'violence' of a 'patriarchal society' (I'm paraphrasing).

Given the regular debates here about whether instrumental music (that is not expressly programmatic) can carry 'content', this interpretation seems somewhat problematic.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> But, according to wiki, she rephrased it to,
> 
> "_The point of recapitulation in the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony unleashes one of the most horrifyingly violent episodes in the history of music. The problem Beethoven has constructed for this movement is that it seems to begin before the subject of the symphony has managed to achieve its identity."_


Yes, she rewrote the original for her book "Feminine Endings" published four years later in 1991. She had plenty of reason to do so, given the chorus of negative comments in the press on the original!

http://www.amazon.com/Feminine-Endi...4023&sr=8-1&keywords=mcclary+feminine+endings


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Beethoven's 9th has drawn all sorts of comments. Yes, all sorts. Here's musicologist Susan McClary, writing in 1987: "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."


Thus further proving that composition is not a sexual act, but an act of control.


----------



## millionrainbows

Those delayed timpani entrances...that's supposed to be humorous.


----------



## jani

millionrainbows said:


> Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?
> 
> "Lady, if you don't know what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means by now, don't ask!"





KenOC said:


> Beethoven's 9th has drawn all sorts of comments. Yes, all sorts. Here's musicologist Susan McClary, writing in 1987: "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."


That kinda hate requires some passion maybe she is jealous that she or some of her heroes couldn't achieve that level of greatness. No matter what someone says they can't change how i feel about the last movement ( I think its one of the most glorious moments in all music).
I personally couldn't give a fu*k what critics think.
Who needs professional critics anyway ( specially in art).
Let the society and each individual make their own decision about the piece.
People who agree with critics before really listening the work with great attention are people who want others to think for them so they don't have to.

End of the rant.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Beethoven's 9th has drawn all sorts of comments. Yes, all sorts. Here's musicologist Susan McClary, writing in 1987: "The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release."


Which goes to show that musicologists can write as much rubbish as other people. She probably needs some psychological counselling. I've heard and read a lot about Beethoven's ninth symphony but that comment really takes the biscuit for sheer crass stupidity.


----------



## LordBlackudder

i heard he stole it from someone else


----------



## arpeggio

*Mahler's Beethoven's Ninth*

I have just learned that Mahler prepared his own reorchestration of Beethoven's Ninth. Are any of you guys familiar with it and are there any recordings?


----------



## Mahlerian

arpeggio said:


> I have just learned that Mahler prepared his own reorchestration of Beethoven's Ninth. Are any of you guys familiar with it and are there any recordings?


I've heard it once or twice. It's not radically different at all, and he didn't try to "Mahlerize" it. It's just set more idiomatically for a modern orchestra. He adds a few instruments (and I think a few extra lines, but nothing too prominent). It's been recorded, but not often, and never by a major conductor or orchestra, to my knowledge.

I don't see it ever replacing Beethoven's, but that wasn't his intent. He just wanted to make a performing version for his own use, as he did with Schumann and Bruckner.


----------



## Ukko

arpeggio said:


> I have just learned that Mahler prepared his own reorchestration of Beethoven's Ninth. Are any of you guys familiar with it and are there any recordings?


There's stuff about it in a recent post my me - somewhere around here. You can always try the search function.


----------



## clavichorder

LordBlackudder said:


> i heard he stole it from someone else


Aren't you random?


----------



## moody

arpeggio said:


> I have just learned that Mahler prepared his own reorchestration of Beethoven's Ninth. Are any of you guys familiar with it and are there any recordings?


Yes there are, I have one with Steinberg and the Pittsburgh Orchestra.


----------



## moody

Mahlerian said:


> I've heard it once or twice. It's not radically different at all, and he didn't try to "Mahlerize" it. It's just set more idiomatically for a modern orchestra. He adds a few instruments (and I think a few extra lines, but nothing too prominent). It's been recorded, but not often, and never by a major conductor or orchestra, to my knowledge.
> 
> I don't see it ever replacing Beethoven's, but that wasn't his intent. He just wanted to make a performing version for his own use, as he did with Schumann and Bruckner.


Note my post on this--Steinberg was a very major conductor and his orchestra then as good as any.


----------



## Alydon

Probably because it is Beethoven and it is his last symphony. As musical novices we arrive at the doors of the 'ninth' in awe as it were, but later on we may begin to question how great this work is? And how great is it? I have found over nearly half a century of listening that the 'Choral' symphony still inspires awe and wonder, though I have to say I have never found it easy music to listen to and find the 1st movement so powerful it still holds my utter attention when ever I hear it. The Ode to Joy theme of the 4th movement (the beginning of the orchestral passage) is for me one of the most comforting and life affirming pieces I can think of, full of solace and humanity. I have always maintained that the rest of the 4th movement is patchy and fragemented as another post stated, 'gaggy.' To my ears this symphony would have been the very greatest for me if that disjointed section in the finale had been written differently - but that's what the composer wanted and we have to respect that.
It would be hard to suggest a greater work off the top of my head, but certainly there are those which in my opinion which equal it, and those for me are by the same composer.


----------



## clavichorder

"Toomainstream," this user hasn't made a single post to follow on the OP. Must be a joke or something.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

After returning to this symphony from not having heard if for a long time, I must say that sounds very strange formally. I mean, such a dramatic first movement, a heavy scherzo as a second movement, and of course the famous finale which starts with a recap of previous movements and devolops what's basically a simple drinking song. Somehow though, Beethoven makes it work (as he always does). I guess it's because there's a sense of tension in the first two movements and in the beginning of the fourth movement, which leads into the joyous finale which resolves the darkness. I'd say it's looked up upon because it somehow made all these strange elements work in a symphony. It was also an obvious inspiration to Berlioz, Mahler and others who incorperated many elements of this unorthodox Classical symphony in to their regular Romantic symphonies.


----------



## Bone

At the risk of hyperbole, I'll just respond to the initial question: because the finale is the greatest single movement in a symphony written by the greatest symphonist. And the 2nd movement is probably runner-up. Greatest hyperbolic Beethoven statement ever made???


----------



## Ukko

Bone said:


> At the risk of hyperbole, I'll just respond to the initial question: because the finale is the greatest single movement in a symphony written by the greatest symphonist. And the 2nd movement is probably runner-up. Greatest hyperbolic Beethoven statement ever made???


Hah! Fairly good try, _Bone_, but *The Ninth* and hyperbole have been intimately associated for nearly two centuries now, and English is not particularly well suited for hyperbole. Any of the Romance languages could be, and surely has been, employed to surpass your effort.

As has been noted here (in TC), the 'sense' of the finale is clear (because it is explicit in the words used). That the Nazis gave the symphony their blessing is one of the Gross Black Ironies of the 20th Century.


----------



## Hausmusik

MacLeod said:


> But, according to wiki, she rephrased it to,
> 
> "_The point of recapitulation in the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony unleashes one of the most horrifyingly violent episodes in the history of music. The problem Beethoven has constructed for this movement is that it seems to begin before the subject of the symphony has managed to achieve its identity."_
> 
> Her analysis - which I've not seen before, nor read in context - seems to be from a specifically feminist viewpoint, where the music is regarded as representing the 'violence' of a 'patriarchal society' (I'm paraphrasing).
> 
> Given the regular debates here about whether instrumental music (that is not expressly programmatic) can carry 'content', this interpretation seems somewhat problematic.


I agree that McClary's commentary on the Ninth is shamelessly sensationalistic and attention-seeking. However, she did later turn her caricature of Beethoven into a useful "foil" for her readings of Schubert, which I find more interesting (and more sympathetic to the composer).

Her real complaint is in fact against the ideological implications of sonata-allegro form as such, not just Beethoven, so it's particularly broad, sweeping, and, to my mind, crudely allegorical. She wrote elsewhere (_Conventional Wisdom_) that the only Beethoven piece she likes is Op. 132. (Pity for her.)


----------



## Vaneyes

It makes Mr. Hole want to jump, shout, and yell.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...t-ride-the-wave-of-change-or-die-8463792.html


----------



## KenOC

As always, Sir George had the answer in the 1890s. Speaking only of the Ninth's first movement:

"In many respects it differs from other first movements of Beethoven; everything seems to combine to make it the greatest of them all. The mysterious opening, which takes one captive at once; the extraordinary severity, simplicity, and force of the main subject; the number of subsidiary themes; the manner in which they grow out of the principal one, as the branches, twigs, and leaves grow out of a tree; the persistence with which they are forced on the notice; the remarkable dignity of some portions and the constant and obvious restlessness of others; the incessant alternation (as in no other work) of impatience and tenderness, with the strange tone of melancholy and yearning; the inevitable conviction, here and there, that with all his experience Beethoven has not succeeded in expressing himself as he wants, and the consequent difficulty of grasping his ideas, notwithstanding the increasing conviction that they must be grasped -- all these things make the opening _Allegro _of the Ninth Symphony a thing quite apart from all the others."


----------



## Hausmusik

Vaneyes said:


> It makes Mr. Hole want to jump, shout, and yell.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...t-ride-the-wave-of-change-or-die-8463792.html


"Max Hole"? Hoo boy.


----------



## Arsakes

Because of the 'Chorus' and its lyrics, but Symphony No.5 is total attraction. So I wonder why Symphony No.5 isn't Beethoven's most popular work.


----------



## kv466

* Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?*

Quite simply, because it is.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Depends who you ask. I don't. Beethoven could have really had something terrific here if he only made the fourth movement purely orchestral. Anyhow, the first three movements are terrific.


----------



## Lord Lance

hpowders said:


> OP: Depends who you ask. I don't. Beethoven could have really had something terrific here if he only made the fourth movement purely orchestral. Anyhow, the first three movements are terrific.


Lord Lance endorses this post.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Nonsense................


----------



## GreenMamba

hpowders said:


> OP: Depends who you ask. I don't. Beethoven could have really had something terrific here if he only made the fourth movement purely orchestral. Anyhow, the first three movements are terrific.


The OP posted once to TC two and a half years ago. I'm just saying it's possible he might not see this reply.


----------



## Weston

hpowders said:


> OP: Depends who you ask. I don't. Beethoven could have really had something terrific here if he only made the fourth movement purely orchestral. Anyhow, the first three movements are terrific.


A few will agree with this sentiment, but for me the final movement is a ritual I reserve as a special occasion.


----------



## hpowders

Weston said:


> A few will agree with this sentiment, but for me the final movement is a ritual I reserve as a special occasion.


The day I leave TC, play it over and over....loudly!!!


----------



## hapiper

Isn't it fun to pick something that everybody else thinks is good and then shout out...it sucks. Then watch the turmoil. Yea that is really fun. Lets do it again.


----------



## Albert7

TooMainstream said:


> I do like Beethoven and i enjoy his ninth symphony. But why is it that Classical fans regard it as the greatest ever? I just can't hear it. There are plenty of better works out there (in my opinion).


I am just curious where you concluded that the Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 is the greatest ever from public opinions. I haven't heard that opinion before.  Unless perhaps it's a Gramophone thing?


----------



## Lord Lance

hapiper said:


> Isn't it fun to pick something that everybody else thinks is good and then shout out...it sucks. Then watch the turmoil. Yea that is really fun. Lets do it again.


It does not suck, per se. Just find it subjectively awful.


----------



## Kivimees

Albert7 said:


> I am just curious where you concluded that the Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 is the greatest ever from public opinions. I haven't heard that opinion before.  Unless perhaps it's a Gramophone thing?


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> It does not suck, per se. Just find it subjectively awful.


Lord Lance, knowing that you dislike Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 because of the vocals, I wouldn't go by your recommendation here ... you wanted to neuter the vocals out of the symphony with Maazel per mentioned


----------



## Lord Lance

Albert7 said:


> Lord Lance, knowing that you dislike Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 because of the vocals, I wouldn't go by your recommendation here ... you wanted to neuter the vocals out of the symphony with Maazel per mentioned


I love exactly 3.25/4th of Beethoven Ninth. The other .75 is horrible gimmicky vocal/emotional excess part.


----------



## Saintbert

Reading the comments, I feel like going back and listen to the Ninth. Maybe that's one mark of greatness: Not only that it incites opinions for and against, but does so century after century. Long after most other composers are forgotten, there'll probably be people saying Beethoven was overrated.


----------



## Celloman

Saintbert said:


> Long after most other composers are forgotten, there'll probably be people saying Beethoven was overrated.


Don't listen to them! They're just jealous.


----------



## KenOC

Fanny Mendelssohn's early take on the 9th Symphony: "A gigantic tragedy with a conclusion meant to be dithyrambic, but falling from its height into the opposite extreme -- into burlesque."


----------



## hpowders

Lord Lance said:


> I love exactly 3.25/4th of Beethoven Ninth. The other .75 is horrible gimmicky vocal/emotional excess part.


The choral finale is good music, but I feel the symphony would have been better if the final movement was purely orchestral.
Of course, we will never know.


----------



## hpowders

GreenMamba said:


> The OP posted once to TC two and a half years ago. I'm just saying it's possible he might not see this reply.


I appreciate your concern, but I am writing for the ages.


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> I appreciate your concern, but I am writing for the ages.


Since this is an LvB thread: "My posts are not for you but for future generations." --The Powders person


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Since this is an LvB thread: "My posts are not for you but for future generations." --The Powders person


Yes and at my demise I have instructed my Uncle Ben to exclaim, as he lifts a tall glass of Post-Em "Now he belongs to the ages."


----------



## Lord Lance

hpowders said:


> The choral finale is good music, but I feel the symphony would have been better if the final movement was purely orchestral.
> Of course, we will never know.


It is good but feels like its purpose relied more on excessive emotional drama and populist appeal then Art. Might not be but to these youngling ears, they are.


----------



## hpowders

Lord Lance said:


> It is good but feels like its purpose relied more on excessive emotional drama and populist appeal then Art. Might not be but to these youngling ears, they are.


Well, it was novel for its time, but I bet some of Beethoven's contemporaries who heard it, wished the finale was purely orchestral.


----------



## Lord Lance

hpowders said:


> Well, it was novel for its time, but I bet some of Beethoven's contemporaries who heard it, wished the finale was purely orchestral.


Novelty or not, someone should expertly remove the vocal parts...


----------



## bharbeke

I like a lot of what is in the 9th symphony. The idea of the chorus, and the Ode to Joy theme itself, are great. It is the other choral parts that bring it way down in my estimation. They sound very out of place to me, the musical equivalent of putting ravioli in egg yolk instead of tomato sauce. 3.25/4 amazing symphony seems like an appropriate conclusion, Lance.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Because it says so on wikipedia.
Because its supposedly 'epic' and 'tragic' and still has , on the eyes of the naive, a 'happy ending' with a 'universal message'.
Because Brahms and the rest of the Romantic-conservatives* were dumb enough to believe it and set it as their upper limit and thus idiotically limiting themselves.

*(who called themselves 'classicists' because they imitated certain features of the music of that era and focused on form, not because of the spirit of Haydn and Mozart who given the opportunity where all about exploration of various kinds)


----------



## DiesIraeCX

^ The "Romantic-conservatives", huh? So Wagner, Berlioz, Liszt, and others didn't "believe in it"? :lol:

I'm one of those silly people who think it has the reputation it does because of the music. Perhaps, the two hundred years of people since the premiere have just been pretending to enjoy it. Not because it was, like a lot of Beethoven's middle and late works, fresh, radical, and unheard-of at the time. And great music, oh yeah, that, too. It wasn't a matter of "believing in it", they used their ears like the rest of us, and simply were in awe of it. I can imagine a similar kind of reaction when the music of _Tristan und Isolde_ first hit the ears of those unsuspecting concertgoers!

Side note: The overt simplicity of the Ode to Joy melody is perfect for the Finale, a plea for brotherhood of mankind. Well, of course the melody is going to be simple, like a drinking song for all to partake in.


----------



## Balthazar

_O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!_

Can't we all just get along? :lol:


----------



## Polyphemus

Side note: The overt simplicity of the Ode to Joy melody is perfect for the Finale, a plea for brotherhood of mankind. Well, of course the melody is going to be simple, like a drinking song for all to partake in.[/QUOTE]

Its a pity no one got the message then. Mankind has been busy slaughtering each other in ever increasing numbers since he put down his pen or quill. Add to that the determination to destroy the planet in the pursuit of the quick buck, depopulate the seas faster than they can replenish themselves.
So whoever comes up with a replacement for the Beethoven 9 better have a really snappy jingle for the final choral movement.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Polyphemus said:


> Its a pity no one got the message then. Mankind has been busy slaughtering each other in ever increasing numbers since he put down his pen or quill. Add to that the determination to destroy the planet in the pursuit of the quick buck, depopulate the seas faster than they can replenish themselves.
> So whoever comes up with a replacement for the Beethoven 9 better have a really snappy jingle for the final choral movement.


Haha, well I doubt any symphony, novel, play, art work, or poem is going to have any kind of meaningful deterring effect on mankind's propensity for slaughtering each other. Whether's it's Schiller's "Ode to Joy" or any other work with a positive message. It's indeed a sad fact that it's in our nature, we're territorial, aggressive, and tribal. However, it's a good thing that the better angels of our nature vastly outweigh our base and violent instincts. I believe humans are good, we get caught up with the bad that we do, we take extra notice of it on the evening news, how many people were killed in a war, yet we rarely take notice of the good deeds, compassion, empathy, gentleness, love, caring, and brotherhood of _everyday_ life.


----------



## JACE

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I'm one of those silly people who think it has the reputation it does because of the music. Perhaps, the two hundred years of people since the premiere have just been pretending to enjoy it. Not because it was, like a lot of Beethoven's middle and late works, fresh, radical, and unheard-of at the time. And great music, oh yeah, that, too. It wasn't a matter of "believing in it", they used their ears like the rest of us, and simply were in awe of it.


Yeah that! ^^^ :cheers:


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> It is good but feels like its purpose relied more on excessive emotional drama and populist appeal then Art. Might not be but to these youngling ears, they are.


Nope, I see the vocal writing as integral to the symphony as anything else that Beethoven did. He is the artist so I won't question what he wanted to do with it .


----------



## Lord Lance

Albert7 said:


> Nope, I see the vocal writing as integral to the symphony as anything else that Beethoven did. He is the artist so I won't question what he wanted to do with it .


Ah, yes - reverence.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Perhaps because they've never heard his Fourth Symphony.


----------



## Woodduck

Never had the slightest reservation about Beethoven's Ninth, its greatness, or its reputation. It's everything it's said to be. The first three movements equal or surpass in scope and power anything he had done previously, and the finale is unbelievably audacious, the most original variations movement in music up until then, encompassing everything from the sublime to the ridiculous, presaging Mahler's dictum that a symphony must "contain the world." 

Beethoven's earlier symphonies may seem "better" because they satisfy more easily comprehended aesthetic criteria (as do symphonies of Haydn and Mozart). Late Beethoven blows our comfortable criteria all to hell, over and over again.


----------



## Celloman

Frankly, I don't think the criticism of Beethoven's choral writing holds much water.

Beethoven's late work is some of his best, assisted rather than hindered by his deafness. His choral and writing is bold and imaginative - perhaps a little unconventional compared to "textbook" choral writing, but this is what sets him apart. Nobody else can write music like him because he is Beethoven. It isn't "right" or "wrong", it's the personal expression of a great artist.


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> Ah, yes - reverence.


Not just reverence but respecting Beethoven's intentions here. I don't question why a composer paint something. Even remixes need to be respectful of the original craft too.


----------



## hapiper

Lord Lance said:


> It does not suck, per se. Just find it subjectively awful.


Well then I have every right to say it is subjectively the best symphony ever written. I don't know what this accomplished but I feel better, do you?


----------



## Lord Lance

hapiper said:


> Well then I have every right to say it is subjectively the best symphony ever written. I don't know what this accomplished but I feel better, do you?


"Best" cannot be subjective, lad. Better can be. If you disagree, then read on subjectivity, opinion and the basis of all Art forms.


----------



## GreenMamba

Lord Lance said:


> "Best" cannot be subjective, lad. Better can be. If you disagree, then read on subjectivity, opinion and the basis of all Art forms.


Huh? The difference between "best" and "better" has nothing to do with subjectivity. The difference between "best" and "favorite" is one of subjectivity.


----------



## Lord Lance

GreenMamba said:


> Huh? The difference between "best" and "better" has nothing to do with subjectivity. The difference between "best" and "favorite" is one of subjectivity.


Oh, something can definitely be better objectively. But best cannot be subjective as I said earlier.

And anyway, best has always meant people's favorite. For example: Karajan's 60s DG Beethoven cycle. 
Many people lambent the 1980s cycle even though I highly doubt how many people go through the efforts of hearing the whole cycle. 1 to 9.

The last sentence was probably more rant, but so what? *Free speech.*


----------



## Loge

"Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever"

Because it has everything. Thought this piece was overrated till I heard it live. The first movement is astounding, the Masonic god conjuring up and forming the universe. The second movement is amusing, and how well did it translate into synth music for a Clockwork Orange? The third is delightful and you can take a bit of a rest to prepare yourself for the forth. The final movement with the singing blows you out of the chair. It is the flow, the musical narrative and the way Beethoven drives the emotions that make this piece so great. And it is the last musical piece affirming the Enlightenment.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Lord Lance said:


> "Best" cannot be subjective, lad. Better can be. If you disagree, then read on subjectivity, opinion and the basis of all Art forms.


Best cannot be subjective? 
"Good" is a subjective term. Something that is good for one person might be terrible for another. And "best" is just the superlative of "good".


----------



## dzc4627

alright. well, i just finished my first full listen of the piece, and i really can't grasp the reason OP. it is definitely a good work... but it really delivered no emotional impact to me, which seems to be a key reason for its position that others on this thread have mentioned. i enjoyed the style of the opening few minutes. the middle movements didn't seem significant as i listened, just a pathway to a bombastic proclamation. the ending theme felt rather punched to death, though this may come from the countless instances of its use in popular culture. it ended with me feeling the same way i did before, albeit kind of disappointed... no great feeling of euphoria or connection with the brotherhood of human kind. maybe it was the recording? 

i am sorry if i have offended anyone with these comments. maybe a future listen or seeing the piece in concert (probably not too difficult) will sway me.


----------



## Guest

dzc4627 said:


> alright. well, i just finished my first full listen of the piece, and i really can't grasp the reason OP. it is definitely a good work... but it really delivered no emotional impact to me,


Different strokes, as they say...I don't think I've ever got a full emotional impact from my first listening from _any _piece. There's a thread somewhere around here that asked about the point where one arrives at optimal understanding before there is a decline into familiarity and loss of impact. For me, it's usually around 8-10 listens. Beyond that, the piece is unlikely to do it for me to any significant degree.

So, a typical example - I must have listened to Debussy's Jeux around 20 times. I have become familiar with it, but it's made little emotional impression. The nature of the work, however, suggests that the kind of music that presses _my _buttons is not one which moves from phrase to phrase with no repetition, or resolution.

Put crudely, I have not so far, nor will I ever, I think, cry at listening to _Jeux_. Nor have I at Beethoven's 9th, but I do find it moving, exciting, engaging in a way that I never will find _Jeux_.

(Just so you have a sense of my "cryability", I've been moved to tears - more than once - by Mahler's 6th, Sibelius' 5th, Haydn's 99th - but only after a number of listens has enabled me to benefit from anticipation.


----------



## dzc4627

when i say emotional impact i do not exactly mean that which drives me to tears... really just engagement that puts me in the moment, that gives me chills, or gives me a reason to remember the piece. for example, i just finished Tchaikovsky's piano concerto 1, and the opening theme with the ascending major chords and the nice melody, the interesting piano solo moments, and the way the orchestra was used had some sort of emotional effect which made me remember it. another example that i feel more strongly about is (first listen on this one) schnittke's first cello concerto, which had tons of moments where i would just think "wow what a piece, this is beautiful" and feel moved to some other plane, and inspired to compose and listen to more. 

do not take this as a general dislike and boredom for beethoven's works. i very much like the 5th symphony and would hold it as one of my favorites. 

beethoven's 9th has just not done it for me. i have listened twice today. again, a live performance might be essential to appreciate it.


----------



## Lord Lance

For me, Beethoven's Ninth is 3.5/4 [The chorale starts and woosh! My love for it decreases.] of a masterpiece. For Christ Sake's, don't ask me why. A quick Google search will show you, oh, about 15 thousand million theses return on the subject.

But, honestly, there's only so long you can hear a work before wanting to burn its manuscript; people and orchestras just WON'T stop playing it, listening to it, analyzing it, recording it, making lists about it, discussing it, praising it, and yadda, yadda, yadda.

How about a thread titled: "Why is Atterberg's Ninth Symphony the greatest symphony of the 20th Century?"
Don't get those, do we?


----------



## mtmailey

View attachment 70894
To me his best symphony is number 7 i rather hear that than #9.I like the molto vivace of symphony 9.


----------



## Ali Dmo

Criticsm towards art is not comparative/relative, each piece should be compared to itself. there are some measures , inbefore tools, that define it, there's an idea, a background and context. Its one of the greatest because it was so creative for its time, and creativity is a value. there are harmonic measures, its beethoven c'mon! orchestration is amazing, and use of choir makes it different, I myself cant go back and listen to it often, an analysis and a few reviews were enough.


----------



## Guest

dzc4627 said:


> when i say emotional impact i do not exactly mean that which drives me to tears... really just engagement that puts me in the moment, that gives me chills, or gives me a reason to remember the piece.


I understand that. Most music I listen enjoy listening to is emotionally (and intellectually) engaging without triggering an extreme response.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?*

Because it is.

I had opportunity to hear this symphony in concert yesterday afternoon at Heinz Hall in Pittsburgh with Manfred Honeck conducting the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. It was the second piece (following a fine performance of the Violin Concerto with Christian Tetzlaff) of the third BeethovenFest concert of the season, this one titled "The Immortal". I had attended a performance of the Ninth in Pittsburgh just two years ago. Honeck conducted that one, too, with the PSO and the Mendelssohn Choir of Pittsburgh. The soloists were different in that concert, but I would offer that yesterday's performance was the better of the two. It was simply awesome.

But what struck me greatly following the performance, as the audience delivered a lengthy standing ovation, and the orchestra, chorus, and soloists, alongside Maestro Honeck, stood and bowed ... what struck me greatly was the universality of this work. Here we have a choral symphony with words including the phrase "Alle Menschen werden Brüder" ("All men shall become brothers"), and as the performers stood on stage to take their bows, and the audience applauded, I was struck by how much diversity was present -- a wide assortment of nationalities was represented, both sexes, several races, youthful and aged ... and that was on both sides of the stage, those who bowed and those who applauded. It was truly a meeting of "brothers" (and "sisters") of the world, come together by way of a piece of music, a work of art.

Experiencing this work, the Beethoven Ninth, whether live in concert or on a video or recording, or even by way of reading through the score, one can only be struck by the power of the work to bring together and heal -- to join all men in a mutual brotherhood. This is _the_ work of art that represents the unity of mankind moreso than maybe any other. It is certainly the work of_ music _that accomplishes this.

Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever? Had you been in Pittsburgh at Heinz Hall yesterday and witnessed Maestro Honeck and the PSO's performance of this work, you'd not have need to ask the question. The answer would be evident. "_Alle Menschen werden Brüder_."


----------



## MarkW

"Few musicians would assert that the Ninth is the greatest of all symphonies, that it is the summit of Beethoven's achievement, perhaps not even that it is his finest symphony or, in any altogether personal way, their own favorite. Yet we treat as though we did in fact believe all those things. It claims a special place, not only in the history of the symphony and in Beethoven's growth as an artist, mensch, and public figure, but also in our own hearts and heads, in what we remember in our lives and what we look forward to. A performance of it can never be an ordinary event, and not even the phonograph record -- whose democratic way of making all things indiscriminately accessible is certainly a mixed blessing -- has been able to kill that. . . ."

Michael Steinberg
from a program note written originally for the BSO, ca. 1979.


----------



## hawgdriver

millionrainbows said:


> *"Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?"*
> 
> It's not just "music" like Haydn; this has extra-musical attachments. Not just "music," this is *IDEA.* This is "art."


I'm pretty sure it's just music. Like Haydn.

I like your essay though.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think is it beneficial to treat the 9th as "just music", although it obviously has all these other associations today, they should not be a hindrance for enjoying the music.
And it clearly claims its special place in musical history because of the music. 
For Wagner it was the symphony to end all symphonies (or even most music without words) and he claimed this as one point of departure for his musical drama. But it was also claimed by the composers of tone poems and the more classicist composers as paradigm for an Uber-symphony (although the 5th and the 6th might have been better paradigms for both the programmatists and the classicists).


----------



## starthrower

hawgdriver said:


> I'm pretty sure it's just music. Like Haydn.


The first sentence is quite a loaded statement. And the second I don't agree with at all. At least not in the way the music connects with huge numbers of people. Could a classical music organization draw 2-5 thousand people for a program of Haydn symphonies?

The "it's just music" statement is true to a certain extent when thinking of the concert hall experience. And a 200 year old work that has long been accepted and loved by citizens around the world. A couple hours of entertainment and edification for people with busy, stressful lives. Beethoven's 9th is not going to topple governments or expunge all of the hate and strife from the world. But music is very powerful and it's been viewed as quite threatening to tyrants and other reactionary types. Jazz wasn't "just music" to the Nazis. It laid waste to their phony claims of White supremacy. And I'm pretty sure they hated the fact that Europeans enjoyed it so they had to label it as degenerate along with the music of avant garde, and Jewish composers. I'd wager to bet that some of these Nazi's enjoyed jazz music and the Jewish composers in secret although it was publicly denounced for propaganda purposes. Music can inspire people to action. Like marching into battle or worshiping a deity, so I'm not quite sure "it's just music" is an appropriate or accurate way to characterize it?


----------



## Kreisler jr

That's totally OT and maybe too loaded but how exactly did Jazz threaten Nazi ideas of white supremacy? Was Jazz or other forbidden music a major spring for anti-Nazi action? I somehow doubt this as banning music or burning books was among the milder atrocities of the Nazis. 
I'd wager that it actually earned them some support among conservative bourgeois types who really thought that Jazz, Schönberg or modern visual art were "degenerate" (and this could well have been a majority in 1930s Germany) and I suspect that this might have been one rationale behind these bans. (The general strategy is of course that one needs opponents/enemies to sharpen the own profile and bind the in-group together.)

Beethoven's 9th is actually an example how music can be recruited and (ab)used for almost any imaginable purpose: Nazis, communists, the Japanese for New year, Burgess/Kubrick in A Clockwork Orange could all (ab)use the 9th, mostly regardless of any historically based meaning Beethoven might have intended, such as brotherhood of men, overcoming of the "desperate situation" that might have referred to Metternich's "Stasi" or maybe just his personal straits, or whatever.


----------



## starthrower

> I'd wager that it actually earned them some support among conservative bourgeois types who really thought that Jazz, Schönberg or modern visual art were "degenerate" (and this could well have been a majority in 1930s Germany) and I suspect that this might have been one rationale behind these bans. (The general strategy is of course that one needs opponents/enemies to sharpen the own profile and bind the in-group together.)


That's pretty much my point. History has proven them wrong because it was a big lie. At this late date whether Germans truly believed in degenerate art or not is besides the point.



> how exactly did Jazz threaten Nazi ideas of white supremacy?


If it didn't there would be no need to label it degenerate other than to rally support from their bigoted followers as you pointed out.

"Milder atrocities" lead to greater crimes through the devaluation of a people and their expressions of art and ideas.


----------



## Livly_Station

For every man and every object, there is the "real thing", there's its "reputation", and there can be the "Myth". The Myth happens when a story grows larger, becomes a symbol, becomes a part of the collective imaginary, and it's imbued of an even greater meaning by social repercussion.

Beethoven's 9th Symphony has a deeply powerful Myth, which comes from the grandiose nature of the music, its intended meaning, its context, its history, its story, who composed it, when he composed it, the public reception, the fact that many composers respected it deeply, how it was used in culture, including pop culture, etc. You can see how the shadow of the Symphony is even larger than its size.

Of course, The Myth is always greater than the real thing, which should not be seen as an insult. And as far as I'm concerned, Beethoven's 9th Symphony deserves its Myth. It's a really great piece of music!


----------



## starthrower

> Of course, The Myth is always greater than the real thing, which should not be seen as an insult. And as far as I'm concerned, Beethoven's 9th Symphony deserves its Myth. It's a really great piece of music!


No argument here, but it also sells tickets like many other tried and true beloved warhorses in the repertoire. I don't really care about "greatest composition ever." It's a great symphony, fine! But I prefer variety rather than checking my local concert listings to see Beethoven, Dvorak, and Mendelssohn on almost every program.


----------



## Woodduck

hawgdriver said:


> I'm pretty sure it's just music. Like Haydn.


You haven't noticed the choral part, then?


----------



## JohnP

lucashomem said:


> For every man and every object, there is the "real thing", there's its "reputation", and there can be the "Myth". The Myth happens when a story grows larger, becomes a symbol, becomes a part of the collective imaginary, and it's imbued of an even greater meaning by social repercussion.
> 
> Beethoven's 9th Symphony has a deeply powerful Myth, which comes from the grandiose nature of the music, its intended meaning, its context, its history, its story, who composed it, when he composed it, the public reception, the fact that many composers respected it deeply, how it was used in culture, including pop culture, etc. You can see how the shadow of the Symphony is even larger than its size.
> 
> Of course, The Myth is always greater than the real thing, which should not be seen as an insult. And as far as I'm concerned, Beethoven's 9th Symphony deserves its Myth. It's a really great piece of music!


I'm curious: How does one identify the "real thing." Is it the notes on the page? It seems to me that once somebody plays the notes on the page, the music has taken on that person's personality, background of experience, musical philosophy, level of mastery, etc., etc., etc. I can hear a recording of the 9th, or hear it in concert, and think, "Man! That's the real thing." But is it? Does the real thing exist?

I can understand reputation and myth. They do play a role in how we view a piece of music. They also affect our perception of recordings: Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas, for instance.


----------



## starthrower

> I can hear a recording of the 9th, or hear it in concert, and think, "Man! That's the real thing." But is it? Does the real thing exist?


Do we need to contemplate whether a performance of a printed score is the "real thing" if it's played accurately with the composer's intent? What isn't real is the "greatest composition ever". And what people is the OP referring to in the case of Beethoven's 9th? Do the people of India consider Beethoven's 9th the greatest work ever? The OP is simply making a statement about his own attitude toward a piece of music.


----------



## amfortas

Deleted post. Never mind.


----------



## JohnP

starthrower said:


> Do we need to contemplate whether a performance of a printed score is the "real thing" if it's played accurately with the composer's intent? What isn't real is the "greatest composition ever". And what people is the OP referring to in the case of Beethoven's 9th? Do the people of India consider Beethoven's 9th the greatest work ever? The OP is simply making a statement about his own attitude toward a piece of music.


I meant to imply that we needn't bother with "the real thing" since we can't know what it is. Even the printed page often contains problems, contradiction, etc. and is only the best evidence we have of what was in the composer's mind, not necessarily accurately. Then there's performance practice. Who can say what Beethoven's 9th sounded like in his day? Reports suggest that the first performance was a mess. So the HIP people are guessing--sometimes badly, I think.


----------



## starthrower

In the end we can just enjoy a piece of music like a good story. And even reading a history book understanding that it's merely an account of what might have happened. If we derive some edification from the experience it behooves us not to obsess too greatly over perceived accuracy or minute details.


----------



## Livly_Station

JohnP said:


> I'm curious: How does one identify the "real thing." Is it the notes on the page? It seems to me that once somebody plays the notes on the page, the music has taken on that person's personality, background of experience, musical philosophy, level of mastery, etc., etc., etc. I can hear a recording of the 9th, or hear it in concert, and think, "Man! That's the real thing." But is it? Does the real thing exist?


If it's possible for someone to identify "the real thing" (of any subject matter) is a more complicated philosophical question, but one that I'm not very interested in, honestly. If I had to answer, then I'd argue that our perception is always at least slightly distorted by our own experiences, biases and ideas...

That said, I should point out that my argument in the post above was not regarding the difference between the sheet music and the conductor's interpretation. Of course, every interpretation is always "contaminated" by the thoughts of the players too... but that's just another topic.

I was talking more about reputation and myth, which exist beyond the thing itself, and how they affect public perception, social norms, emotions, etc.


----------



## hawgdriver

starthrower said:


> The first sentence is quite a loaded statement. And the second I don't agree with at all. At least not in the way the music connects with huge numbers of people. Could a classical music organization draw 2-5 thousand people for a program of Haydn symphonies?


I saw a conceptual benefit in dialing back millionrainbow's enthusiasm. It seems proper to judge the music as music itself.

Even if there is a great deal of context about one piece of music or another.

To me, that's not the music--that's something else.

As far as the music, well, I might listen to Haydn's 104th or I might listen to Beethoven's 9th. Maybe one day I prefer the Haydn. In that sense, there is a great similarity.

There may also be a benefit from de-deifying sacred cows, and allowing the music to speak for itself. There is for me--I don't necessarily want a prejudice before listening to one composition rather than another. Sure--I want to taste the sweet marrow of humankind's greatest achievements, and not peck on the bone--so some discrimination is necessary.

Anyways, I like the idea that you can compare Beethoven's 9th--the music--with other symphonies.


----------



## starthrower

> Anyways, I like the idea that you can compare Beethoven's 9th--the music--with other symphonies.


Definitely! Even if I did believe the 9th to be superior in some way I want to listen to other stuff. I know some people here collect 30-40 recordings of B9 but I'm not one of them. I don't know how one would go about weighing all the factors that go in to a piece of music being elevated to mythical status? Of course it starts with great music but as you mentioned there is the scared cow element. I happen to think Lutoslawski's 3rd is one one of the greatest but that's just me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hawgdriver said:


> In that sense, there is a great similarity.
> Anyways, I like the idea that you can compare Beethoven's 9th--the music--with other symphonies.


2:32 








14:07


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Beethoven's Ninth Symphony became the mystical goal of all my strange thoughts and desires about music. I was first attracted to it by the opinion prevalent among musicians, not only in Leipzig but elsewhere, that this work had been written by Beethoven when he was already half mad. It was considered the 'non plus ultra' of all that was fantastic and incomprehensible, and this was quite enough to rouse in me a passionate desire to study this mysterious work. At the very first glance at the score, of which I obtained possession with such difficulty, I felt irresistibly attracted by the long-sustained pure fifths with which the first phrase opens: these chords, which, as I related above, had played such a supernatural part in my childish impressions of music, seemed in this case to form the spiritual keynote of my own life. This, I thought, must surely contain the secret of all secrets, and accordingly the first thing to be done was to make the score my own by a process of laborious copying. I well remember that on one occasion the sudden appearance of the dawn made such an uncanny impression on my excited nerves that I jumped into bed with a scream as though I had seen a ghost. The symphony at that time had not yet been arranged for the piano; it had found so little favour that the publisher did not feel inclined to run the risk of producing it. I set to work at it, and actually composed a complete piano solo, which I tried to play to myself. I sent my work to Schott, the publisher of the score, at Mainz. I received in reply a letter saying 'that the publishers had not yet decided to issue the Ninth Symphony for the piano, but that they would gladly keep my laborious work,' and offered me remuneration in the shape of the score of the great Missa Solemnis in D, which I accepted with great pleasure." 
< My Life | Richard Wagner · 2010 | P. 42 >


----------



## hawgdriver

For posterity: millionrainbow's post from long ago was an excellent foray into the thread topic as written, '[why is the 9th considered such a great composition]'.

I was reading through all the Beethoven 9 threads and had a reaction to that one statement and wanted to reel it in a bit because I am personally listening to it with fresh ears in a new era and feel that things might stand on their own.

All the context about the 9th is kind of like marketing and branding and symbolism--a religion of Beethoven's 9th. But it's not the composition or performance of it stripped to the vital essence.


----------



## Forster

I suspect there are two reasons why.

First, a lot of people like it - though only they can say what it is about it that they like. Me, I like the tunes, the atmosphere, the tension and release, the adrenalin rush of the climax, the pace, the Turkish march, the solemn but not sad slow movement, the thematic development, the choral section, the repetition and the development, the second movement's fury...

...I could go on...

Second, it struck a chord, so to speak, with the wider classical world back in 18- whenever, and the reverence for it among the classical cognoscenti became a monumental/monolithic opinion. Much has been measured against Beethoven's works since (BB = Before Beethoven; AB = After Beethoven)



> Be that as it may, when Beethoven had finished his work and could contemplate the majestic dimensions of the monument he had just built, he must have said to himself: «Death may come now, but my task is accomplished.»


http://www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm#sym9

If KenOC were posting, I'm sure he point out that there was not universal acclaim, nor is there still, but "history became legend. Legend became myth."


----------



## EdwardBast

Why? Idiots' logic from dubious premises, that's why:

Premises: 

The symphony is the pinnacle of achievement in western art music.

Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time.

Final statements, especially revolutionary ones, carry special weight.


Put it all together and you get: The Ninth was the final revolutionary statement of the world's greatest composer in art music's most exalted form. 


Either that ^ ^ ^ or it's just really good.


----------



## SanAntone

I never listen to it. Even when I was listening to Beethoven a lot, I hardly listened to it. The choral parts never worked for me, and anyway, I'm was never a fan of his symphonies. 

String quartets, piano sonatas, string sonatas, that's about the only Beethoven I ever listen to, and not that much anymore.


----------



## Torkelburger

Yeah, the choral parts aren't necessarily the best parts. My favorite part is the contrapuntal treatment of the OtJ theme--the woodwind thingy. So brilliant. It impresses me how he was able to get so much out of such a pedestrian, banal theme. If I was to ever teach counterpoint privately or to a class, one exercise I would do would be to have the student write counterpoint to the theme and then after they are played in class, play the real thing that Beethoven did and then look at the reaction on the student faces. Would be really funny.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I cannot technically evaluate the part writing but I think, if sung well (which seems very hard) the vocal ensemble has really ecstatic moments, e.g. the florid vocal lines in "Freude trinken alle Wesen" etc. In instrumental music Beethoven has frequently passages bursting or somersaulting with joyful energy (e.g. finale of Les Adieux) and it might overtaxing for singers, but let them practice more 

The variations before this with the bassoon in the very first instrumental one or the little oboe and clarinet touches in the first stanza sung by the baritone are also great. 
The only passage where I can understand the charge of banality is the beginning of the turkish march but I always liked this as kid and the instrumental fugato that concludes this section is great, so overall it works well for me.

For me, it is quite plausible that more than political freedom or whatever, the core of the finale expresses a pantheist "all creatures great and small" stance as shown by the scope of the creatures experiencing joy from the procreative tendency of the worm to the cherub witnessing the love that moves the sun and all the other stars. 
This is a common aspect (as pointed out by Rosen and others) with other (late) Beethoven like some seemingly "banal" movements, such as op.110,ii or 130,ii or iv, the Diabellis. And also with some works of late Mozart and Haydn (oratorios and London symphonies). A major point of The Magic Flute is that there is a place for Papageno with his main/only interests wine, woman and song as well as for the lofty ideals of those fully initiated to the masonic rites. 
Accordingly, the 9th finale also includes lofty choral fugues and seemingly banal turkish marches or opera buffa like passages like the "Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt" or "deine Zauber, deine Zauber, etc." in the coda.


----------



## Forster

EdwardBast said:


> The symphony is the pinnacle of achievement in western art music.


Are you saying it isn't


----------



## Kreisler jr

The symphony is the most important orchestral genre between ca. 1770 and 1920 and Beethoven's 9th is the most plausible candidate (not the only one but certainly among a small number of candidates) for the greatest symphony. 
So it clearly is one of the pinnacles of the last 300 years or so of western art music. I think anyone denying this suffers from a sophomoric desire for monument toppling.


----------



## tdc

The sound of it is too herky jerky for me, so many twists and turns crammed into it.

Things like Mozart's last four symphonies, Brahms four, Mahler's DLVDE, Debussy's La Mer all sound more masterfully crafted to my ears.

Too much hype around Beethoven in my view.


----------



## Kreisler jr

It seems that Beethoven's 9th was a "fusion" of two planned symphonies. Apparently the idea of introducing a choir was also at first independent of the Schiller Text, as the note with the "pious song" etc. shows. 
https://www.talkclassical.com/72301-hi-need-help-rounding-4.html#post2131046

On the other hand, it seems that an instrumental finale was also an option even in the "fused" symphony that eventually became the 9th. But I can hardly imagine how the material that was then used for the finale of op.132 (a movement of 6 min, about a quarter the length of the 9th actual finale!) could ever have been expanded into an instrumental finale that would not have been a letdown after the first 3 movements. I think a hypothetical instrumental finale would have been at least around 12-15 min long, might have started as a passionate movement in the minor (like op.132 or 131), followed by a triumphal turn to the major and some things could even have been similar to the actual finale, just without choir. There might have been fugal sections and Handelian grandeur like in the ouverture "Consecration of the house" op.124.

Anyway, it's moot because we have no other finale, not even a plan, and I think Beethoven eventually made the correct choice.

I am an unrestricted fan of the 9th. It truly deserves all the praise it gets. It's superior to any later symphony that tried somewhat similar things (Mendelssohn 2, Brahms 1, Mahler 2, Bruckner 3 or 8 etc.). Most of them are also inconceivable without it and this does not mainly concern having a choir. Bruckner adapted the "primeval fog" of the 1st movement for many of his symphonies, he used the ostinato in the coda in his 3,i (and Mahler also did this in his 2,i), the dark, large scale scherzo is also the model for Bruckner's and Mahler's large scherzi, and so on.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It’s not hype. It’s just really good. Don’t know why it needs so much discussion.

You might be one of the few people who also doesn’t like the Beatles. It doesn’t mean they are just hype and nothing else.

I’ve never understood why people so often need to invent explanations for why something they don’t personally like is nevertheless popular. Is it the feeling of being left out?


----------



## SanAntone

Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?

Who are these people? But a better question might be, why is the 9th better than the 3rd, or the 5th, or the 7th? Or the 14th string quartet? Or the 29th piano sonata? Or the Bach B Minor Mass? Or the Mozart Requiem? Etc. etc. etc. Or Kind of Blue?


----------



## Kreisler jr

SanAntone said:


> Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?
> 
> Who are these people? But a better question might be, why is the 9th better than the 3rd, or the 5th, or the 7th? Or the 14th string quartet? Or the 29th piano sonata? Or the Bach B Minor Mass? Or the Mozart Requiem? Etc. etc. etc. Or Kind of Blue?


Not sure why this should be a better question? (and while we're at it, why the sonata op.106, not 78? are long pieces more impressive?)
And the 9th does not have to be better than all of these piece to be one of the greatest compositions ever.

But it is also answerable. As I wrote above, the symphony has been the most highly regarded and best known genre of instrumental music for almost 200 years (ca. 1770s-1940s). This makes symphonies historically more important and impactful than piano sonatas, jazz combo recordings or church music (that was just not that important anymore after the 18th century and the b minor mass was basically a museum piece already when it was written).

Beethoven's 9th had more of an impact than his 3rd or 7th. The 3rd was almost as unique but apparently too strange a mixture between classical and daring to be useful as an example for inspiration or imitation. With the Eroica Beethoven took the symphony to a new level, both musically in just being huge compared to Mozart or Haydn and with the ideological, political, philosophical associations. The 5 following symphonies are all (often considerably) smaller in scale and with the exception of 5 and 6 not as "idea-driven"
The 7th is a classical symphony on steroids, overall not as innovative and grand as the 3rd or 9th. The 5th would in fact be a candidate for a symphony with more immediate impact and imitations than the 9th but not in the longer run (up to Mahler or even later) and it is a far more modest piece in dimensions and sophistication.

The 9th reaches another level above the Eroica. The expansion, the scope that seems apparent from the "primeval fog" (unlike in the earlier work with a comparably long first movement), the choir, the even more explicit politico-philosophical dimension. It set the stage for a lot of following 19th century music, both Wagner and his school as well as the more conservative composers could take it as point of departure. None of the other pieces mentioned above does something like this on this scale (and again, the only that come close are Beethoven's own 3rd or 5th).
Without the 9th we probably would not have any Bruckner, Mahler, Berlioz, Brahms symphonies as we know them. Not sure about Wagner (he retrospectively claimed the piece but I am not sure which inspiration he actually took from it).

To deny this is to think of the status and impact of the 9th as a fluke in the history of music that could simply be revised 200 years later. Good luck with that.


----------



## SanAntone

Kreisler jr said:


> Not sure why this should be a better question? (and while we're at it, why the sonata op.106, not 78? are long pieces more impressive?)
> And the 9th does not have to be better than all of these piece to be one of the greatest compositions ever.
> 
> But it is also answerable. As I wrote above, the symphony has been the most highly regarded and best known genre of instrumental music for almost 200 years (ca. 1770s-1940s). This makes symphonies historically more important and impactful than piano sonatas, jazz combo recordings or church music (that was just not that important anymore after the 18th century and the b minor mass was basically a museum piece already when it was written).
> 
> Beethoven's 9th had more of an impact than his 3rd or 7th. The 3rd was almost as unique but apparently too strange a mixture between classical and daring to be useful as an example for inspiration or imitation. With the Eroica Beethoven took the symphony to a new level, both musically in just being huge compared to Mozart or Haydn and with the ideological, political, philosophical associations. The 5 following symphonies are all (often considerably) smaller in scale and with the exception of 5 and 6 not as "idea-driven"
> The 7th is a classical symphony on steroids, overall not as innovative and grand as the 3rd or 9th. The 5th would in fact be a candidate for a symphony with more immediate impact and imitations than the 9th but not in the longer run (up to Mahler or even later) and it is a far more modest piece in dimensions and sophistication.
> 
> The 9th reaches another level above the Eroica. The expansion, the scope that seems apparent from the "primeval fog" (unlike in the earlier work with a comparably long first movement), the choir, the even more explicit politico-philosophical dimension. It set the stage for a lot of following 19th century music, both Wagner and his school as well as the more conservative composers could take it as point of departure. None of the other pieces mentioned above does something like this on this scale (and again, the only that come close are Beethoven's own 3rd or 5th).
> Without the 9th we probably would not have any Bruckner, Mahler, Berlioz, Brahms symphonies as we know them. Not sure about Wagner (he retrospectively claimed the piece but I am not sure which inspiration he actually took from it).
> 
> To deny this is to think of the status and impact of the 9th as a fluke in the history of music that could simply be revised 200 years later. Good luck with that.


Your conception of "greatness" seems bound up with historical impact. For me greatness is bound up with internal success of a work. Not how "big" it is, nor its historical significance. It has to do with how the composition works, internally: does it succeed in bringing off the ideas and apparent conception as well as can be done, as best as we can tell.

Under my criteria, all of the works I listed accomplish this as well, if not better, than the 9th, since I have trouble with its 4th movement.


----------



## Forster

SanAntone said:


> Your conception of "greatness" seems bound up with historical impact. For me greatness is bound up with internal success of a work. Not how "big" it is, nor its historical significance. It has to do with how the composition works, internally: does it succeed in bringing off the ideas and apparent conception as well as can be done, as best as we can tell.
> 
> Under my criteria, all of the works I listed accomplish this as well, if not better, than the 9th, since I have trouble with its 4th movement.


I think Kreisler Jr's answer depends on interpreting the question more straightforwardly as about what people think, rather than whether the piece is great.

"_Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever_?" is what was asked, and not,
"_Is Beethoven's __9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?"_ though you could argue that the second is implied by the first.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

We’re arguing on the basis of historical impact? The 9th packs an emotional wallop on a higher level than any other work before or since. Period. That’s where it gets its reputation.

Bruckner and Mahler match it in scale, but neither achieved the cogency of the 9th, nor were they trying to. It’s the apotheosis of Western music.


----------



## Forster

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We're arguing on the basis of historical impact? The 9th packs an emotional wallop on a higher level than any other work before or since. Period. That's where it gets its reputation.
> 
> Bruckner and Mahler match it in scale, but neither achieved the cogency of the 9th, nor were they trying to. It's the apotheosis of Western music.


Are you replying to me? I wasn't "arguing on the basis of historical impact" (as opposed to arguing about the worth of the work itself), but pointing out that if the question is "Why do people...etc" then part of the explanation involves the history of what people have thought and how that has contributed to its reputation. Nothing can have a reputation without people to have an opinion.

But I think I covered this in my first post earlier.


----------



## Xisten267

I'm obsessed by Beethoven's _Ninth_ and to me it represents one of the pinnacles of the human arts. I mean, if there was an afterlife and I could bring something of this world with me other than my family, I would probably choose this symphony. And I'm serious, not trolling. It's one of the few works in music that can bring me to an state of ecstasy - I always get many chills when I hear it.

Why? Well, it has got everything: technical complexity, originality, powerful and sincere expression, great influence, a major historical impact, an outstanding message to mankind. A work of genius in my opinion. There's not a single note of this symphony that I would want to be without, and the "symphony within a symphony" that is the fourth movement is to me one of the most monumental feats ever done by an artist.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It’s exactly what Beethoven intended it to be: the culmination of his work and a gift to mankind.


----------



## Merl

Wow, this thread is from 9 years ago. Really didnt think it was that old.


----------



## Art Rock

Xisten267 said:


> I'm obsessed by Beethoven's _Ninth_ and to me it represents one of the pinnacles of the human arts. I mean, if there was an afterlife and I could bring something of this world with me other than my family, I would probably choose this symphony. And I'm serious, not trolling. It's one of the few works in music that can bring me to an state of ecstasy - I always get many chills when I hear it.
> 
> Why? Well, it has got everything: technical complexity, originality, powerful and sincere expression, great influence, a major historical impact, an outstanding message to mankind. A work of genius in my opinion. There's not a single note of this symphony that I would want to be without, and the "symphony within a symphony" that is the fourth movement is to me one of the most monumental feats ever done by an artist.


I think this is a wonderful post. Eloquent, to the point, without hyperbole, because it is stated from a personal point of view. It silently acknowledges that not everyone is obliged to have the same opinion - and indeed, not everyone does.


----------



## mmsbls

Xisten267 said:


> I'm obsessed by Beethoven's _Ninth_ and to me it represents one of the pinnacles of the human arts. I mean, if there was an afterlife and I could bring something of this world with me other than my family, I would probably choose this symphony. And I'm serious, not trolling. It's one of the few works in music that can bring me to an state of ecstasy - I always get many chills when I hear it.
> 
> Why? Well, it has got everything: technical complexity, originality, powerful and sincere expression, great influence, a major historical impact, an outstanding message to mankind. A work of genius in my opinion. There's not a single note of this symphony that I would want to be without, and the "symphony within a symphony" that is the fourth movement is to me one of the most monumental feats ever done by an artist.


I essentially agree with this statement. Beethoven's 9th is my favorite piece of music. It has been for some time fairly soon after I first heard it. I've often simply been stunned by the work while hearing it. Every line seems perfect, glorious, awe inspiring. For a large work, it might be the only one where one could "drop the needle" randomly, and I would be instantly exalted.

Like many here, I don't worry about the term greatest. There are a series of TC compiled recommendations. The TC Top 150 Recommended Symphonies list has Beethoven's 9th first. Basically, many TC members voted on which symphonies they would recommend, and the 9th came out on top. So the consensus of that voting group places the 9th the most recommended.

For me then, Beethoven's 9th is my favorite and the one I would most recommend to others.


----------



## Livly_Station

I was very much obsessed with the Ninth at some point too, although the collateral effect was a little overexposure and fatigue. Yet, whenever I spin the Ninth if I'm in the mood, my joy is still immense.

All four movements are minutely crafted, full of never-stopping momentum (even when the music stops!), and they speak Beethoven's artistic idiom to their bones -- you can really hear his voice and character there, which makes the Ninth a symphony for his fans the most. Pure fun and bliss!

Also, I appreciate that the 9th Symphony remains cohesive despite its length, and how the movements work well together despite each being individually so full of character and ambition. For example, I personally feel like the _Hammerklavier_ (Op. 106) is a litte bit all over the place, like how the slow movement is, emotionally, oceans apart from the first movement, and I never feel like that journey made sense from one point to the other.

On the other hand, the Ninth never fails to convince me of its journey. In particular, I love how the last movement (the most distinct of all) starts by quoting all the previous themes to claim that it belong with the others. And now we can understand the storytelling behind the music: each movement is a thesis on life, and the last one rejects all previous ideals to finally tells us the "Truth". For the 1st movement, life is _tragedy_ (no, it's not!); for the 2nd, life is _comedy_ (no, it's not!); for the 3rd, life is _love_ (no, it's not!); for the 4th, life is _joy_ and _fraternity_ (yes!).

Great Symphony!


----------



## EdwardBast

Forster said:


> Are you saying it isn't


I generally don't believe in pinnacles, bests, and GOATs.


----------



## Livly_Station

EdwardBast said:


> I generally don't believe in pinnacles, bests, and GOATs.


You don't believe in goats?


----------



## fbjim

Forster said:


> Second, it struck a chord, so to speak, with the wider classical world back in 18- whenever, and the reverence for it among the classical cognoscenti became a monumental/monolithic opinion. Much has been measured against Beethoven's works since (BB = Before Beethoven; AB = After Beethoven)


I remember reading something about the "Beethoven Problem" at the turn of the century - basically that every symphonist was compared to Beethoven, but if your work sounded too much like Beethoven, you'd be criticized for being derivative.

I think only Brahms approached Beethoven on his own terms- but Brahms was practically sui generis, and even he only arguably succeeded at matching Beethoven on the terms that Beethoven's music set. Others were pioneering the use of folk nationalism in symphonies, were experimenting what the form of a symphony could be, or practically abandoned the form entirely and wrote tone poems and ballets instead.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> But it is also answerable. As I wrote above, the symphony has been the most highly regarded and best known genre of instrumental music for almost 200 years (ca. 1770s-1940s). This makes symphonies historically more important and impactful than piano sonatas, jazz combo recordings or church music (that was just not that important anymore after the 18th century and the b minor mass was basically a museum piece already when it was written).


I would not object to any points made by Brahmsianhorn and Xisten267, but I find your constant underestimation of certain genres baffling. The symphony was, at its inception, and for a large part of the 18th century, a lowly form of entertainment music (just above dances, marches; about the same level as divertimentos, cassations). They were also often intended and used by composers as overtures or interludes for operas. It's understandable why even one of your "authority figures", H. C. Robbins Landon, said "Missa in Angustiis is arguably Haydn's greatest single composition". 
It could be argued that church music, with a history of at least almost a millennium, is far more deep-rooted in the Western tradition, with a greater cultivation and accumulation of culture. The reason why there was less church music composed in the 19th century than the previous centuries is because of the decline of the church and the social changes of composers' professionalism and role as artists at the turn of the 19th century. But it still remained a genre many later great composers wanted to excel and showed ambition to do so; Berlioz considered his requiem his most important work (Berlioz later wrote, "if I were threatened with the destruction of the whole of my works save one, I should crave mercy for the Messe des morts."), Beethoven considered his missa solemnis his greatest work (His visitor Edward Shulz published an account in 1824 of a day spent with Beethoven in late September 1823. After providing many details of Beethoven's preferences in music, he wrote: "His second Mass he looks upon as his best work, I understood."). 
And pre-19th century church music still had profound influence on later composers such as Beethoven, Schubert, Bruckner, Britten,Wagner,etc. Bach's masses were not "museum pieces" when they were written; I told you the reasons why in other threads.
And apparently, "According to his first biographer, Franz Xaver Niemetschek, who is generally an accurate witness: Church music was Mozart's favourite form of composition. But he was able to dedicate himself least of all to it."



Kreisler jr said:


> https://www.talkclassical.com/72301-hi-need-help-rounding-4.html#post2131046


You quoted my post from another thread, but it seems you didn't get the point I was making in it. I was saying, in effect, that Beethoven's 9th is a bit like a cross-over work between a mass, an oratorio, a song, a symphony. It could be argued that the tradition of church music was continued on by both of Beethoven's extended late works; the missa solemnis and the 9th symphony.


----------



## Art Rock

When I embarked on exploring classical music (mid 80s) I had nothing to guide me but a book on the subject. I started to buy CD's of composers that featured prominently in that book. During the first one or two years, Beethoven quickly became my favourite composer (just ahead of Mozart), and I quickly bought the CD's of his symphonies (Karajan, DG, 70s). I loved the 3d, 5th, 6th and 7th. But the 9th, according to the book the best, did not click with me (to say the least). I tried and tried again, then and later, but even after a few dozen listens over the years (also in other versions), my feeling did not change. I found (and find) that the first three movements are OK for me, but not better than the 8th, and not at the level of the four aforementioned symphonies. I find the famous 4th movement frankly horrible. The introduction is weird, the melody (granted, overexposed) is far too simple for me, the singing feels forced throughout and it takes far too long. I discovered later that I don't like any of his works for voices (Missa Solemnis, Fidelio, etc) - there must be something in the way he wrote for voices that does not agree with me (it's not a generic problem - many of my favourite compositions feature voice(s) and orchestra).

Of course, I know I'm in the minority with my opinion. I know many classical music lovers think it's the best symphony, or even the best music, or even the best piece of art ever created. But it's not like that for every one, and certainly not for me.


----------



## Kreisler jr

SanAntone said:


> Your conception of "greatness" seems bound up with historical impact. For me greatness is bound up with internal success of a work. Not how "big" it is, nor its historical significance. It has to do with how the composition works, internally: does it succeed in bringing off the ideas and apparent conception as well as can be done, as best as we can tell.
> 
> Under my criteria, all of the works I listed accomplish this as well, if not better, than the 9th, since I have trouble with its 4th movement.


Historical significance is very important (but not complete or conclusive) "evidence" how well a compositon works internally. They are not independent from each other because the criteria for internal working are historical and historically flexible. 
A piece badly put together would usually not have had such a huge impact.
Your personal trouble as piece of evidence for something not working well is irrelevant compared with the weight of 200 years of both experts far more knowledgeable than you or me and laymen who "naively" react positively to the piece.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> The reason why there was less church music composed in the 19th century than the previous centuries is because of the decline of the church and the social changes of composers' professionalism and role as artists at the turn of the 19th century


Yes, precisely. Just like I wrote: church music had became far less important in the 19th century. (We might disagree about its importance ca. 1770-1800, but that's not the point here). To me it seems as obvious as church/vocal music was the most important music in the 15th century, that it was far less important than opera or symphonic music in the 19th century.

I am not saying that Bach's b minor mass or Beethoven's Missa solemnis are lesser works than the 9th symphony. But they are rather isolated peaks. 
Of he Bach b minor maybe only the Sanctus (before it was part of that mass!) was performed during his lifetime. CPE performed the Credo in 1786 but this seems to have been the only performance before the Bach revival in the 1830s. Calling it a "museum piece" was actually generous. The mass was not even as "visible" for almost a century as a real museum piece would have been.

And back to Beethoven, the Missa solemnis might have been much admired (I thought it was often as controversial as the 9th symphony) but it hardly "moved" anything. There are good reasons to think that e.g. Mendelssohn's "Lobgesang", Liszt's "Faust", also major works by Berlioz, Bruckner, Brahms, Mahler, Wagner were strongly inspired by Beethoven's 9th and some of these influences can be shown in detail. 
Which important masses or similar choral works of the 19th century refer clearly back to op.123? 
Or even the sonata op.106? There are two rather clumsy "imitations" by the very young Mendelssohn and Brahms, both hardly considered among the best works of these composers. The important romantic piano music by Liszt, Schumann, Chopin... mostly took a very different course. A lot of late Beethoven pieces are such rather isolated peaks, more stunnning than inspiring other composers, but the 9th symphony is an exception.



> And apparently, "According to his first biographer, Franz Xaver Niemetschek, who is generally an accurate witness: Church music was Mozart's favourite form of composition. But he was able to dedicate himself least of all to it."


I'd say actions speak louder than words. Mozart didn't finish a single major/large scale church piece after Salzburg! He was not paid well for e.g. most of his chamber music, why not find the time to write a mass instead of two string quintets? He found the time to arrange >6 hours of Handel choral music but not the time to write a single hour of own church music. It cannot have been such a huge favorite...



> I was saying, in effect, that Beethoven's 9th is a bit like a cross-over work between a mass, an oratorio, a song, a symphony. It could be argued that the tradition of church music was continued on by both of Beethoven's extended late works; the missa solemnis and the 9th symphony.


I agree. 
But this again shows that church music was replaced by more secularized symphonic/choral music. Some could still have sacred themes, but not longer church music (Mendelssohn's St. Paul and Elijah) but others were more secular (Schumann's Paradise and Peri, Brahms' Rinaldo etc.) And even then, with the possible exception of Mendelssohn, these pieces are not many, compared to e.g. symphonies and often not considered among the best of these composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> I'd say actions speak louder than words. Mozart didn't finish a single major/large scale church piece after Salzburg....


Had he lived longer, he would have written far more church stuff. About 8 months before death, Mozart applied for the kapellmeister position at St. Stephen's cathedral in Vienna and was accepted by the city council (to succeed the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hoffman, but Mozart died before Hoffman did). Mozart also finished K.427, in the form of K.469. He editted Handel only because van Swieten paid him to. Handel wasn't any more known to common people of the late 18th century than Bach by any stretch of the imagination. Even the British themselves called Handel's music "ancient" (as did Mozart), played his music very sparingly, and did it only in "Concerts of Antient Music".
Beethoven's 9th symphony utilizes Gregorian melodies, inspired by the "most popular composer of church music in Austria at the time". (Take a look at all the sources I've linked in my previous post)


----------



## fbjim

Was Cherubini the last guy whose contemporary reputation as a great rested mostly on sacred music? I think even Berlioz said his sacred music was great, and he hated Cherubini.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Wagner's life-long admiration included an encounter in the mid-to late 1820s that 'formed the starting point of my enthusiastic absorption in the works of that master [Mozart]' and contemplations of it late in life as well; Anton Rubinstein, Mahler Richard Strauss, Stanford and Rimsky-Korsakov all conducted it, Rimsky-Korsakov also quoting extensively from the Introit in the final section of Mozart and Salieri. Described in 1902 as one of Mozart's works that 'speaks persuadingly to every generation . . . [through which] Mozart's influence still persists and must be reckoned with as a factor in the complexus of forces which is moulding the music of the new century', it had similar exposure among twentieth century composers. Bartok used examples from the Requiem in his teaching; Szymanowski wrote of its 'divine grief', the most powerful 'eruption' of the 'grim, powerful call from a world beyond ours' in Mozart's late music; Janecek conducted a highly successful performance of it in Brno in the late 1870s and another in the memory of Smetana in Prague in 1916; the fifteen-year-old Walton sang a solo part in a performance at Christ Church, Oxford, in December 1917; Britten considered it an important historical precedent for the modern-day composer in writing his own War Requiem (1961-2), subsequently reacting profoundly to conducting Mozart's work (1971)."
< Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion / Simon P. Keefe / P. 6 >

Bruckner Requiem in D minor
There is clear influence of Mozart throughout the work.
[There] are many passages reminiscent of what was even then, in 1848/49, a past age (the very opening points irresistibly to Mozart's Requiem in the same key), and though the very inclusion of a figured bass for organ continuo strikes one as backward looking, there are already several flashes of the later, great Bruckner to come.

Franz Joseph Aumann (1728~1797)
Aumann's music was a large part of the repertoire at St. Florian in the 19th century, and Anton Bruckner availed himself of this resource for his studies of counterpoint. Bruckner focused a lot of his attention on Aumann's Christmas responsories and an Ave Maria in D major.
Bruckner, who liked Aumann's coloured harmony, added in 1879 an accompaniment by three trombones to his settings of Ecce quomodo moritur justus and Tenebrae factae sunt.


----------



## fluteman

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not hype. It's just really good. Don't know why it needs so much discussion.
> 
> You might be one of the few people who also doesn't like the Beatles. It doesn't mean they are just hype and nothing else.
> 
> I've never understood why people so often need to invent explanations for why something they don't personally like is nevertheless popular. Is it the feeling of being left out?


There is no doubt that a big reason a lot of people participate in discussions like this one is that they are seeking validation from others for their tastes and opinions. Somehow, they believe agreement from another poster here, or even just a "like", validates or justifies their opinion. Why they think such validation or justification is needed, I don't know.

Notice how the OP's question is phrased. It is as if he doesn't think Beethoven's 9th symphony is one of the greatest compositions ever, is feeling a little lonely, and is looking for some like-minded posters to make him feel better.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> There is no doubt that a big reason a lot of people participate in discussions like this one is that they are seeking validation from others for their tastes and opinions. Somehow, they believe agreement from another poster here, or even just a "like", validates or justifies their opinion. Why they think such validation or justification is needed, I don't know.


Probably just because they are seeking validation. To a greater or lesser degree, many of us (I'd probably argue most) seek validation in what we do and what we think. The approval of others makes an important contribution to our self-esteem. I know I need it.


----------



## Livly_Station

There is nothing about the vocal writing in the Ninth that bothers me (I love it!), but I don't know what are the technical challenges to perform it, so maybe that are some practical issues.

And Beethoven has some pretty good pieces for voice in his repertoire. I don't how any fan of romantic song cycles can listen to _An die ferne geliebte_ and not like it...


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Probably just because they are seeking validation. To a greater or lesser degree, many of us (I'd probably argue most) seek validation in what we do and what we think. The approval of others makes an important contribution to our self-esteem. I know I need it.


Maybe, but in questions of aesthetic taste, I don't think you should have to worry if anyone agrees with you, unless you are an art dealer, a professional musician, or otherwise have a financial stake in the opinions of others. As an audience member, you are the consumer. The producers have to please you. When you go to a restaurant, I'm sure you are concerned only with whether you like the food, not with what people at other tables think of it. Art is the same.


----------



## amfortas

fluteman said:


> Maybe, but in questions of aesthetic taste, I don't think you should have to worry if anyone agrees with you, unless you are an art dealer, a professional musician, or otherwise have a financial stake in the opinions of others. As an audience member, you are the consumer. The producers have to please you. When you go to a restaurant, I'm sure you are concerned only with whether you like the food, not with what people at other tables think of it. Art is the same.


Don't get me wrong; food is great. As is art. But drawing analogies between them is always a bit tenuous, and I suspect that, for many people, in this particular sense, the two are not the same.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Maybe, but in questions of aesthetic taste, I don't think you should have to worry if anyone agrees with you, unless you are an art dealer, a professional musician, or otherwise have a financial stake in the opinions of others. As an audience member, you are the consumer. The producers have to please you. When you go to a restaurant, I'm sure you are concerned only with whether you like the food, not with what people at other tables think of it. Art is the same.


I can't see it that way. Whether people _should _be bothered is not the same as whether they are. In my experience, in matters of aesthetics, many seek validation, whether it's getting an Oscar, the Turner, an Emmy or the approval of your tribe for liking the "right" music...That's just the way it is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> Even the British themselves called Handel's music "ancient" (as did Mozart), played his music very sparingly, and did it only in "Concerts of Antient Music".


I actually find Bach to be more forward-looking in use of abrupt tempo changes 



 Handel something similar thing in "Since by man came death" but lacks the fluidity of Bach (also look at the "proto-Classical" expressions of juxtaposing the different feelings, the "kyrie eleison" and "christe eleison", in the beginning). And Bach's passions were performed in Leipzig in the late 18th century. And Handel was also mostly only played in excerpts, in continental Europe. ("Individual choruses and arias were occasionally extracted for use as anthems or motets in church services, or as concert pieces, a practice that grew in the 19th century and has continued ever since.") As I said, there was no public need for Handel's music in the late 18th century. (Except for some Baroque music nuts like van Swieten obsessing over it)



Kreisler jr said:


> I agree. But this again shows that church music was replaced by more secularized symphonic/choral music.


If the church never declined in wealth and power and continued to provide stable jobs to composers, church music would still have been produced in large quantities even in the 19th/20th centuries. The "decline" of church music wasn't really caused by a change in taste or fashion, but a change in politics and society. How does this diminish the "musical value" of the church music composed prior to the 19th century from our modern perspective, I never understand. By the same logical fallacy you've made, we should also dismiss "numbered operas, oratorios with secco recitatives" (which you defended on several occasion) in the same way, cause they were "obsolete" or "irrelevant" as guidelines for composers in the 19th/20th centuries. We can use the "nobody composed/composes that way any more" logic against a lot of works in the history of classical music, and even Beethoven's 9th symphony isn't "immune".
And of course, it's always a sacrilege to talk about Romantics disparaging a certain Classical period composer as "a welcome old friend with nothing new to say, outdated, with boring phrases that tired rather than interested the public"... The double standards are really amusing sometimes


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I can't see it that way. Whether people should be bothered is not the same as whether they are. In my experience, in matters of aesthetics, many seek validation, whether it's getting an Oscar, the Turner, an Emmy or the approval of your tribe for liking the "right" music...That's just the way it is.


So you would sit through a movie you hated because it won an Oscar? As it turns out, most of the movies nominated for Academy awards are well-known and popular already, but some, such as documentaries, are not. The prestige and publicity of winning the award may bring the little known movies more of an audience, but probably not by a whole lot.

So, no, that's not 'just the way it is'. Look at it this way: You have to use an internet forum like TC just to find other people, wherever they may be in the world, who share your interest in classical music. 99 percent of the rest of the world cares not one whit for any of this music. So why do you persist in your interest, when the vast majority of the rest of the world does not share it?

I think what we need to share with others in our society is cultural values in a general sense. But that doesn't mean we need to agree on any one particular piece of music, or even any one genre of music.


----------



## Livly_Station

fluteman,

In my opinion, your thoughts are mostly correct. We see people seeking validation for their opinions all the time, but they don't really need it -- so we get more mature when we stop caring so much about validation, and we accept ours (and others) subjectivity and individuality, especially in regards to things such as art.

But _we are_ social animals -- it's normal that we'll seek to belong with others, and to share the same feelings, and to become a part of a collective conscience. It's in our instincts... and _it just feels good!_

Considering that, we don't need to completely kill people's desire to find agreement and not feel left out. What I believe is wiser is to find balance between that and our individuality.


----------



## fluteman

Livly_Station said:


> fluteman,
> 
> In my opinion, your thoughts are mostly correct. We see people seeking validation for their opinions all the time, but they don't really need it -- so we get more mature when we stop caring so much about validation, and we accept ours (and others) subjectivity and individuality, especially in regards to things such as art.
> 
> But _we are_ social animals -- it's normal that we'll seek to belong with others, and to share the same feelings, and to become a part of a collective conscience. It's in our instincts... and _it just feels good!_
> 
> Considering that, we don't need to completely kill people's desire to find agreement and not feel left out. What I believe is wiser is to find balance between that and our individuality.


Yes, balance is needed. For example, public nudity is not socially acceptable in most contexts in western society. So, we wear clothes, not matter how hot it is. But you can't hear what I'm listening to with my earphones. I'm careful not to blast music so that neighbors or passers by have to listen to it. The fact that the music I listen to exists means there are people somewhere who also care about it. I'm glad about that, no question. And I do wish more people shared my tastes, so the music I like was more commonly performed.

But needing to have people congratulate me on my excellent taste in music? What possible good does that do me? And if they tell me I have bad taste, I should delete everything on my Walkman? I genuinely do not understand that. I care about the opinions of others about music, and read them with interest and respect, until the moment I hear it myself. Then the critics' job is over.

Obviously, I'm glad to find others like you who share my interest in classical music and are willing to discuss it with me. But I don't need validation, and btw, neither does classical music or other classical art. Its long-term survival speaks for itself.


----------



## hawgdriver

Livly_Station said:


> For the 1st movement, life is _tragedy_ (no, it's not!); for the 2nd, life is _comedy_ (no, it's not!); for the 3rd, life is _love_ (no, it's not!); for the 4th, life is _joy_ and _fraternity_ (yes!).


I don't know. Personally, I can get behind 'life is love'. That's a scale I can deal with. Maybe should have just cut it off there.

Not sure I like the message that life is bouncing up against a teeming mass of human idiots pretending to enjoy it.

I'm just kidding. After all, here I am bouncing up against message board people. And I know I'm an idiot, so...

I'm really being playful in this post, you can't take me serious here.

Anyways, I just wanted to say I think this is an interesting observation that I enjoy turning over in my mind.


----------



## Livly_Station

hawgdriver said:


> I don't know. Personally, I can get behind 'life is love'. That's a scale I can deal with. Maybe should have just cut it off there.
> 
> Not sure I like the message that life is bouncing up against a teeming mass of human idiots pretending to enjoy it.
> 
> I'm just kidding. After all, here I am bouncing up against message board people. And I know I'm an idiot, so...
> 
> I'm really being playful in this post, you can't take me serious here.
> 
> Anyways, I just wanted to say I think this is an interesting observation that I enjoy turning over in my mind.


Hahaha

_Love_ is certainly the best!, but definitely not a realistic proposition of what's life.

So I like that the 4th movement is kinda _"hey, we're trying the best we can together!"_ -- still optimistic, but more grounded.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th one of the greatest compositions ever?

Because they like the music. Not too difficult to figure out. Other than that, this thread seems wholly negative and out to prove that somehow it's _not_, which I'm not interested in this kind of debate. Beethoven's late works are incredible and I think if anyone who appreciates where classical went in the Romantic Era, will appreciate what the composer achieved instead of trying to find an argument that refutes this fact.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> So you would sit through a movie you hated because it won an Oscar?


[Edited]

No. Whilst I might be pleased that the movies I like have won an Oscar, thus approving my taste, your extrapolation goes to far. (And I don't see what documentaries have to do with anything.)

What I really I meant was that from the biggest example - say an actor who wants approval by getting an Oscar, to a teenager who wants the approval of his tribe of shoe-gazers or hip-hoppers, we all seek the approval and validation of others, and that includes approval of our tastes in music.

And it _is _just the way it is. _You _may not need approval and validation, but many do.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/your-emotional-meter/201807/how-let-go-the-need-approval
The article deals with an excess of or anxiety over the need for approval, but just do an internet search for 'need for approval' and there are a number of similar articles.

There's even a label for sly approval for the things we know we shouldn't like, but do - 'guilty pleasure'. We confess to having these, with at least an expectation that our peers will similarly confess, if not to the exact same like, but to the same 'guilt'.

Anyway, I merely offered a thought on your musing: "Why they think such validation or justification is needed, I don't know." Whether this applies to the OP, who can say?


----------



## Forster

hammeredklavier said:


> And of course, it's always a sacrilege to talk about Romantics disparaging a certain Classical period composer as "a welcome old friend with nothing new to say, outdated, with boring phrases that tired rather than interested the public"... The double standards are really amusing sometimes


So, is this a part of your post...or not?


----------



## Subutai

In order to answer that question I suppose you had to be there at the time to truly realise it's total impact on the classical world. It was the culmination of Beethoven's legacy as being a symphonist without compare. One masterpiece after another. That thinking, as many great composers stopped writing symphonies as they felt they just couldn't top that, hence the birth of symphonic/tone poems. You had to be there.


----------



## Livly_Station

The 9th Symphony had a successful premiere, but I doubt anyone there claimed it was the pinnacle of western music at that time... not even Beethoven's finest work. 

More likely, this notion only came into being after some years as the Ninth started to be digested more thoroughly and its Myth slowly disseminated in some circles.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> [Edited]
> 
> And it _is _just the way it is. _You _may not need approval and validation, but many do.


I have the same psychological need for approval as everyone else. But knowing who else shares my tastes in art and music does not fulfill that need. Some will, some won't. I have had a deep, lifelong interest in classical music. The vast majority of other people in this world do not share that taste, and never will. That has no impact on me. And you're here at TC, so you must be able to accept that reality in stride as well.


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> I have the same psychological need for approval as everyone else. But knowing who else shares my tastes in art and music does not fulfill that need. Some will, some won't. I have had a deep, lifelong interest in classical music. The vast majority of other people in this world do not share that taste, and never will. That has no impact on me. And you're here at TC, so you must be able to accept that reality in stride as well.


It doesn't bother me in the slightest how many people in the real world like classical music, though I wish my sons were among their number.

But here at TC is exactly where some might come for, and expect, approval. I'm not seeking it here either, but I was only ever offering my idea that might explain what you'd identified: a need for validation among peers.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> But here at TC is exactly where some might come for, and expect, approval.


That does seem to be the case, unfortunately. People seeking approval on the internet, perhaps because they don't get enough of it in real life.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The first time I remember hearing the 9th was in my teens, listening to my dad’s Mehta/NYPO recording. I knew the opening to the 5th, the Pastoral from Fantasia, and the Allegretto of the 7th. So I had an idea of what Beethoven symphonies sound like. But I could tell right away the 9th was on a different level. The opening movement sounded massive, with such a seriousness of purpose. And the thing that stood out about the final movement was how Beethoven was clearly aiming for something highly inspired. Is there another finale in all of music that is so emotionally charged?

I know this sounds corny, but it’s in large part the idea behind the 9th that makes it so great, the ambitious nature of it. It makes me think of the movie Gone With the Wind and what it stood for, something epic and ambitious that redefined the medium.


.


----------



## amfortas

fluteman said:


> People seeking approval on the internet, perhaps because they don't get enough of it in real life.


What a bunch of losers!

If you agree, please, *please* like this post.


----------



## Forster

amfortas said:


> What a bunch of losers!
> 
> If you agree, please, *please* like this post.


Er...yes...no...wait, if I agree...but then if I disagree...oh, bother!


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> That does seem to be the case, unfortunately. People seeking approval on the internet, perhaps because they don't get enough of it in real life.


Why "unfortunately"?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?

Because it's a meme.

I think the first movement is rather dry hackwork and the finale is way too long.


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> Why "unfortunately"?


Because it's boring. Go talk to a therapist, or join a support group.


----------



## fluteman

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?
> 
> Because it's a meme.
> 
> I think the first movement is rather dry hackwork and the finale is way too long.


I can see the "finale is way too long" point of view. This is a 19th century work, and the length of the finale is one sign that audiences back then had different tastes and expectations. Dudley Moore was famous for a hilarious Beethoven parody on the piano (which he could play on a high professional level) in which the finale refused to end, despite his attempts to get away from the piano. He would get sucked back to the bench over and over for more final, and yet not final, cadences. I probably could find it on youtube. (pause) Yup, that wasn't too hard:


----------



## Forster

fluteman said:


> Because it's boring. Go talk to a therapist, or join a support group.


I think you're interpreting "seeking approval" rather more seriously than it merits. Just getting a 'like' for a post is 'approval'. Something wrong with feeling good because you've got a like?


----------



## fbjim

fluteman said:


> I can see the "finale is way too long" point of view. This is a 19th century work, and the length of the finale is one sign that audiences back then had different tastes and expectations. Dudley Moore was famous for a hilarious Beethoven parody on the piano (which he could play on a high professional level) in which the finale refused to end, despite his attempts to get away from the piano. He would get sucked back to the bench over and over for more final, and yet not final, cadences. I probably could find it on youtube. (pause) Yup, that wasn't too hard:


I have no way to prove this but I'm pretty sure even Beethoven joked about this in the end of the 8th Symphony.


----------



## Livly_Station

Some of Beethoven's works -- like the 5th Symphony -- have this trope of the "never ending" finale, but I don't think that's the case of the Ninth despite how long the last movement is...


----------



## fluteman

Forster said:


> I think you're interpreting "seeking approval" rather more seriously than it merits. Just getting a 'like' for a post is 'approval'. Something wrong with feeling good because you've got a like?


Oh, I wouldn't get all in a lather. My point was, a lot of people attach way too much importance to finding agreement in internet groups. In olden days, when I dared pose ideas inconsistent with those of these folk, the reply would be, "Most people in this internet forum agree with me!" as if that somehow established the fundamental truths of the universe.

I enjoy chatting with people with common tastes in good fun and fellowship. And liking their posts. Fortunately, many here feel the same way and don't take themselves too seriously. But I'm not much for these self-appointed Kings of the Internet, a few of whom reign here with their handful of subjects.


----------



## Xisten267

fluteman said:


> I can see the "finale is way too long" point of view.


I can too, although I totally disagree with it. The problem in my opinion is that many performances, including some by legendary conductors, slow down the music to the point of removing almost completely it's rhythmic vitality, a key mistake in Beethoven in my view. I understand that slowed down Beethoven may work for some, but I just can't bear it. According to the composer's nephew, Karl, the premiere of the Ninth was 63 minutes long, and this is consistent with Beethoven's tempo markings in the score, so why go for 70, 80, sometimes even 90 minutes? Of course that the music will sound boring if stretched like this.

In my opinion, if one wants the "real thing", it's better to go for some legendary recording that respects Beethoven's tempi, like the Toscanini/NBCSO of 1952.


----------



## Kreisler jr

fbjim said:


> Was Cherubini the last guy whose contemporary reputation as a great rested mostly on sacred music? I think even Berlioz said his sacred music was great, and he hated Cherubini.


It rested at least as much on opera (Medea was still sung by Callas) as on sacred music. Berlioz disliked Cherubini probably because the latter stood for the Conservatoire establishment for whom Berlioz' music was too daring


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> If the church never declined in wealth and power and continued to provide stable jobs to composers, church music would still have been produced in large quantities even in the 19th/20th centuries. The "decline" of church music wasn't really caused by a change in taste or fashion, but a change in politics and society. How does this diminish the "musical value" of the church music composed prior to the 19th century from our modern perspective, I never understand.


But we are talking about the 19th century! The complex reasons for the changes are not so important. The point is that church music had already declined in importance in the 18th century. Neither the famous Handel oratorios nor the Haydn oratorios were church music. Haydn hardly bothered with church music in the 2 decades before his 6 late masses. Mozart mostly stopped writing it after Salzburg. How can you ignore all this or treat it as external accidental circumstances?

And in the 19th century one is hard pressed to name more than one or two church pieces for each famous composer and in many cases they are not among their highly regarded works. Who cares for Schubert's masses (I recall a certain user of this forum who loves to denigrate them...), who for Schumann's (or even for his *secular* choral stuff that was quite famous in his time. 
There are a handful of great works like the Requiem by Berlioz, Verdi, Brahms, the Mendelssohn oratorios, the Bruckner masses, but they are few compared to symphonies, concertos etc. and hardly any of them is considered as important or influential as e.g. Beethoven's 9th or Winterreise or Schumann's piano music etc. They are lonely peaks of great works that are rather irrelevant in the long run or the big picture.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> But we are talking about the 19th century! The complex reasons for the changes are not so important. The point is that church music had already declined in importance in the 18th century.


But then, by your logic - the 18th century style of numbered operas employing secco recitatives or spoken dialogues (which you defended so strongly in other threads) was largely obsolete by the time of the high Romantic period, and the practice was replaced by something very different - can we simply dismiss the 18th century style as "not important/relevant" from our modern point of view?



Kreisler jr said:


> Neither the famous Handel oratorios nor the Haydn oratorios were church music.


"Messiah (HWV 56) is an English-language oratorio composed in 1741 by George Frideric Handel, with a *scriptural text* compiled by Charles Jennens from the *King James Bible*, and from the Coverdale Psalter, the version of the Psalms included with the Book of Common Prayer." 
"The Creation (German: Die Schöpfung) is an oratorio written between 1797 and 1798 by Joseph Haydn (Hob. XXI:2), and considered by many to be one of his masterpieces. The oratorio depicts and celebrates the creation of the world as described in the *Book of Genesis.*"
Are you seriously telling me these are not "religious music"?

It could be argued that Beethoven incorporated his own personal "religious music" in his final symphony: "In 1809 he (Beethoven) wrote: "In the old church modes the devotion is divine, I exclaimed, and God let me express it someday." And in 1818, when he first thought of writing a choral symphony: "A pious song in a symphony, in the old modes, *Lord God we praise Thee-alleluja.*""



Kreisler jr said:


> Haydn hardly bothered with church music in the 2 decades before his 6 late masses.


Because his employer did not ask for one. Duh.
"Griesinger reported Haydn's remark, '*I am rather proud of my masses*'"
< The Life of Haydn | David Wyn Jones · 2009 | P. 203 >
Haydn wrote an extended stabat mater and a host of other masses before his late ones. And even one of your "authority figures", the chief Haydn biographer, H.C.R. Landon, considers the Nelson mass to be Haydn's greatest work.



Kreisler jr said:


> Mozart mostly stopped writing it after Salzburg.


"Had he lived longer, he would have written far more church stuff. About 8 months before death, Mozart applied for the kapellmeister position at St. Stephen's cathedral in Vienna and was accepted by the city council (to succeed the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hoffman, but Mozart died before Hoffman did)." [#186]. "According to his first biographer, Franz Xaver Niemetschek, who is generally an accurate witness: Church music was Mozart's favourite form of composition. But he was able to dedicate himself least of all to it." [#182]
I don't understand your constant illogical hatred against a genre, (and all the logical fallacies and cherry-picking associated with it). Maybe you need to try to get over it and not let it cloud your judgement when discussing objective historical facts?



Kreisler jr said:


> And in the 19th century one is hard pressed to name more than one or two church pieces for each famous composer and in many cases they are not among their highly regarded works. Who cares for Schubert's masses


Maybe that's because the 18th-century craftsmanship/professionalism of the "employed" "craftsmen" in the genre (with all the stylistic subtleties of harmony/counterpoint/vocal/ensemble/choral writing/orchestration/form/ skill and know-how of setting standardized text to music with fluidity and variety) was not easy to emulate and expand on (compared to a certain lame, spiceless symphony style of bassoon farts and clock-ticking, which you seem to regard so highly), for the "freelance" "artists" of the 19th century, who were generally better at other things. Even Beethoven had a hardtime producing his first one, at the age of 37, when he had no trouble producing masterpieces in other genres.

As I said, I don't object to any points made by Brahmsianhorn and Xisten267, but all your logic in [post#168] is just absurd. I could argue that the 18th century classicists did not write 1-hour long symphonies and comparing their works with the 19th century works just cause they're all labelled "symphonies" isn't fair, or that the symphony also became less important (especially the Beethovenian Classical symphony) when guys like Wagner, Liszt, Berlioz deemed the practice "obsolete", and replaced it with the symphonic poem and other newer orchestral genres. (Somehow Brahms wasn't "outdated" in his time, according to you) Since then, the symphony has been a vague concept, it could be anything as long as it's playable by an orchestra and labeled a "symphony", just like what Mahler said "it must now contain everything". Bruckner's are nothing like any 18th century symphony. Sibelius 7th could have been named "fantasia for orchestra". Likewise, I could argue any work that that utilizes religious text/title or old church modes is "religious music" (ie. Beethoven Op.132/iii, which can be "sung" in SATB voices, like a motet piece).
Just like what like what you said in another thread: "There was a time in the early 20th century when some composers like Berg, Bartok and others avoided "symphony" in pieces that might as well have been called symphonies: Instead they used "(Orchestral) pieces", "Music for...""



Kreisler jr said:


> It rested at least as much on opera (Medea was still sung by Callas) as on sacred music.


So maybe opera was the most important genre in Western classical music and its history, when you consider all the factors (such as the length of the genre's history). For a long time, the symphony (in the form of the overture, interlude) was an obedient servant of opera, after all.



Kreisler jr said:


> hardly any of them is considered as important or influential as e.g. Beethoven's 9th or Winterreise or Schumann's piano music etc.


Yes, 19th century style song-cycles and piano character-pieces were prominent in the 19th century! But not in the 16th!, 17th!, 18th centuries! And the 19th century doesn't represent the entirety of Western classical music history! 
Just cause something was a part of of a popular genre of its time doesn't automatically mean it was influential in its time! A Lachner symphony wasn't more "influential" than the Mozart requiem in the 19th century just cause it was a symphony! 
Call Beethoven's 9th the greatest work in history all you want! But don't trash other musical periods or genres in the process just cause you have a limited, narrow view of them! The ax-grinding has been going on for too long, honestly.



hammeredklavier said:


> "Wagner's life-long admiration included an encounter in the mid-to late 1820s that 'formed the starting point of my enthusiastic absorption in the works of that master [Mozart]' and contemplations of it late in life as well; Anton Rubinstein, Mahler Richard Strauss, Stanford and Rimsky-Korsakov all conducted it, Rimsky-Korsakov also quoting extensively from the Introit in the final section of Mozart and Salieri. Described in 1902 as one of Mozart's works that 'speaks persuadingly to every generation . . . [through which] Mozart's influence still persists and must be reckoned with as a factor in the complexus of forces which is moulding the music of the new century', it had similar exposure among twentieth century composers. Bartok used examples from the Requiem in his teaching; Szymanowski wrote of its 'divine grief', the most powerful 'eruption' of the 'grim, powerful call from a world beyond ours' in Mozart's late music; Janecek conducted a highly successful performance of it in Brno in the late 1870s and another in the memory of Smetana in Prague in 1916; the fifteen-year-old Walton sang a solo part in a performance at Christ Church, Oxford, in December 1917; Britten considered it an important historical precedent for the modern-day composer in writing his own War Requiem (1961-2), subsequently reacting profoundly to conducting Mozart's work (1971)."
> < Mozart's Requiem: Reception, Work, Completion / Simon P. Keefe / P. 6 >
> 
> Bruckner Requiem in D minor
> There is clear influence of Mozart throughout the work.
> [There] are many passages reminiscent of what was even then, in 1848/49, a past age (the very opening points irresistibly to Mozart's Requiem in the same key), and though the very inclusion of a figured bass for organ continuo strikes one as backward looking, there are already several flashes of the later, great Bruckner to come.
> 
> Franz Joseph Aumann (1728~1797)
> Aumann's music was a large part of the repertoire at St. Florian in the 19th century, and Anton Bruckner availed himself of this resource for his studies of counterpoint. Bruckner focused a lot of his attention on Aumann's Christmas responsories and an Ave Maria in D major.
> Bruckner, who liked Aumann's coloured harmony, added in 1879 an accompaniment by three trombones to his settings of Ecce quomodo moritur justus and Tenebrae factae sunt.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> "Had he lived longer, he would have written far more church stuff. About 8 months before death, Mozart applied for the kapellmeister position at St. Stephen's cathedral in Vienna and was accepted by the city council (to succeed the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hoffman, but Mozart died before Hoffman did)." [#186]. "According to his first biographer, Franz Xaver Niemetschek, who is generally an accurate witness: Church music was Mozart's favourite form of composition. But he was able to dedicate himself least of all to it." [#182]


"If we disregard the unfinished C minor Mass and the Requiem, also incomplete, Mozart composed no other Masses during his years in Vienna. That he nevertheless retained an interest in church music is indicated by several performances of the Salzburg Masses, for which he had the parts sent on from Salzburg. Also significant is an application to the Emperor in May 1790 for the post of assistant Hofkapellmeister under Salieri, in which Mozart recommended himself above all as a composer of church music." (Alfred Beaujean)
"Mozart wrote the Vesperae solennes de Dominica in Salzburg in 1779, the same year as the Coronation Mass - a work, which the composer himself held in high esteem. It was no doubt this work that Mozart presented to Baron van Swieten when he later sought to introduce himself to the Viennese musical world as a composer of church music in the serious "stile antico"." (ficksmusic.com)


----------



## Couchie

Picking apart the flaws of Beethoven's 9th is exactly like picking apart the flaws of God. It can be done, but it only reveals something about the picker.


----------



## Roger Knox

I haven't read much of this thread but I think *celegorma* nailed it in post #6, except for one thing. In addition to the length of Beethoven's 9th there is also spatiality. From the begining the little motif is given over several registers from high to low and the movement continues in this craggy, wide-ranging style. In post #31 *arpeggio* mentions playing the innovative and difficult contrabassoon part. In the scherzo, the timpani part is unforgettable. Beethoven also features the low register in the cello/double bass melody near the opening of the fourth movement. In the higher register there are the piccolo and the extreme high notes for soloists and chorus. In Vienna's public concert hall, the audience would have experienced immersively the resonance off the walls and ceiling of sharp fortissimo orchestral chords followed by rests. Of all symphonies I think this is one that needs to be heard live and I'll never forget singing in the chorus with a professional orchestra.

Most of the above ideas I heard in a 1979 lecture by Paul Henry Lang (1901-1991), the author of _Music in Western Civilization_. Any piece can be ruined by over-exposure and that may have happened with Beethoven's Ninth. With classical music I always like to move on to different compositions, but the Ninth is one that I return to with pleasure.


----------



## mparta

Roger Knox said:


> I haven't read much of this thread but I think *celegorma* nailed it in post #6, except for one thing. In addition to the length of Beethoven's 9th there is also spatiality. From the begining the little motif is given over several registers from high to low and the movement continues in this craggy, wide-ranging style. In post #31 *arpeggio* mentions playing the innovative and difficult contrabassoon part. In the scherzo, the timpani part is unforgettable. Beethoven also features the low register in the cello/double bass melody near the opening of the fourth movement. In the higher register there are the piccolo and the extreme high notes for soloists and chorus. In Vienna's public concert hall, the audience would have experienced immersively the resonance off the walls and ceiling of sharp fortissimo orchestral chords followed by rests. Of all symphonies I think this is one that needs to be heard live and I'll never forget singing in the chorus with a professional orchestra.
> 
> Most of the above ideas I heard in a 1979 lecture by Paul Henry Lang (1901-1991), the author of _Music in Western Civilization_. Any piece can be ruined by over-exposure and that may have happened with Beethoven's Ninth. With classical music I always like to move on to different compositions, but the Ninth is one that I return to with pleasure.


The 9th is not my favorite Beethoven, but I would never discuss anything by Beethoven as hackwork as has been done here. This is a composer who deserves almost religion-level respect in my life.

And to emphasize the performance rather than recording aspect, that's very real. The 9th is a work for which I have two burning memories, and that's a lot for 2 performances. With Barenboim and the Staatskapelle Berlin, Rene Pape was the bass soloist and his first appearance (O Freunde, nicht diese toene) was so astoundingly stunningly whatever!!!! that I almost stood in response. I think that's in the music and of course he's one of the greatest singers alive.
And the string choirs in the last movement in the Philharmonie with Rattle, that hall gave a sense of palpable music ascending to the heavens. Absolute magic, I will never forget.

of course this work is popular because it has a big tune, that's not complicated.

So for my minor reservations compared to some of the others, it's still Beethoven, 'nuff said. it's got plenty of Beethoven "you can't do that" stuff with shape and orchestration, and I despite it's intention to be so, the ability to get a slow movement like this to the general public, as with the Hammerklavier, is a high bar.


----------



## Roger Knox

mparta said:


> The 9th is not my favorite Beethoven, but I would never discuss anything by Beethoven as hackwork as has been done here. This is a composer who deserves almost religion-level respect in my life.
> 
> And to emphasize the performance rather than recording aspect, that's very real. The 9th is a work for which I have two burning memories, and that's a lot for 2 performances. With Barenboim and the Staatskapelle Berlin, Rene Pape was the bass soloist and his first appearance (O Freunde, nicht diese toene) was so astoundingly stunningly whatever!!!! that I almost stood in response. I think that's in the music and of course he's one of the greatest singers alive.
> And the string choirs in the last movement in the Philharmonie with Rattle, that hall gave a sense of palpable music ascending to the heavens. Absolute magic, I will never forget.


Those are great comments and memories, thanks. Beethoven in Berlin -- the appreciative audience would make a difference too. I notice that you're coming up to one year since joining TalkClassical and hope you will continue!


----------



## cyberstudio

Heros are made by the times and the times are made by the heros.

Beethoven lived in the times of revolution when turmoil was at its maximum in Europe. He revolutionized music. But you can say it was the other way - music was at a turning point and somebody was bound to revolutionize it - were it not Beethoven it would have been another composer. It was no longer a luxury of the aristocracy. It was music for the people.

He was not a genius like Mozart. It was entirely hard work. He felt like an ordinary citizen. He felt like each of us, except for the struggle he had to go through with his deafness.

The 9th needs to be seen through the lens of Beethoven's life and Beethoven's times. Whether it is the "Greatest" is in the eye of the beholder but the success of this symphony cannot be repeated. It could only have been done by a hero who made the times, and by the times which made the hero. It was a great piece of work because it was not just music, but transcends above it.


----------



## Forster

cyberstudio said:


> Beethoven lived in the times of revolution when turmoil was at its maximum in Europe.


Not from 1900 to 1945 then? WW2 was a pretty turbulent time.



> He was not a genius like Mozart. It was entirely hard work.


Being a genius was of no advantage then? It's not like Mozart's effortless approach gained him substantially greater kudos than LvB.


----------



## fluteman

amfortas said:


> Don't get me wrong; food is great. As is art. But drawing analogies between them is always a bit tenuous, and I suspect that, for many people, in this particular sense, the two are not the same.


Shared tastes in both art and food are among the things that bind us together as a culture, so in both cases we may care to some extent about how others view our tastes. Art may be a more intellectual experience in most cases, and more dependent on our educational backgrounds. But in food, there also are trained and experienced connoisseurs, for wine of course, but also coffee, tea, chocolate, cheese, dry-aged beef, and other things.

I want there to be at least some people who understand and share my tastes in both art and food, so what I like remains available. But I take little pride in being part of an exclusive, small elite, and little comfort in being part of a vast majority. Realistically I have to expect that sometimes I will be one of few, other times one of many. So it is a factor in both, but not the most important factor.


----------



## janxharris

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The 9th packs an emotional wallop on a higher level than any other work before or since. Period. That's where it gets its reputation.
> 
> It's the apotheosis of Western music.


You have not demonstrated this and there is no 'period'. Bold assertions require substantial evidence.

You do realise how arrogant this sounds don't you?


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> You have not demonstrated this and there is no 'period'. Bold assertions require substantial evidence.
> 
> You do realise how arrogant this sounds don't you?


Never mind arrogance, he's just wrong.

Fact! :lol:


----------



## janxharris

Forster said:


> Never mind arrogance, he's just wrong.
> 
> Fact! :lol:


Wrong in the sense that no work is the 'apotheosis of western music'.


----------



## marlow

cyberstudio said:


> Heros are made by the times and the times are made by the heros.
> 
> Beethoven lived in the times of revolution when turmoil was at its maximum in Europe. He revolutionized music. But you can say it was the other way - music was at a turning point and somebody was bound to revolutionize it - were it not Beethoven it would have been another composer. It was no longer a luxury of the aristocracy. It was music for the people.
> 
> *He was not a genius like Mozart. It was entirely hard work. He felt like an ordinary citizen. *He felt like each of us, except for the struggle he had to go through with his deafness.
> 
> The 9th needs to be seen through the lens of Beethoven's life and Beethoven's times. Whether it is the "Greatest" is in the eye of the beholder but the success of this symphony cannot be repeated. It could only have been done by a hero who made the times, and by the times which made the hero. It was a great piece of work because it was not just music, but transcends above it.


I think Beethoven would've totally disagreed with that statement. He felt his genius made him special and it made him level with if not above the aristocracy. There is the story of him and Goethe meeting some princes. Whereas the poet bowed to them, Beethoven merely pushed his way through them, saying afterwards, 'There are many princes but only one Beethoven!'


----------



## Forster

^ "He was not a genius like Mozart"

He was a genius like Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier

cyberstudio said:


> He was not a genius like Mozart.


"One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart." https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> "One of the many unfortunate legacies of nineteenth-century biographical writing is the excessive focus on the Wunderkind Mozart and the Incomparable Genius Mozart." https://theresia.blog/2019/03/rediscovering-michael-haydn-an-interview-with-david-wyn-jones/


I think that the legacy of nineteenth-century biographical writing focusing on "the Incomparable Genius *Mozart*" as being a "wunderkind" is likely because he WAS a musical genius.

He pumped out an extraordinary volume of extraordinary quality music in a very short time.

*Beethoven* was also a musical genius. The 9th Symphony was a brilliant stroke of genius, built upon a legacy of genius works (symphonies, quartets, piano works, etc.). Even the awful *Wellington's Victory* was pretty damn clever when you think about it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The best passage in Wellington's victory is the retreat of the beaten Frenchies with a "torn up" version of the Marlborough march in the minor mode. It's a good example of effective and simple theme transformation and quite poignant.
The triumphant symphony is not so bad either (I loved the whole piece as a 14 yo new to classical music), it mainly feels shallow because it's a like triumphant coda without anything before. The music itself is not that different from e.g. the triumphal ending of the Egmont ouverture, although the "echo" and fugato on God save the King is a bit silly...


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> Wrong in the sense that no work is the 'apotheosis of western music'.


And in the idea that emotional wallops can be quantified on 'levels'.


----------



## janxharris

Forster said:


> And in the idea that emotional wallops can be quantified on 'levels'.


Indeed - 'emotional wallop' will greatly depend on perceived meaning of organized ( though nonetheless abstract) sound . All the parameters that we subjectively analyse as we evaluate a work - harmonic, melodic and rhythmic content, motivic development etc - along with broader content like sectional divisions and their transitions - will determine this emotional wallop.

I think the LVB 9th is great - but also very flawed (imo). For me, something like Sibelius's 5th symphony is perfection - but I have no problem with those that think otherwise.


----------



## marlow

Kreisler jr said:


> The best passage in Wellington's victory is the retreat of the beaten Frenchies with a "torn up" version of the Marlborough march in the minor mode. It's a good example of effective and simple theme transformation and quite poignant.
> The triumphant symphony is not so bad either (I loved the whole piece as a 14 yo new to classical music), it mainly feels shallow because it's a like triumphant coda without anything before. The music itself is not that different from e.g. the triumphal ending of the Egmont ouverture, although the "echo" and fugato on God save the King is a bit silly...


Beethoven knew that wellingtons victory was not exactly a masterpiece when he wrote it but it was his biggest money-earner in his lifetime. As he remarked ironically of his rivals, "My ***** is better than their gold!"


----------



## Kreisler jr

janxharris said:


> I think the LVB 9th is great - but also very flawed (imo). For me, something like Sibelius's 5th symphony is perfection - but I have no problem with those that think otherwise.


I don't think it is very flawed or that Sibelius 5th is "perfection" but even if it was, such comparisons are for me misleading. Beethoven's 9th is about 10 times as ambitious as a modest piece like Sibelius 5th, so even flawed it would be for me a much greater piece because overall it succeed in its ambitions.


----------



## janxharris

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't think it is very flawed or that Sibelius 5th is "perfection" but even if it was, such comparisons are for me misleading. Beethoven's 9th is about 10 times as ambitious as a modest piece like Sibelius 5th, so even flawed it would be for me a much greater piece because overall it succeed in its ambitions.


Well we don't agree on scale of ambition and your description of the 5th as modest is rather baffling to me. Clearly we don't perceive the works in the same way...and I fully accept that Beethoven has the greater popularity.

I can't imagine that your reference to ambition is really a one of size? If not, what is it?


----------



## Forster

janxharris said:


> I think the LVB 9th is great - but also very flawed (imo). For me, something like Sibelius's 5th symphony is perfection - but I have no problem with those that think otherwise.


I think the 9th is "great" too - that is, I really, really like it. I couldn't comment on "flaws". Nor would I necessarily offer up Sibelius 5th as an example of "perfection - but that's only because I don't know what "perfection" looks like either.



Kreisler jr said:


> Beethoven's 9th is about 10 times as ambitious as a modest piece like Sibelius 5th, so even flawed it would be for me a much greater piece because overall it succeed in its ambitions.


And Sibelius 5th doesn't overall succeed in its ambitions?


----------



## pianozach

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't think it is very flawed or that Sibelius 5th is "perfection" but even if it was, such comparisons are for me misleading. *Beethoven's 9th is about 10 times as ambitious as a modest piece like Sibelius 5th*, so even flawed it would be for me a much greater piece because overall it succeed in its ambitions.





Forster said:


> I think the 9th is "great" too - that is, I really, really like it. I couldn't comment on "flaws". Nor would I necessarily offer up Sibelius 5th as an example of "perfection - but that's only because I don't know what "perfection" looks like either.
> 
> *And Sibelius 5th doesn't overall succeed in its ambitions?*


THAT is a specious question.

Generally, in competitions, whether it be high jump, science fair, composition, etc., if both participants meet their ambitions, but the ambition of one is ten times higher than the other, than the one with the loftier goal is scored higher.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> THAT is a specious question.
> 
> Generally, in competitions, whether it be high jump, science fair, composition, etc., if both participants meet their ambitions, but the ambition of one is ten times higher than the other, than the one with the loftier goal is scored higher.


It's the only question to ask, given that is the only point offered in support of the LVB being greater than the Sibelius.

I fail to see how one can quantify the greatness of one over the other, but I didn't think Kreisler literally meant ×10...just that one is substantially superior to the other.

Neither should be treated like diving or gym where degree of difficulty is factored in using highly specific criteria.


----------



## marlow

Of course Beethoven’s ninth is acknowledged as a supreme work. And of course it’s been done to death often inappropriately. But that doesn’t affect its greatness.


----------



## Forster

marlow said:


> Of course Beethoven's ninth is acknowledged as a supreme work. And of course it's been done to death often inappropriately. But that doesn't affect its greatness.


The OP's question is "why?" Has anyone come up with a convincing response?


----------



## janxharris

pianozach said:


> THAT is a specious question.
> 
> Generally, in competitions, whether it be high jump, science fair, composition, etc., if both participants meet their ambitions, *but the ambition of one is ten times higher than the other, than the one with the loftier goal is scored higher.*


I'm curious to know what this means - and whether it applies to one or other of the symphonies mentioned...and if so why.

For me, both the 9th and Sibelius' 5th are very ambitious.


----------



## ansfelden

"Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever"

because they are deaf?

sorry for the old pun, i don´t claim originality.


----------



## arpeggio

arpeggio said:


> I feel a little hesitant to jump into this discussion because most of you guys know more about Beethoven than I do, but I will give it a try. Most of you probably already know this.
> 
> Throughout the history of Western European Classical Music there have been seminal works that when they appeared the audience heard something completely new. Two examples of this are Wagner's _Tristan and Isolde_ and Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_. Beethoven appears to have accomplished this several times in his career. Along with the _Ninth_ the ones I can think of are his _Third Symphony_ and his late string quartets. I am sure that many can think of a few more.
> 
> I have had the opportunity to have performed the Contrabassoon in the _Ninth_ twice with my community orchestra. This is one of the first great contrabassoon parts in the orchestra literature and by today's standards is still one of the most challenging to perform. The first time I played it I had only been playing the contra a few years and I could not cut it. After twenty years experience, I did a much better job of it last spring. With a community group one actually spends several weeks working and living with a piece. Performing the _Ninth_ was one of the most awesome experiences in my life.
> 
> In order to understand the greatness of the _Ninth_ one must put themselves in the audience that heard it for the first time. There are several innovations in this work including the use of a choir in a symphony. To out modern ears, after being exposed to Bruckner, Mahler and Shostakovitch, there is really nothing that earth shattering about it. For many the music is trivial and bombastic. But try to put yourself in that audience in 1824. Up until then audiences were primarily exposed to the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart and their contemporaries. I have read that Beethoven wanted to premier the work in Berlin instead of Vienna because he did not think the Viennese audience could handle it. Although the work was under rehearsed and it was a sloppy performance the audience was overwhelmed.
> 
> Sorry if I appear too much in awe of this work or stating the obvious.


Check out my post from almost ten years ago (my God, have I been a member that long?).


----------



## Bulldog

Forster said:


> The OP's question is "why?" Has anyone come up with a convincing response?


Check out post #6......................


----------



## Livly_Station

Some of my thoughts are already somewhere in this thread...

But I'd like to add that one of the reasons this symphony is so good is that all four movement are truly great, iconic and eloquent on their own. On top of that, Beethoven was on point to make the final movement such a conspicuous behemoth to convincingly end the larger-than-life journey of the entire work.

It's rare to find symphonies in which _all_ the movements match each other's greatness so beautifully.


----------



## Forster

Bulldog said:


> Check out post #6......................


Ok. Thanks for the tip.



celegorma said:


> 1. Its the first choral symphony and requires a huge orchestra
> 2. Its uber long, and was longest symphony for quite some time
> 3. Its the last of a great cycle of symphonies, so by saying 9 is great is like saying the cycle is great
> 4. Like all Beethoven works, this symphony has great motivic development, especially the first movement. The way he builds on the motive and drives the music forward is just magnificent. And the same motive gets carried into the 2nd movement seamlessly. Just wonderful.
> 5. Structurally complex last movement. It has no overall structure at all, and yet it contains a theme and variations, a scherzo, and a fugue, ending with one of the longest coda ever written. And its great because of how Beethoven can merge these forms into one coherent movement, with a unified theme.
> 6. The message it carries, of universal brotherhood, is great


So, in answer to the OP's "Why do people think it's one of the greats?" the answer is...

...because it's big, long, old, and some of the component parts are great, magnificent, complex. And the last movement is structurally complex, without having a structure.  I'm not convinced.

By those criteria - assuming they are criteria worth judging it by - other symphonies are greater. Mahler and Brian are longer, but fail for being too recent, for example.

As for "complex" - I disagree. If it's simple enough for me to listen to and enjoy, it can't be that complex, unlike Mahler, some of whose symphonies are too vast to encompass in the same way.

(I'm not advocating Mahler as having written a _greater _composition, by the way.)

Oh, and if, by "people", we mean discerning listeners (as opposed to the general population that prefers 'pop') we already know that at least one such group prefers Beethoven's _Eroica_. (See the BBC poll of 151 conductors asking to name their 'greatest' symphony). The 9th is nevertheless 'one of the greats'.


----------



## Kreisler jr

pianozach said:


> THAT is a specious question.
> 
> Generally, in competitions, whether it be high jump, science fair, composition, etc., if both participants meet their ambitions, but the ambition of one is ten times higher than the other, than the one with the loftier goal is scored higher.


I took for granted (or for the sake of argument) that Sibelius' 5th succeeds in its ambitions. My personal thoughts aside, I think it is a fairly modest piece for early 20th century, both compared to the large symphonies of the time like Mahler and compared to the turn of the century avantgarde music like Debussy or Schoenberg. I think Sibelius is considerably overrated (and also that his status is mainly an anglosphere + scandinavia phenomenon) and even his good pieces like the 5th are not close in importance to Beethoven's, additionally, he comes so late in the history of the genre when nothing could have anything like the impact of Beethoven's 5th or 9th.

I personally also think that Beethoven's 9th overall succeeds in its ambitions but again I was granting some flaws for the sake of argument. As most people seem to think the finale flawed, I'd be happy to put it in brackets but the impact of the first movement alone was huge. Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius are all hardly conceivable without that "building up from primeval fog" etc. Mahler (2, i) and Bruckner (3,i) also clearly take the "ostinato funeral march" idea from the coda of the Beethoven. And there are probably more important details that were very influential but above all it is the scale, the scope of sound clear from the beginning (unlike the Eroica where one could not guess that such a huge movement would follow) and so on. All this is well covered and nothing new. People got used to it and many have become jaded, therefore they are underrating such pieces and LvB 9th.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Not to discredit the Beethoven, I have to agree with janxharris and Forster. I think the sort of argument Kreisler resorts to is a common logical fallacy to unfairly favor and place the earlier composers (and their music) above the later composers (and their music). 
You can apply the arguments "B wouldn't have been possible without A", "A came early, C came late in history, so A is better" to all kinds of things in Western classical music history. Would Beethoven's symphony have been possible without his peer Friedrich Witt (1770~1836)'s symphony No.9 in D minor (1819)?




How does this Witt symphony compare with the Sibelius, which has the "disadvantage" of coming later than stuff like the Witt, according to Kreisler's logic?
And I still remember, every time I pointed out Bruckner wouldn't have been possible without F.J. Aumann's liturgical stuff and Mozart's Requiem (even a few pages ago in this thread), Kreisler kept denying the fact. (double standards?)
*Here's something for us to consider* (very well put by the member Eschbeg) regarding the "canon" and its "influence" in classical music:


Eschbeg said:


> All of the factors contributing to greatness are interrelated and dependent on each other. For example, one factor mentioned above is the tradition of received wisdom: belief in Mozart's greatness has been passed down from generation to generation, reinforced by music textbooks and concert performances and internet forums, while belief in François-Joseph Gossec's greatness has not. Another factor mentioned above is the test of time: Mozart seems greater than Gossec because the former's music has survived till today while the latter's has not. But these two factors are mutually reinforcing: if music textbooks have chapters on Mozart but not Gossec, then of course the former is going to have a leg up on the latter when it comes to the test of time. Conversely, if Mozart's music is still performed today while Gossec's is not, then of course music textbooks are going to have chapters on the former but not the latter. Likewise, another factor that has been mentioned is influence: Mozart has demonstrably had a lasting influence on later composers, even today, while Gossec has not. This is also inherently connected to the above factors: since Mozart appears in textbooks and is more widely performed than Gossec, then of course he is going to have a greater influence on later composers than Gossec will.
> In other words, the concept of greatness is a complex and circular system. By this point in time it's also a self-sustaining one, precisely because of the circularity. After all, this system is basically what we call a canon, and it is the very purpose of a canon to be self-perpetuating. As I wrote about in another thread some years ago, it is difficult to imagine any canonical composer being removed from the cycle and losing their canonical status, and it's difficult to imagine any non-canonical composer being inserted into the cycle and acquiring canonical status. I don't think the canon was always closed, and I don't want to think it is now, but if I'm being honest with myself then I have to think realistically that it is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I don't intend to discredit any composers or works, but 
_"A is only popular thanks to its accessibility. B is not just popular, it has lasting appeal and value, therefore it's GREAT." 
"A lacks complexity, it is pop music. B makes huge effect through simple means, therefore it's GREAT."_
It's sometimes ridiculous how people treat things like Johann Pachelbel - Canon in D Major in comparison to other things.


----------



## Auferstehen

First, to start off with a confession. I am a fanatical follower of LvB, and nothing that this man does is wrong (with maybe the exception of the awful Wellington's Victory). That said, regarding the OP,

I happen to believe that his 9th S is one of the most remarkable pieces of music ever written, a testament to Western music, and a truly astonishing achievement for its composer.

It combines sonata form, with variations (come fellow music-lovers, and agree with me that the great adagio could arguably be considered as *one* of the finest set of orchestral variations written). As for the last movement, it synthesises and subsumes both the weight and argument of the first three movements by combining wit, with a zeal unheard of in its time and does it all on a scale without precedent. It starts with an almighty dissonant crash in D min and goes through recitative, choral writing, a great fugue, a fugal march, some Rococo variations, and further touches, some even hinting at the future atonal world of the 20th Century. It is a remarkable piece of music, covering in the space of some 20 minutes, almost 300 years of music.

I don't think Beethoven miscalculated, and I don't think the 9th's final movement is bombastic, and, his total deafness by now notwithstanding, he knew exactly what he was doing, but the final result, as you may find elsewhere in his music, is not necessarily very pretty.

Not for him Mozart's view that music should "always sound pretty, yes, even when writing about war". He wrote what he felt, and most of us feel what he wrote.

Mario


----------



## hammeredklavier

Auferstehen said:


> Not for him Mozart's view that music should "always sound pretty, yes, even when writing about war".


Mozart never said anything like that. (I think you mean the misattributed quote). The way late 18th century composers thought music was drastically different from the way the early 19th century composers did, and the willingness to not adhere to the rules of good taste was not something only Beethoven possessed in his time. Look at Berlioz (symphonie fantastique) and Schubert (quartet in G), for instance.



> It is a remarkable piece of music, covering in the space of some 20 minutes, almost 300 years of music.


It'a an early 19th century tonal work structured in such a way to reflect the spirit of the Enlightenment (as it does with Schiller's literature in its text). Of all the stuff that came after, throughout the 200 years, there's a lot Beethoven would have disapproved of as "not being music" in terms of aesthetics and philosophies. Even his contemporaries, of Spohr, Beethoven said "He is too rich in dissonances, pleasure in his music is marred by his chromatic melody", and of Weber, "Euryanthe' is an accumulation of diminished seventh chords - all little backdoors!".


----------



## justekaia

while all this literature from eschbeg has some truth in it at the end of the day we listen to mozart and gossec and make up our own minds; gossec has a few great pieces and mozart has a lot, which does not mean all his music is great and that his artistic prowess is so outstanding; mozart 's oeuvre has its weaknesses like we all have; i usually judge an artist by his major achievements and forget the rest; so i kindly request you, hammerklavier, who are one of the experts on mozart's music to do the same exercise and name mozart's outstanding works; 20 works will do; it will clear the air and help us understand mozart's genius better; i'll give you an example: K 334, which i think is a masterpiece; but let us hear what you have to say


----------



## Forster

justekaia said:


> while all this literature from eschbeg has some truth in it at the end of the day we listen to mozart and gossec and make up our own minds; gossec has a few great pieces and mozart has a lot, which does not mean all his music is great and that his artistic prowess is so outstanding; mozart 's oeuvre has its weaknesses like we all have; i usually judge an artist by his major achievements and forget the rest; so i kindly request you, hammerklavier, who are one of the experts on mozart's music to do the same exercise and name mozart's outstanding works; 20 works will do; it will clear the air and help us understand mozart's genius better; i'll give you an example: K 334, which i think is a masterpiece; but let us hear what you have to say


But not in a thread about Beethoven please.


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> My personal thoughts aside, I think it is a fairly modest piece for early 20th century,


Eh? So, setting aside your personal thoughts...your personal thought is that it's a modest piece?


----------



## Auferstehen

Hm…

I’m beginning to regret having ever contributed to this thread!

I would so hate to start some Champions League Campaign of first, second and third amongst all the great composers who’s music we all love.

A recent PM I’ve received says that Mozart’s quote I stated in my earlier message is now considered misattributed. Well, I can send at least a dozen further websites confirming the quote as genuine (not all Wiki’s entries are indisputable…).

I started my earlier message by simply being honest enough in confirming my love for LvB’s music. I did not mean to demean Mozart in anyway in my penultimate sentence. If that’s the impression I gave, then I apologise to Mr WAM particularly, and to all forum members here generally (which gave rise to a PM recently received). I meant no harm to Mozart’s genius, and I never meant to offend forum members.

To quote Aldous Huxley directly, “If I have succeeded in the latter, it is with deep regret, but if I have failed in the former, then for that, I am more truly and deeply sorry”.

Sorry for any offense.

Mario


----------



## SanAntone

Forster said:


> But not in a thread about Beethoven please.


Exactly. A discussion of masterpieces by Mozart certainly has a place on TC - but not in this thread, which is about the 9th symphony of Beethoven.

In re the OP:

*Why do people consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony one of the greatest compositions ever?*

Probably because it is one of the greatest pieces of music ever written. I can't tell you why it is great, these assessments are made intuitively and over time by many people.

Oh, sure, a musicologist, or historian, or theorist, can offer technical explanations of what Beethoven did in the work, specifics about his method of developing the themes, how his biographic context influenced what he wrote, etc. But that is window dressing.

The meat of the work reaches us at a psychological/acoustical level which transcends our conscious brain.

More importantly, what is at the root of your question? Why is this question important to you? Will it enhance your response to the work to be given various theories about why this work has been considered great?


----------



## hammeredklavier

justekaia said:


> while all this literature from eschbeg has some truth in it at the end of the day we listen to mozart and gossec and make up our own minds


Mozart has a particular melodic/harmonic quality (which he had developed since his days in Salzburg, and doesn't necessarily equate to objective "musical depth") that has "appealed" more to the later generations. -This is pretty much the only truly "objective fact" there is. For example, cream buns would be more popular than plain buns on the long run, does that mean cream buns are "objectively greater" than plain buns? (I'm not using this as a metaphor/analogy on any of the artists mentioned in this thread; it's just something for us to think about). Also, classical music appreciation is largely a niche interest; the difference between Mozart and Gossec is mostly irrelevant to 99.99% of people in the world today in their daily lives (except for maybe the fact that Mozart has Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and Gossec has his Gavotte). We can keep believing whatever we want; it's meaningless in our age outside of our own nerdy little circles.


----------



## Luchesi

marlow said:


> Beethoven knew that wellingtons victory was not exactly a masterpiece when he wrote it but it was his biggest money-earner in his lifetime. As he remarked ironically of his rivals, "My ***** is better than their gold!"


Do we know why it's "not exactly a masterpiece"?


----------



## marlow

Luchesi said:


> Do we know why it's "not exactly a masterpiece"?


The composer said it wasn't! He said it was 'excrement' [less polite German term]!


----------



## pianozach

janxharris said:


> I'm curious to know what this means - and whether it applies to one or other of the symphonies mentioned...and if so why.
> 
> For me, both the 9th and Sibelius' 5th are very ambitious.


It's a specious question given the context in which it had been placed; that of whether any symphony _*"meets its expectations"*_ or reaches its "_*ambitions*_", especially when one had been previously said to be ten times greater than the other.

By this sort of reasoning, *Live And Let Die* becomes an equal to *Beethoven's 9th*, as it succeeded in its ambitions.

That's why this is silly. *Handel's Water Music* met expectations, and _*Na-Na-Na-Nah, Na-Na-Na-Nah, Hey-Hey-Hey, Goodbye*_ _exceeded_ its ambitions AND expectations.


----------



## Forster

pianozach said:


> It's a specious question given the context in which it had been placed; that of whether any symphony _*"meets its expectations"*_ or reaches its "_*ambitions*_".


Well quite. Is "meeting expectations and/or ambitions" a worthwhile criteria?


----------



## Luchesi

marlow said:


> The composer said it wasn't! He said it was 'excrement' [less polite German term]!


Oh, that's why. Okay


----------



## pianozach

Forster said:


> Well quite. Is "meeting expectations and/or ambitions" a worthwhile criteria?


No, it isn't.

It's useful for determining merit/ambition, that is, if you aim for "10" and reach a subjective "9", you've done pretty well. If you aim for 100, and get a subjective "79", then perhaps you can note that.

When assessing a song, a symphony, an album, you can always assess the technical merits, but in the end it comes down to whether you enjoy the piece. But while *I* may find some specific Kanye West song systemically irritating, there is somewhere out there someone that thinks that irritating song is brilliant.

Let's circle back around to *Wellington's Victory*. When Beethoven was asked to write a band piece to commemorate the Marquess of Wellington's 1813 victory over Joseph Bonaparte at the Battle of Vitoria it's very likely that the piece _exceeded_ expectations. And, clever though it is, it's thought of as being a rather "minor" work from a highly regarded composer.


----------



## Luchesi

Forster said:


> Ok. Thanks for the tip.
> 
> So, in answer to the OP's "Why do people think it's one of the greats?" the answer is...
> 
> ...because it's big, long, old, and some of the component parts are great, magnificent, complex. And the last movement is structurally complex, without having a structure.  I'm not convinced.
> 
> By those criteria - assuming they are criteria worth judging it by - other symphonies are greater. Mahler and Brian are longer, but fail for being too recent, for example.
> 
> As for "complex" - I disagree. If it's simple enough for me to listen to and enjoy, it can't be that complex, unlike Mahler, some of whose symphonies are too vast to encompass in the same way.
> 
> (I'm not advocating Mahler as having written a _greater _composition, by the way.)
> 
> Oh, and if, by "people", we mean discerning listeners (as opposed to the general population that prefers 'pop') we already know that at least one such group prefers Beethoven's _Eroica_. (See the BBC poll of 151 conductors asking to name their 'greatest' symphony). The 9th is nevertheless 'one of the greats'.


Any analysis on YouTube or one like this below will give much to explore and admire. The more you know about such studies the more you'll discover.

The odd-numbered symphonies of Ludwig van Beethoven have long been said to differ qualitatively from his even-numbered symphonies. Yet, no quantitative study has determined whether this common assertion has any empirical justification. In the current investigation, his nine symphonies were assessed on 10 potential correlates: prominence, popularity, aesthetics, accessibility, length, the number of themes, and four computer content analytical measures associated with melodic originality (mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum). The odd-numbered symphonies were distinguishable from the even-numbered symphonies in prominence as well as three out of the four content analytical measures. Moreover, the prominence of his symphonies was strongly correlated with the three melodic originality indicators. Given that the computer analyses cannot have been contaminated by subjective biases, the odd versus even distinction has been empirically confirmed. The article closes with a discussion of what the empirical results may imply about Beethoven's creative process.

Costs money I see now..


----------



## Forster

^ The bias was built in to the criteria in the first place. What did "aesthetics" mean, for example (in this particualr analysis)? And "prominence"?

Personally, revealing my own bias, I think my explanation back at #157 is just as good as anyone else's (among those with limited technical appreciation - I'm no musician). I'd elaborate on what I meant by "the tunes" by saying that the 9th, far from being complex, is actually a "Goldilocks" piece, with the harmony/melody combinations throughout being neither too complicated nor too simple (_for me)_ to memorise and recall; and the Ode to Joy - in its three (no, four?) main variations mysterious, optimistic, uplifting.

Of course, if you're not interested in music about 'brotherhood', but are looking for the musical equivalent of _The Godfather_, then I guess the Ninth will not be as great as something by DSCH. Now there's something worth enquiry: why are the so-called greatest movies usually about human failing, frailty, brutality, treachery, guilt, obsession? And yet greatest music tends to steer us towards the divine?


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> Not to discredit the Beethoven, I have to agree with janxharris and Forster. I think the sort of argument Kreisler resorts to is a common logical fallacy to unfairly favor and place the earlier composers (and their music) above the later composers (and their music).


You obviously don't know what a logical fallacy is (why am I hardly surprised....?) Even if I had done what you claim, it would not have been a *logical* fallacy (that concerns the FORM of an argument) but maybe some kind of historical fallacy.

But of course I am not doing anything like this. Beethoven is not pseudo-better because earlier. He is better because he is better (e.g. I think his 9th is superior to the later Mahler 2nd (that was heavily indebted to it) and also to any Bruckner symphony although Mahler and Bruckner should have the historical advantage). 
And the huge influence of Beethoven is not only because he was earlier than others but because he made a huge impact. He screened off earlier composers like Haydn or Mozart for most of the 19th century who should have had the advantage, IF there was any merit in the "earlier"-argumentation you think I wanted to put forward.
What I actually wanted to stress further above is that the Sibelius is in any case at some disadvantage because his symphonies come so late in the history of the genre. AND he made a point of taking an original sidepath that makes his symphonies rather isolated. (This is still true in reception to a certain extent but people in the anglosphere don't realize that Sibelius does not have such a lofty status in Austria, Italy, France, roughly nowhere outside US, Britain, Scandinavia/Baltics) Sure, there are minor later composers (or maybe even minimalists) having roots in Sibelius but overall he hardly goes above being a "national speciality". 
But it is a minor point.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Forster said:


> Eh? So, setting aside your personal thoughts...your personal thought is that it's a modest piece?


No, unless you want to mainly criticize poor phrasing by someone writing in a second language. I did not want to use modest as euphemism for "mediocre" but for "less ambitious". 
If you don't hear that Sibelius' 5th is rather modest compared to Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 6th or some contemporary Debussy or Schoenberg, you need to listen to more music. Besides obvious but secondary things like overall scope, one would have to go quite deeply into things (and I could and would not want to do this with a Sibelius piece, I don't much care for anyway).

For a clearer example of a piece of modest ambition from that time, take Prokofiev's Symphonie Classique. The point further above was that a very ambitious piece that is overall successful can be greater despite some flaws than a perfect little gem.


----------



## marlow

Kreisler jr said:


> No, unless you want to mainly criticize poor phrasing by someone writing in a second language. I did not want to use modest as euphemism for "mediocre" but for "less ambitious".
> If you don't hear that Sibelius' 5th is rather modest compared to Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 6th or some contemporary Debussy or Schoenberg, you need to listen to more music. Besides obvious but secondary things like overall scope, one would have to go quite deeply into things (and I could and would not want to do this with a Sibelius piece, I don't much care for anyway).
> 
> For a clearer example of a piece of modest ambition from that time, take Prokofiev's Symphonie Classique. The point further above was that a very ambitious piece that is overall successful can be greater despite some flaws than a perfect little gem.


It's fine to say a piece with modest ambition achieved was it sets out to. Like saying a gymnast sets out a modest program and achieve that. But they will not get as many marks as a gymnast who sets out an ambitious program and almost achieves it. We have to look at the scale of the ambition as well as the way it is carried out. Bach's Chaconne for solo violin is perhaps the greatest single piece of music ever written in terms of sheer perfection but we cannot go comparing it to the St Matthew Passion or Beethoven's 9th


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> If you don't hear that Sibelius' 5th is rather modest compared to Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 6th or some contemporary Debussy or Schoenberg, you need to listen to more music.


/// Kreisler jr: "My personal thoughts aside, I think it is a fairly modest piece for early 20th century"
Forster: "Eh? So, setting aside your personal thoughts...your personal thought is that it's a modest piece?" ///
Forster was saying that you sounded "oxymoronic" in your sentence; kind of like _"It's not my personal thought, but my personal thought is that..."_. It seemed like you were trying to be both objective and subjective simultaneously. I think we (including Forster, janxharris [Post#224]) all agree that Sibelius wasn't into "the-bigger-the-better aesthetic". But do you associate "the-bigger-the-better aesthetic" with "objective greatness"?


Kreisler jr said:


> Without trying to push the analogy too far (because it would be rather ludicrous), I think of such differences a bit like e.g. Hemingway vs. Joyce as mentioned elsewhere. Joyce is more complex, has far more allusions, interconnections, whatever. Hemingway is rather plain and direct narrative. But is either therefore more/less effective, moving etc. literature? This seems at least an open question and certainly not clearly determined by the differences in complexity.


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> If you don't hear that Sibelius' 5th is rather modest compared to Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 6th or some contemporary Debussy or Schoenberg, you need to listen to more music.


As I've said previously, the issue is about comparing symphonies with each other at all, not with Sib 5 specifically. I don't go for the fine-grained ranking that some undertake here.



Kreisler jr said:


> For a clearer example of a piece of modest ambition from that time, take Prokofiev's Symphonie Classique. The point further above was that a very ambitious piece that is overall successful can be greater despite some flaws than a perfect little gem.


Yes, I get the whole "modest" thing. It's just that you were the one comparing the two symphonies and implied that the LVB was better because it achieved its ambitions (and was 10 times etc etc).



marlow said:


> But they will not get as many marks as a gymnast who sets out an ambitious program and almost achieves it.


No, the method of evaluating the worth of a symphony (or chaconne, or mass) is not to be compared with scoring a gymnastic routine. I understand that the only comparison you're really making is with the _idea _of "level of difficulty", but it's a misleading comparison because it implies that "level of difficulty" is something that can be quantified in classical music.


----------



## marlow

Forster said:


> As I've said previously, the issue is about comparing symphonies with each other at all, not with Sib 5 specifically. I don't go for the fine-grained ranking that some undertake here.
> 
> Yes, I get the whole "modest" thing. It's just that you were the one comparing the two symphonies and implied that the LVB was better because it achieved its ambitions (and was 10 times etc etc).
> 
> No, the method of evaluating the worth of a symphony (or chaconne, or mass) is not to be compared with scoring a gymnastic routine. I understand that the only comparison you're really making is with the _idea _of "level of difficulty", but it's a misleading comparison because it implies that "level of difficulty" is something that can be quantified in classical music.


But the problem is you have made a similar comparison yourself earlier


----------



## Forster

marlow said:


> But the problem is you have made a similar comparison yourself earlier


Well you might show me where. Thanks.


----------



## arpeggio

The situation is this (I know many of us have made this point before and we will be accused of being redundant), no matter how great a work of art is, there will be those who think it is overated.


----------



## pianozach

arpeggio said:


> The situation is this (I know many of us have made this point before and we will be accused of being redundant), no matter how great a work of art is, there will be those who think it is overated.


And _THAT_ is human nature. Whenever there is something great, or beautiful, or respected, there will be those that get great joy from knocking it off its pedestal, using insults, criticism, sarcasm, mocking it, belittling it, even making up false stories to besmirch its legacy.


----------



## janxharris

Kreisler jr said:


> No, unless you want to mainly criticize poor phrasing by someone writing in a second language. I did not want to use modest as euphemism for "mediocre" but for "less ambitious".
> If you don't hear that Sibelius' 5th is rather modest compared to Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 6th or some contemporary Debussy or Schoenberg, you need to listen to more music. Besides obvious but secondary things like overall scope, one would have to go quite deeply into things (and I could and would not want to do this with a Sibelius piece, I don't much care for anyway).
> 
> For a clearer example of a piece of modest ambition from that time, take Prokofiev's Symphonie Classique. The point further above was that a very ambitious piece that is overall successful can be greater despite some flaws than a perfect little gem.


I think you underestimate the degree of subjective perception involved in evaluating whether a work is modest or not. For me the Sibelius 5th is extremely ambitious - harmonically (perhaps you can tell me the key of this passage from the 1st movement or comment on the ambiguity of this chord? (sounds like a C pedal with an F#, E and F natural)), in its writing for shimmering / crosshatching strings (in the B melody of the 1st movement) - which I believe was unique at the time - and for his merging of what was the 2nd movement into the 1st (when he revised the score).

Of course, if you do not find 'meaning' in these sections and in the symphony in general then that's perfectly valid - but suggesting that those that do not find it modest should 'listen more' would require more substantial and objective evidence than you have provided.


----------



## BRHiler

How can one take a subjective question as this and make it objectively true. I don't believe you can.

Music, and the arts in general, are a subjective field. What is beautiful and perfect to one can be garbage to another. 

Even using objective criteria, it's still a subjective opinion that answers those criteria. Even determining the criteria could be a subjective quagmire.

At the time Beethoven wrote the piece, it may have been considered the greatest of all time due to its large scale structure, the forces required, etc., etc. But a mere 5-6 years later, Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique was published and its own structure, forces, and creativity far exceeds what Beethoven accomplished. But does anyone here consider the Berlioz to be better than the Beethoven? I doubt it.

To try and compare Beethoven to what came fifty to a hundred-fifty years later is simply impossible. Beethoven was greatly limited with what he could do with two entire sections of the orchestra (brass and percussion). Many composers, Brahms specifically, wrote for the brass and percussion much like Beethoven did, even though valved trumpets, tubas were widely available by the time he wrote his first symphony. Why did Brahms restrict himself this way? (Sorry! Tangent!!)

Beethoven, specifically in his last couple of pieces (namely the last String Quartet) began pushing the boundaries of tonal harmony. Once Wagner and his contemporaries truly broke from that mold, an entire generation of composers were able to create new, "better" pieces of music. 

I will always prefer music that can utilize the full force of a modern orchestra over what was technologically available in the early 19th century. I admire and love Beethoven's 9th (though his 7th is my personal favorite), but I rarely listen to it. I spend more of my listening hours on Mahler, Strauss (R), Wagner, Debussy, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Adams, Aho, and Rouse. In fact, I listened to Beethoven's 9th for the first time in at least 5 years last month. For the first time in a long time, I truly enjoyed the experience. I was moved by it. I smiled during the "Turkish Band' variation (my personal favorite section of the 4th movement). I was enthralled with the 2nd movement. But, I put it away when I finished, and then pulled out Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta, and have listened to that piece multiple times since then. The construction of the fugue, the rising tension. Those things stick with me more than Beethoven. And it's nothing against Beethoven, it's just my personal preference.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Beethoven is not pseudo-better because earlier. He is better because he is better (e.g. I think his 9th is superior to the later Mahler 2nd (that was heavily indebted to it)


Here's another thing to think about: what if someone thinks using voices in symphonies was just not that great an idea? What would Beethoven's influence in this area mean for him? Can certain kinds of influence be seen as "negative" depending on how we perceive them?


----------



## arpeggio

Thread has been around since November 2012.

If a person cannot find the answer in the previous 200+ posts I doubt that he will find the answer to this question here or anywhere else.


----------



## Forster

marlow said:


> But the problem is you have made a similar comparison yourself earlier





Forster said:


> Well you might show me where. Thanks.


@marlow. Any chance of a response? I've looked back over my posts and can't see where I made a similar comparison myself.


----------



## Xisten267

janxharris said:


> *I think the LVB 9th is great - but also very flawed* (imo). For me, something like Sibelius's 5th symphony is perfection - but I have no problem with those that think otherwise.


In my opinion, Beethoven's _Ninth_ not only is not flawed, but is the symphony that gets closer to perfection. All movements are extraordinary in my view, and hearing it is always an incredible intense, powerful and ecstatic journey to me.



Livly_Station said:


> Some of my thoughts are already somewhere in this thread...
> 
> But I'd like to add that one of the reasons this symphony is so good is that all four movement are truly great, iconic and eloquent on their own. On top of that, Beethoven was on point to make the final movement such a conspicuous behemoth to convincingly end the larger-than-life journey of the entire work.
> 
> It's rare to find symphonies in which _all_ the movements match each other's greatness so beautifully.


I totally agree.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> Here's another thing to think about: what if someone thinks using voices in symphonies was just not that great an idea? What would Beethoven's influence in this area mean for him? Can certain kinds of influence be seen as "negative" depending on how we perceive them?


Obviously, it was quite daring to use voices. And many philistines since Spohr disliked the piece, maybe partly for that. Of course influence can be "negative" depending on perception. But I think that we can attain a description of cultural history that is mostly free from such obvious prejudice. It's also not the case that there are dozens of failed symphonies with voices in the wake of Beethoven. It rather seems that people were fully aware that voices in a symphony were something special. There are a few and the ones we still know/play today (like Mendelssohn 2, Liszt Faust, Mahler) are apparently successful enough so that we still find them worth performing (although except for a few Mahlerians, most listeners/musicians will probably hold Beethoven's 9th as the best symphony with vocals)
I think the main problem here is abstracting from the individual work. It's almost impossible to tell what works in abstraction but with the result in sound it's usually fairly clear what works in practice. And as I mentioned further above, there are important influences (or debts of later composers) that have nothing to do with the inclusion of voices.


----------



## Kreisler jr

janxharris said:


> I think you underestimate the degree of subjective perception involved in evaluating whether a work is modest or not. For me the Sibelius 5th is extremely ambitious - harmonically (perhaps you can tell me the key of this passage from the 1st movement or comment on the ambiguity of this chord? (sounds like a C pedal with an F#, E and F natural)), in its writing for shimmering / crosshatching strings (in the B melody of the 1st movement) - which I believe was unique at the time - and for his merging of what was the 2nd movement into the 1st (when he revised the score).


I lack the technical knowledge to evaluate such harmonic details, even less compare them with what the late romantics or the more "advanced" composers of the early 1900s like Debussy or Schoenberg did (let's say for me as merely/mostly a listener, Sibelius does show considerable originality in his better works like the 5th but he seems still very far from the dazzling innovations other people achieved in the first two decades of the 20th century) Merging movements was something Beethoven did in op.131 and it was not uncommon during the 19th century.

To put it more simply than modest/ambitious: Beethoven's 9th re-defined what a symphony could be for almost a century (for good or ill); I don't think there can be any doubt about that. 
With all respect to Sibelius' originality, nothing even close to this could not be said of any of the his works or of his complete oeuvre.


----------



## janxharris

Kreisler jr said:


> I lack the technical knowledge to evaluate such harmonic details, even less compare them with what the late romantics or the more "advanced" composers of the early 1900s like Debussy or Schoenberg did (let's say for me as merely/mostly a listener, Sibelius does show considerable originality in his better works like the 5th but he seems still very far from the dazzling innovations other people achieved in the first two decades of the 20th century) Merging movements was something Beethoven did in op.131 and it was not uncommon during the 19th century.
> 
> To put it more simply than modest/ambitious: Beethoven's 9th re-defined what a symphony could be for almost a century (for good or ill); I don't think there can be any doubt about that.
> With all respect to Sibelius' originality, nothing even close to this could not be said of any of the his works or of his complete oeuvre.


I'm sure you would agree that including voices in a symphony (as original as it was at the time) does not in itself make a work great - and in any case, voices blended with orchestral music was, of course, nothing new. But this is about the extent of your argument - the inclusion of voices; that and the scale of the work. Your arguments hardly justify your 'nothing even close to this could be said of...Sibelius', or your claim about the 'need to listen to more music' (if one does not consider Sibelius modest in comparison).

I, for one, do make the claim you say cannot be made. Just my perception, of course - I'm not forcing it on anyone else.

My ears tell me that Beethoven's 14th string quartet is 7 thematically separate movements, though I understand that he quotes the theme of the first movement in the finale. They are, indeed, supposed to played without a break. I think his 5th symphony would be better work to cite in terms of being organic.

In the first movement of the Sibelius there is (to my ears at least) no discernable seam that would reveal two distinct parts. It's as though Sibelius really had one movement in mind all along and finally realised how to make that happen in the score. Of course he went even further with the 7th.

I'm not aware of the merging of movements you say was 'not uncommon during the 19th century'. Perhaps you are thinking of the emerging tone poem?


----------



## marlow

I think it’s interesting that after the enormous works of the ninth symphony and the Missa Solemnis, Beethoven went right the other way and contracted right into himself with quartets of astonishing intimacy. He actually knew how great lives should end


----------



## Waehnen

For me the greatest thing about the 9th Symphony is the overall sustained high quality and the abundance of inspired material. You know, quite often in symphonies the 1st Movement is good but the other movements do not quite meet the high standard set in the beginning. But every movement of the ninth is a perfect example of a movement in it’s place. Spectacular, cosmic 1st Movement. Brilliant and most exciting scherzo with absolutely huge momentum. Gorgeous, profound and heavy weight slow movement that shows the absolute freedom of Beethoven’s musical thinking. And what a finale — you will not be needing my describtions on it! Wow!

What’s not to love? I cannot think of any symphony surpassing the achievement of the 9th. Nobody comes even close. Not Brahms, Sibelius or Mahler, nobody.


----------



## janxharris

Waehnen said:


> What's not to love? I cannot think of any symphony surpassing the achievement of the 9th. Nobody comes even close. Not Brahms, Sibelius or Mahler, nobody.


I find that I only love the work in part. I find every movement overly long and repetitious. I don't think I have ever got through the work in one sitting.

I do think the beginning of the 1st movement is really great, but at some point during the recapitulation it falls flat for me. I think Beethoven did it much better in the 5th symphony; I can't personally fault it.


----------



## Waehnen

janxharris said:


> I find that I only love the work in part. I find every movement overly long and repetitious. I don't think I have ever got through the work in one sitting.
> 
> I do think the beginning of the 1st movement is really great, but at some point during the recapitulation it falls flat for me. I think Beethoven did it much better in the 5th symphony; I can't personally fault it.


There are boring versions of this symphony, too! I strongly suggest Karajan/Berliner Philharmoniker. Like with all symphonies, one needs to find the version that suits the personality.

(For example, I enjoy Mahler's 6th Symphony without reservations only when it is Barbirolli/Philharmonia.)


----------



## janxharris

Waehnen said:


> There are boring version of this symphony, too! I strongly suggest Karajan/Berliner Philharmoniker. Like with all symphonies, one needs to find the version that suits the personality.
> 
> (For example, I enjoy Mahler's 6th Symphony without reservations only when it is Barbirolli/Philharmonia.)


I do agree that different readings can make or break a work. I have tried different versions of the 9th including the Karajan BPO.

There is a succinctness to the 5th symphony that is lacking in the 9th for me...though I do sometimes understand the criticism for 5th's finale - that it is overly drawn out.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> I do agree that different readings can make or break a work. I have tried different versions of the 9th including the Karajan BPO.
> 
> There is a succinctness to the 5th symphony that is lacking in the 9th for me...though I do sometimes understand the criticism for 5th's finale - that it is overly drawn out.


Yes, it would be terribly difficult but if we could make the Ninth more like the Fifth and make the Fifth more like the Ninth (in the ways we're talking about) then we would have another great symphony? I think it would be better. (I also think it would kill an ill and weak composer. So much of the heart has to be in one of these works!)


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> My ears tell me that Beethoven's 14th string quartet is 7 thematically separate movements, though I understand that he quotes the theme of the first movement in the finale. They are, indeed, supposed to played without a break.


Exactly. Having multiple movements connected by transitions and recapitulations does not make a work _intrinsically/objectively_ superior. (I don't even know why Beethoven Op.131 is suddenly brought into the discussion) I still remember the "Whatever,-I-don't-care,-I-don't-like-it" attitude Kreisler had shown about works like Mozart litany K.243 (which contains "transitions" across movements: 13:45, 21:48, 34:18, and "recapitulations" across movements: 0:20, 34:25) in this thread (a few pages ago) and other threads.



Kreisler jr said:


> To put it more simply than modest/ambitious: Beethoven's 9th re-defined what a symphony could be for almost a century (for good or ill)


All the arguments "A is the best cause he was the first" are not very credible. Some can still see A's expressions as "prototypical", "primitive" (ie. "not complex enough") compared to those of B, C, D, etc, who came later, or some may think Beethoven's "innovations" simply don't matter cause-

"In his famous 1835 review of Berlioz's Symphonie fantastique, Schumann declared the symphony in Germany all but *dead*. _"It was feared that the name of the symphony now belonged only to history."_" The Romantic Overture and Musical Form from Rossini to Wagner · Steven Vande Moortele · 2017 · P. 32

(I'm using the same logic you used on some other composers and genres a few pages ago in this thread; the way you did it never made sense to me anyway. -ie. "Bach's oratorios were "outdated" or "stuck in the past", and so, "unimportant in history", whereas Haydn's, for instance, weren't.")



Kreisler jr said:


> But I think that we can attain a description of cultural history that is mostly free from such obvious prejudice.


Sure, but objectively speaking, it's only fair if we treat Bach, for instance, similarly.


----------



## 89Koechel

janxharris - ("succinctness") - Well, the 9th DOES have a neatness/order, maybe of the "first order", so to speak ... but am sure we've listened to a NUMBER of recordings (or performances) in which each movement might have a number of distentions, or ritards, or other fragmentations. Even the Reiner/CSO recording might be guilty of the latter, in certain parts ... even though the baton work and the excellent playing ... from one of the premiere recording ensembles of ALL time ... are, what one would expect. ... Well, to go further, might I suggest, in the succinctness vein, the various recordings of the "old man" - Toscanini - in the Ninth? ... Certain recordings of AT are almost-always controversial, insofar as certain tempos are regarded/critiqued as "too fast", but AT, in the Ninth, might convince you otherwise. Opinions only, of course.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> I think anyone denying this suffers from a sophomoric desire for monument toppling.





Kreisler jr said:


> you need to listen to more music.


Btw, I don't get any of these. The attitude _"If you doubt X's "greatness", you're immature"_ seems far more troubling to me.
Some things (eg. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) are of course more popular than other things in classical music. But whether or not X is popular because it has depth, or is superificially appealing, sentimental, over the top, or whatnot belongs in the realm of subjectivity.


----------



## Kreisler jr

janxharris said:


> I'm sure you would agree that including voices in a symphony (as original as it was at the time) does not in itself make a work great - and in any case, voices blended with orchestral music was, of course, nothing new. But this is about the extent of your argument - the inclusion of voices; that and the scale of the work.


I mentioned several other features that were copied or even became common features of many later symphonies, such as the "primeval fog" from which theme fragments emerge, the quotations of earlier movements. The point is less some seemingly surface features (although both the scale and the voices were a huge deal) but the historical fact that Beethoven's 9th (re-)defined what a symphony could be in a way no other single piece in the history of the genre did.



> In the first movement of the Sibelius there is (to my ears at least) no discernable seam that would reveal two distinct parts. It's as though Sibelius really had one movement in mind all along and finally realised how to make that happen in the score. Of course he went even further with the 7th.
> [...]
> I'm not aware of the merging of movements you say was 'not uncommon during the 19th century'. Perhaps you are thinking of the emerging tone poem?


Transitions without break we also have in Beethoven concertos, like the 5th pc and sonatas like op.101, 110. For movements "fused together" we have Beethoven's op.133, Liszt's sonata, lots of Konzertstücke, e.g. by Schumann (the first movement of his concerto started out as such and includes a slow section). Schumann's Humoresque, also tone poems and Wagner, yes. 10 years before Sibelius Schönberg's 1st Chamber symphony, Verklärte Nacht. 
Also, maybe I was spoiled by CD track marks but I always thought there was a pretty clear point where one could put a "cut" in the Sibelius 5th but maybe that's not correct. I could easily concede that Sibelius takes this up a step compared to most/many predecessors.
But the main point of comparison to determine the originality or innovation of Sibelius is of course ca. 1910, not mid-19th century. 
Do you really think that compared to what Ravel, Debussy, Schönberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky and others did at that time, Sibelius 5th is comparable in originality and influence? Then I simply and strongly disagree, I guess. I didn't expect this to be so controversial, I don't think I have an uncommon position wrt Beethoven's 9th or Sibelius' 5th at all.


----------



## Kreisler jr

hammeredklavier said:


> Exactly. Having multiple movements connected by transitions and recapitulations does not make a work _intrinsically/objectively_ superior. (I don't even know why Beethoven Op.131 is suddenly brought into the discussion)


Nobody claimed superiority for such a feature in itself. Janxharris pointed out that the fusion of movements was a feature that made Sibelius 5th an innovative and original piece. I doubted that such a fusion was all that original and innovative in 1910, both compared with seemless transitions in 19th century music and especially compared with 1900-20 avantgarde music.



> All the arguments "A is the best cause he was the first" are not very credible. Some can still see A's expressions as "prototypical", "primitive" (ie. "not complex enough") compared to those of B, C, D, etc, who came later, or some may think Beethoven's "innovations" simply don't matter cause-


Nobody made this argument "best because first" except strawmen in your head. You are the one who thinks some pastoral symphony 20 years before Beethoven is important because "first", whereas I never used this mere priority argument in this thread. *Beethoven was not so influential only because he was first*. Obviously, one can influence only towards the future direction and he was often also the first. BUT, and this is very important: Beethoven's influential works are almost never seen as "immature predecessors" of what later in the 19th century was followed by superior versions of the same/similar idea or structure (as one could e.g. say of Field's vs. Chopin's nocturnes). 
I can think of exactly ONE Beethoven piece (maybe there are a few more but certainly none of his important piano sonatas, quartets, other chamber music, symphonies or concertos) for which this is true and this is the short song cycle "An die ferne Geliebte" that has a musical unity Schubert never tried and that was surpassed only by Schumann in Dichterliebe. This is the rare case where one can see a work by Beethoven plausibly as a modest, small scale predecessor of a later piece.

What Beethoven did with many of his works and also with the 9th symphony was to set a new paradigm (in the sense Th. S. Kuhn used the term in the history of science). That is, to determine both a framework for the possibilities of (symphonic) composition and give a supreme example for what a symphony could achieve, after he had done so already with the 3rd, 5th and 6th in different ways.
Beethoven's works were not only/mainly sources of "cool ideas" later composers could use for something superior, but supreme examples of their genres they aspired to emulate.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> Nobody made this argument "best because first" except strawmen in your head.


We were to discuss any possible signs of objective superiority a work has over another, but then "someone" in this thread started and kept acting like a history professor, kept trying to turn the discussion into "Who was the first to do...", etc, as if those things were directly related to objective superiority.



> You are the one who thinks some pastoral symphony 20 years before Beethoven is important because "first", whereas I never used this mere priority argument in this thread.


Of course, by the logic "B couldn't have been possible without A", Knecht would also be "important". But in the end, all I'm trying to argue is what I said in #301, in complete agreement with janxharris and Forster.
Similarly, by pointing to excerpts of "sounds", (not just structural layout), 
[ Knecht symphony: 



Beethoven Op.125/i: 



 ]
[ Knecht symphony: 



Beethoven Op.67/iii: 



 ]
I can argue Beethoven "couldn't have been possible" without Knecht. If there was no Beethoven, then there would have been no Bruckner, no Mahler. This sort of logic would make Knecht all the more "important". Also, if we were to be objective, we must treat Beethoven and Bach in the same way. 


Kreisler jr said:


> people tend to confuse ANY fugal or baroque style with Bachian influence


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> He screened off earlier composers like Haydn or Mozart for most of the 19th century who should have had the advantage, IF there was any merit in the "earlier"-argumentation you think I wanted to put forward.


On what grounds you keep claiming this?

"During his studies with Weinlig he had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed', as he called it years later, and at eighteen he wrote a fugato as the finale of his C major Concert Overture, 'the very best that I could do, as I thought at the time, in honour of my new exemplar'." [ Wagner: A Biography ; Curt von Westernhagen ; P. 82 ]

". . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. " -Brahms, to Richard Heuberger, 1896.

And X's influence can be seen as negative subjectively depending on how you view it. (note that Mozart can also be the 'X')


----------



## hammeredklavier

‐-----------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

Btw, it sometimes amazes me how a person can indulge in so much religion, and yet accuse others of doing it.
A plausible argument can be made that Beethoven's Diabelli variations, all the numerous sets of keyboard preludes, etudes, etc, going through various orders of keys, by Hummel, Clementi, Chopin, Liszt, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, etc, are a result of Bach's influence. Yes, there were "predecessors" and "contemporary rivals" of Bach's work, but one could argue no one around Bach's time wrote as exemplarily as Bach.
And yet the person dismisses all this whenever the topic comes up, accusing others of trying to pass other composers' influence off as Bach's. 
_"If I like something then it's not overrated. If I don't like it, then it's not underrated." 
"I don't have an uncommon opinion"._ (argumentum ad populum).


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, it sometimes amazes me how a person can indulge in so much religion, and yet accuse others of doing it.
> A plausible argument can be made that Beethoven's Diabelli variations, all the numerous sets of keyboard preludes, etudes, etc, going through various orders of keys, by Hummel, Clementi, Chopin, Liszt, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, etc, are a result of Bach's influence. Yes, there were "predecessors" and "contemporary rivals" of Bach's work, but one could argue no one around Bach's time wrote as exemplarily as Bach.
> And yet the person dismisses all this whenever the topic comes up, accusing others of trying to pass other composers' influence off as Bach's.
> _"If I like something then it's not overrated. If I don't like it, then it's not underrated."
> "I don't have an uncommon opinion"._ (argumentum ad populum).


What is it specifically that music fans think Hummel or Scriabin got from JsB? I'm wondering. Because if Bach never left us any music wouldn't Mozart have been exploring for effective notes all the same? Mozart to Hummel and Mozart/Hummel/Field /Chopin to Scriabin. IOW, Mozart and Chopin would be very different if Bach and Handel had never been born? IDK. I think it can all come naturally and logically from an individual's music theory explorations. As it is in other subjects of study.


----------



## Red Terror

I don’t know if it’s one of the greatest compositions ‘ever’ but it sure is good and I like it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Why do people have an obsession with labelling things as "greatest ever"? Isn't it sufficient to say that you like something as much as anything? I love Beethoven's 9th as much as any symphony and that's good enough for me.


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Why do people have an obsession with labelling things as "greatest ever"? Isn't it sufficient to say that you like something as much as anything? I love Beethoven's 9th as much as any symphony and that's good enough for me.


That's merely good enough. What do we strive for in the arts (unlike the sciences)? A semblance of perfection, a step beyond, a new view of things human, and appreciating the supreme achievements (in accordance with the rules and against the rules). There's so much to talk about and review, ...and to label and to categorize for understandings.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> No, unless you want to mainly criticize poor phrasing by someone writing in a second language. I did not want to use modest as euphemism for "mediocre" but for "less ambitious".
> If you don't hear that Sibelius' 5th is rather modest compared to Beethoven's 9th or Mahler's 6th or some contemporary Debussy or Schoenberg, you need to listen to more music. Besides obvious but secondary things like overall scope, one would have to go quite deeply into things (and I could and would not want to do this with a Sibelius piece, I don't much care for anyway).
> 
> For a clearer example of a piece of modest ambition from that time, take Prokofiev's Symphonie Classique. The point further above was that a very ambitious piece that is overall successful can be greater despite some flaws than a perfect little gem.


It would sometimes seem that you Kreisler jr consider the music you like advanced and complicated, and the music you do not so much like, as modest or simple. But it needs to be said that anyone who states that the 5th Symphony by Sibelius is simple music, whether the piece is liked or not, doesn´t know what he/she is talking about.

One of the biggest misconceptions of our time is that dissonance would somehow be more complicated than consonance. At least here in Finland major composers agree that for example the dodecaphonic 12-tone system is a great simplification of harmony rather than complication.

The most complicated music on earth is tonal music which embodies the development of the musical centuries behind it, carrying with it all the meanings and suggestions and semiotic dimension of melodies, harmonies, rhythms, forms and structures while being able to communicate complicated matters of the human existence.

Kreisler jr, Sibelius 5th is as complicated or more complicated than Beethoven´s 9th, Mahler´s 6th, Debussy or Schoenberg. It is not simpler than anything any of those composers composed ever. In this instance you can be proved to be wrong.


----------



## Luchesi

Waehnen said:


> Kreisler jr, Sibelius 5th is as complicated or more complicated than Beethoven´s 9th, Mahler´s 6th, Debussy or Schoenberg. It is not simpler than anything any of those composers composed ever. In this instance you can be proved to be wrong.


Why do you say that?


----------



## Waehnen

Luchesi said:


> Why do you say that?


Because I consider the Sibelius 5th Symphony to be one of the most complicated, sophisticated and skillful pieces of music on the planet. It most certainly cannot outrightly be said to be more modest or simple than Beethoven, Mahler, Debussy or Schoenberg at their very peak.

Of course you can say that for example Grosse Fuge is complicated contrapuntal texture but traditional and historic texture topos is not the only dimension of complicated musical constructions.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Exactly. Having multiple movements connected by transitions and recapitulations does not make a work _intrinsically/objectively_ superior. (I don't even know why Beethoven Op.131 is suddenly brought into the discussion) I still remember the "Whatever,-I-don't-care,-I-don't-like-it" attitude Kreisler had shown about works like Mozart litany K.243 (which contains "transitions" across movements: 13:45, 21:48, 34:18, and "recapitulations" across movements: 0:20, 34:25) in this thread (a few pages ago) and other threads.


Interesting...perhaps it's not surprising regarding the recapitulation seeing as Kyrie Eleison and Miserere Nobis have almost identical meanings.


----------



## janxharris

89Koechel said:


> janxharris - ("succinctness") - Well, the 9th DOES have a neatness/order, maybe of the "first order", so to speak ... but am sure we've listened to a NUMBER of recordings (or performances) in which each movement might have a number of distentions, or ritards, or other fragmentations. Even the Reiner/CSO recording might be guilty of the latter, in certain parts ... even though the baton work and the excellent playing ... from one of the premiere recording ensembles of ALL time ... are, what one would expect. ... Well, to go further, might I suggest, in the succinctness vein, the various recordings of the "old man" - Toscanini - in the Ninth? ... Certain recordings of AT are almost-always controversial, insofar as certain tempos are regarded/critiqued as "too fast", but AT, in the Ninth, might convince you otherwise. Opinions only, of course.


Thanks - I tried but the recordings are old - almost painful to listen to.


----------



## janxharris

Kreisler jr said:


> I mentioned several other features that were copied or even became common features of many later symphonies, such as the "primeval fog" from which theme fragments emerge, the quotations of earlier movements. The point is less some seemingly surface features (although both the scale and the voices were a huge deal) but the historical fact that Beethoven's 9th (re-)defined what a symphony could be in a way no other single piece in the history of the genre did.


The 'primeval' is a nice touch though I've always thought the beginning of the 4th symphony has a similar feel.

I don't see the 9th redefining the symphony as much as you do - notwithstanding the innovations you have highlighted....probably because I tend to focus on harmony above anything else.



> Transitions without break we also have in Beethoven concertos, like the 5th pc and sonatas like op.101, 110. For movements "fused together" we have Beethoven's op.133, Liszt's sonata, lots of Konzertstücke, e.g. by Schumann (the first movement of his concerto started out as such and includes a slow section). Schumann's Humoresque, also tone poems and Wagner, yes. 10 years before Sibelius Schönberg's 1st Chamber symphony, Verklärte Nacht.
> Also, maybe I was spoiled by CD track marks but I always thought there was a pretty clear point where one could put a "cut" in the Sibelius 5th but maybe that's not correct. I could easily concede that Sibelius takes this up a step compared to most/many predecessors.


Surely your point about Beethoven's use of voices only has significance if we are restricting the discussion to symphonies? And the same would go for Sibelius's 5th in fusing movements. In any case, as has been brought up by me and others - it's what one personally makes of the music itself rather than the fact of some such innovation.



> But the main point of comparison to determine the originality or innovation of Sibelius is of course ca. 1910, not mid-19th century.
> Do you really think that compared to what Ravel, Debussy, Schönberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky and others did at that time, Sibelius 5th is comparable in originality and influence? Then I simply and strongly disagree, I guess. I didn't expect this to be so controversial, I don't think I have an uncommon position wrt Beethoven's 9th or Sibelius' 5th at all.


I do think Sibelius as original, yes - indeed, much more so. I mentioned some features in a previous post. Also, again, this can be very subjective....I don't ever assume or expect that others listening to Sibelius's late symphonies will necessary 'see' the same picture and story unfold as I do. It's abstract sound after all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Interesting...perhaps it's not surprising regarding the recapitulation seeing as Kyrie Eleison and Miserere Nobis have almost identical meanings.


I think it's also significant that the Miserere develops on the material of the Kyrie.



janxharris said:


> The 'primeval' is a nice touch though I've always thought the beginning of the 4th symphony has a similar feel.


Also, the 1st symphony. (And Beethoven had already written a "colossal symphony" (the 3rd) prior to the 9th.) Again, I'm not trying to discredit Beethoven in any way (I do think all his stuff discussed here is brilliant, btw), but I think that also was something Beethoven came up with imaginatively, with tools from earlier music, such as certain introductions from Haydn London symphonies.
Mozart K.477





Also, since Kreisler keeps stressing on the importance of historical context (ie. *when* it was composed, how it possibly "changed" music), why not do the same for other symphonies as well? It can be argued that this "redefined" the layout of the symphony in *1773* (with 20+ minutes of music in total, all the movements having equal weight).


hammeredklavier said:


> 2:48~4:00 - the harsh dissonances imply "pain" (the emotional center of the movement; climaxes at 3:25).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4:48~5:24 - the dissonances (in this false recapitulation) are milder than those of the central section, but more introspective/contemplative in expression, as if to portray a person reflecting on his past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the idyllic theme from the exposition returns, but it is initially 'held back' to establish tension in preparation for the conclusion (6:26), which extends in phrase (6:50) to expressively bring everything to a resolution.
> Listen to the final chords of the movement and think about all the modulations that came before it and the expressive mental images conjured up, especially the "expression of pain" at 2:48~4:00.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kreisler jr said:


> I mentioned several other features that were copied or even became common features of many later symphonies, such as the "primeval fog" from which theme fragments emerge, the quotations of earlier movements.


I'm taking "primeval fog" to mean the very beginning of the symphony and I think that's also how Janxharris understands as well, but by "the "primeval fog" from which theme fragments emerge, the quotations of earlier movements", you mean the beginning of the final movement? Yes, there are recitative-like elements (like Bach chromatic fantasy), and you're entitled to your view that they're ingenious. But are they really "features that were copied or even became common features of many later symphonies"? The practice of reusing fragments of themes with recitative-like expressions? Specifically where in Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, etc, do we find stuff like that?


----------



## Kreisler jr

The "primeval" fog was a common description of the beginning of the *1st* movement of Beethoven's 9th. This is shared by almost all (don't remember 00-2 well enough and 5 and 6 differ) Bruckner symphonies as well as pieces like the Sibelius VC and others. It became almost a common trope in late romantic symphonies to start with a similar tremolo (Mahler 2 does it as well). Bruckner's 9th also copies the way "fragments" of the theme slowly emerge. I am sorry but if one does not realize that this is FAR more specific an influence than composing a cycle of etudes in all keys, I don't know what else to say in addition.

The quotes of the earlier movements are what seems more important to me than the recitative in between (which I didn't mention at all). This was copied by Bruckner in his 5th and there are probably more examples I cannot think of right now. It's not merely the cyclic recurrence (because the themes are not used anymore in LvB 9ths). Again, I don't think one should get hung up on details, although they were influential, the piece as a whole seems more important.

Again, I don't think I am advancing a controversial point at all. All this is fairly standard stuff, rehashed plenty of times in both popular and scholarly literature. We know that Wagner claimed the 9th as the culmination of the symphony, therefore one must stop writing symphonies and rather use voices in musical drama, the influence on Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler is also not controversial at all. So the piece was so extraordinary that two opposing schools could BOTH plausibly claim it as justification and paradigm for their own styles.

And, no, this is not in any way refuted by the fact that Wagner or Brahms ALSO had to say some positive things about Mozart (but to show his influence would be more controversial and it would be far more subtle than that of Beethoven's/9th) or that Bruckner was also influenced by Schubert etc. There are always lots of influences but that Beethoven's 9th set the scale for monumental 19th/20th cent symphonies (incl. choir or not) that is a very different scale from late Mozart or even middle Beethoven, seems without


----------



## Xisten267

janxharris said:


> Thanks - I tried but the recordings are old - almost painful to listen to.


Remastered they do sound great to my ears.


----------



## janxharris

Xisten267 said:


> Remastered they do sound great to my ears.


Couldn't find anything online. Thanks anyway.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I think it's also significant that the Miserere develops on the material of the Kyrie.
> 
> Also, the 1st symphony. (And Beethoven had already written a "colossal symphony" (the 3rd) prior to the 9th.) Again, I'm not trying to discredit Beethoven in any way (I do think all his stuff discussed here is brilliant, btw), but I think that also was something Beethoven came up with imaginatively, with tools from earlier music, such as certain introductions from Haydn London symphonies.
> Mozart K.477


Yes, the K.477 is something one would assume Beethoven heard and was inspired by. This wouldn't be a surprise given the comment by Lewis Lockwood:

"Just as Mozart had once told his father that he was 'soaked in music', so Beethoven was soaked in Mozart."



> Also, since Kreisler keeps stressing on the importance of historical context (ie. *when* it was composed, how it possibly "changed" music), why not do the same for other symphonies as well? It can be argued that this "redefined" the layout of the symphony in *1773* (with 20+ minutes of music in total, all the movements having equal weight).


Just listening now.


----------



## janxharris

Kreisler jr said:


> To put it more simply than modest/ambitious: Beethoven's 9th re-defined what a symphony could be for almost a century (for good or ill); I don't think there can be any doubt about that.
> With all respect to Sibelius' originality, nothing even close to this could not be said of any of the his works or of his complete oeuvre.


One could argue that the innovations outlined - adding voices, employing a 'primeval fog' perfect fifth effect and quoting themes from previous movements - are relatively rather easy elements that a composer could introduce into a composition. That might explain the number of composers and works that did do so in the years following Beethoven. However, from my understanding at least, to create a work like Sibelius's 7th Symphony where transitions that include recapitulating themes and sections unfolds in a seamless, single movement landscape - that appears to be telling an organic story of some profundity and majesty is a much more difficult endeavour. Clearly your mileage does vary - which is fine - but to attempt to elevate LVB's 9th above other works in the way you have is, I think, not necessary and ultimately unprovable.


----------



## pianozach

janxharris said:


> One could argue that the innovations outlined - adding voices, employing a 'primeval fog' perfect fifth effect and quoting themes from previous movements - are relatively rather easy elements that a composer could introduce into a composition. That might explain the number of composers and works that did do so in the years following Beethoven. However, from my understanding at least, to create a work like Sibelius's 7th Symphony where transitions that include recapitulating themes and sections unfolds in a seamless, single movement landscape - that appears to be telling an organic story of some profundity and majesty is a much more difficult endeavour. Clearly your mileage does vary - which is fine - but to attempt to elevate LVB's 9th above other works in the way you have is, I think, not necessary and ultimately unprovable.


I think that you can appreciate both.

You've pointed out quickly all the innovations that *Beethoven* incorporated. They seem simple tricks _*NOW*_, but at the time they were unique and innovative.

I daresay that without *Beethoven* being a trailblazer with his *9th Symphony* way back in 1824, the groundwork wouldn't have been there for *Sibelius* to have written such a masterful *7th Symphony* 100 years later.


----------



## larold

TooMainstream said:


> I do like Beethoven and i enjoy his ninth symphony. But why is it that Classical fans regard it as the greatest ever? I just can't hear it. There are plenty of better works out there (in my opinion).


There is an excellent discussion of this topic on YouTube's "Inside the Score" series called _Beethoven's Greatest Work Explained_. I too subscribe to your theory but this program helped me see the choral symphony in a new way. Just to mention one little item from the program the beginning of the symphony indicates to us that something important, perhaps monumental, is about to happen -- and then explodes in a statement of awe and wonder. This is just the first thing mentioned on the program. The author sometimes gets a little carried away with musical tech talk but overall this program answers the question you posed better than anything I know. Watch it, you won't be disappointed.


----------

