# Are you a Beethoven or a Mozart? And how does that influence your relation to them?



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Not sure whether this question has already been questioned.

I'm a Mozart


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I'm more of a Mendelssohn


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

More of a Mahler man myself.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

What does the first question in the thread title mean?


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I'm more Beethoven leaning but I meet both for lunch from time to time.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm a Mozart, but I don't see how it affects my relationship to Ludwig. Maybe if you write a few words about how it affects yours, the question might be clearer.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> What does the first question in the thread title mean?


I got the question from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-struggle-of-faith-vayishlach-covenant-conversation-5778/ 
but feel free to interpret as you like it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Having little or no musical genius I am certainly not a Beethoven or Mozart.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Having little or no musical genius I am certainly not a Beethoven or Mozart.


But even with little or no ... the question remains whether things come easy (à la Mozart) or with hardship & hard work (à la Beethoven).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Someone I knew characterized everyone as either a dog or a cat. Ned Rorem described everything as either German or French. You either know what it means or you don't. If you do you're probably French and feline.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I am a Mozart followed by a Beethoven, of the two. Pure and simple. :0


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I am most definitely a Beethoven. _Per aspera ad astra._


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Someone I knew characterized everyone as either a dog or a cat. Ned Rorem described everything as either German or French. You either know what it means or you don't. If you do you're probably French and feline.


And if you don't?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

TxllxT said:


> I got the question from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks:
> http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-struggle-of-faith-vayishlach-covenant-conversation-5778/
> but feel free to interpret as you like it.


In the Sacks question, I'm more Beethoven. Nothing comes easy for me. Everything I have I've had to study, practice, save up, and pursue to obtain. I've noticed the Mozarts around me to whom everything comes easy don't seem to appreciate what they have or understand it as deeply as I do, because I guess there is not much of a need for them to.

Like when I was in court reporting school, I went both to day and night school to get my speed up. There was a young lady to whom the shorthand machine came very easy, and she never practiced and pretty much sailed through. However, when we took the state test, it was so difficult that it had a 50 percent fail rate. She was one of the fails. However, I achieved the state's highest score. When we went to work for the same agency, I took every assignment without question, whereas she wanted Fridays off to go off skiing. Not long after, I ended up being entrusted with running the agency when the owner was gone, and she ended being assigned the jobs nobody wanted to take. She never did figure out why that was, either.

I guess there's something to be said for us Beethoven/tortoises.

The other question, how does it influence my relation to them, I relate more to Beethoven. Mozart's nice, but he doesn't grab me like Beethoven does. To be fair, Mozart was cut off in midlife, so who knows what he would have produced if he lived as long as Beethoven?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> But even with little or no ... the question remains whether things come easy (à la Mozart) or with hardship & hard work (à la Beethoven).


Alas, the cliche is mistaken. Mozart worked at sketching and revising his music, Beethoven could create great music off the top of his head from all contemporary accounts. Mozart started many works which he dropped at various stages of completion for ones that sounded more promising.

I'd say I'm like both Mozart and Beethoven in that when I try something challenging, I have to work hard at it, and when I perform a familiar task it tends to be fairly easy.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I like both equal, so I am the love-child from both.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Alas, the cliche is mistaken. Mozart worked at sketching and revising his music, Beethoven could create great music off the top of his head from all contemporary accounts. Mozart started many works which he dropped at various stages of completion for ones that sounded more promising.
> 
> I'd say I'm like both Mozart and Beethoven in that when I try something challenging, I have to work hard at it, and when I perform a familiar task it tends to be fairly easy.


The difference between Mozart and Beethoven is not, that one has no sketches at his disposal and the other has, because both Mozart & Beethoven evidently worked with sketches. The difference is that one starts _blanco_ without the inkling of a musical idea and works his way upward (towards a symphony etc.) and the other one 'starts' with an already present finished work-in-his-mind, that just needs to be penned down on paper. Beethoven somehow was able to overcome the initial _blanco_ stage of nothingness, which is quite a feat + inspiration for others. But Mozart's instant mind-fullness is true and inspired as well.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> The difference between Mozart and Beethoven is not, that one has no sketches at his disposal and the other has, because both Mozart & Beethoven evidently worked with sketches. *The difference is that one starts blanco without the inkling of a musical idea and works his way upward (towards a symphony etc.) and the other one 'starts' with an already present finished work-in-his-mind, that just needs to be penned down on paper.* Beethoven somehow was able to overcome the initial _blanco_ stage of nothingness, which is quite a feat + inspiration for others. But Mozart's instant mind-fullness is true and inspired as well.


This is the same tired myth we know to be false. Mozart needed a keyboard to compose, as his own letters indicate. Hence he didn't have his works completed in his head. He improvised at the keyboard and sketched on paper before he arrived at them. Exactly the same process Beethoven used.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

True also of Beethoven’s famed “difficulties” in composing. We read that he made umpty-umpt sketches for the subject of his 5th Symphony before he got it right. On the other hand, he wrote most of the heart of the post-Baroque musical repertoire in just ten years. That’s about 50 opus numbers, many quite substantial. His musical constipation doesn’t seem to have been terribly serious!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm probably more of a Beethoven - brooding and serious - which is why I need Mozart to bring sunshine into my dark existence.

Does that answer?


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> This is the same tired myth we know to be false. Mozart needed a keyboard to compose, as his own letters indicate. Hence he didn't have his works completed in his head. He improvised at the keyboard and sketched on paper before he arrived at them. Exactly the same process Beethoven used.


That may or may not be true, but Mozart apparently composed at _virtual light speed _as compared to Beethoven - taking mere weeks or a few months to compose each of Figaro, Don Giovanni and his last three symphonies. Beethoven apparently took many months or even years to complete his symphonies and Fidelio.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Neither. I do not and never have related all that positively to Beethoven, and though I enjoy a good amount of Mozart, I don't feel a strong personal connection with him either. Most fulfilling for me are the grandeur of Brahms and the charm and melodic inventiveness of Haydn.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

So how productive, really, were these Classical period guys? My rough calculations show how much music each wrote per productive year, based on what's available now in "complete editions".

Haydn: 3.3 hours per year over 46 years.
Mozart: 6.5 hours per year over 26 years.
Beethoven: 2.1 hours per year over 31 years.

There are some severe caveats on the numbers, of course.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Someone I knew characterized everyone as either a dog or a cat. Ned Rorem described everything as either German or French. You either know what it means or you don't. If you do you're probably French and feline.





Dan Ante said:


> And if you don't?


A German dog of course.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

I am reminded of this quote:

"Mozart you have to be born with. Beethoven you have to conquer." - Andras Schiff


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

lextune said:


> A German dog of course.


I would never be so rude as to call a German a dog, apart from being un PC you may get a kick up the shufty.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Answering the question a little differently, if I had to live without one of them I can't decide


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> So how productive, really, were these Classical period guys? My rough calculations show how much music each wrote per productive year, based on what's available now in "complete editions".
> 
> Haydn: 3.3 hours per year over 46 years.
> Mozart: 6.5 hours per year over 26 years.
> ...


The Haydn complete edition set is 150 CDs - the Mozart set is anything from 180 CDs to 220.

Haydn died in 1809 and was a composer as early as the 1750s - so he had in fact - a career of 60+ years, not 46.

So Mozart composed say 180 hours worth of music in 26 years? that is nearer 7 hours per year.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Pugg said:


> I like both equal, so I am the love-child from both.


Now that conjures up some rather distasteful images - I wish you had rephrased it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> The Haydn complete edition set is 150 CDs - the Mozart set is anything from 180 CDs to 220.
> 
> Haydn died in 1809 and was a composer as early as the 1750s - so he had in fact - a career of 60+ years, not 46.
> 
> So Mozart composed say 180 hours worth of music in 26 years? that is nearer 7 hours per year.


I figured Haydn's productive career from 1756 through 1802, when he wrote his last significant work. You're free to make your own estimates!


----------



## ToneDeaf&Senile (May 20, 2010)

I'm certainly no Mozart. Nothing ever comes easy for me. I'm no Beethoven either, in that those times I can be bothered to struggle to achieve my pathetic goals tend to come to naught. The reason? When all is said and done, I've little to no talent or creativity, in any field of endeavor whatsoever. Composer wise, I suppose I'm more akin to P.D.Q Bach, if one take his life and work as factual rather than the purposely flawed fictitious output of a real-life gifted musician.

How does that effect my relationship with them (discounting Bach)? As a listener, I am most often drawn to Beethoven. Non musically a feel more akin to him too.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> This is the same tired myth we know to be false. Mozart needed a keyboard to compose, as his own letters indicate. Hence he didn't have his works completed in his head. He improvised at the keyboard and sketched on paper before he arrived at them. Exactly the same process Beethoven used.


The words 'myth' & 'we' indicate you want to force your opinion on others. Why are you not able to distinguish between composers, with one 'beginning' at the end and the other beginning with nothing? And when your mindset is so fired by 'myth', please notice that originally myth is a story, a narrative. There is nothing false about that.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> This is the same tired myth we know to be false. Mozart needed a keyboard to compose, as his own letters indicate. Hence he didn't have his works completed in his head. He improvised at the keyboard and sketched on paper before he arrived at them. Exactly the same process Beethoven used.


Yes M did work hard - there are 100 sketches - fragments etc - abandoned seemingly - indicating he had ideas and left them if he though they were not good enough.
But what you cannot dismiss is the wonder of being able to compose an opera like Figaro in a couple of months - there is, as far as I know - no comparable feat by Beethoven or anyone else.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> The words 'myth' & 'we' indicate you want to force your opinion on others. *Why are you not able to distinguish between composers, with one 'beginning' at the end and the other beginning with nothing?* And when your mindset is so fired by 'myth', please notice that originally myth is a story, a narrative. There is nothing false about that.


Because that view doesn't conform to the evidence. What I said has been objectively established by Mozart's letters and studies of his sketches. It's not my opinion. It's the current understanding of Mozart's working methods. Beethoven didn't start with nothing. Like Mozart, it seems he usually started by improvising _something_ at the piano.



stomanek said:


> Yes M did work hard - there are 100 sketches - fragments etc - abandoned seemingly - indicating he had ideas and left them if he though they were not good enough.
> But what you cannot dismiss is the wonder of being able to compose an opera like Figaro in a couple of months - there is, as far as I know - no comparable feat by Beethoven or anyone else.


The issue under discussion has nothing to do with speed.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Surely there must be some discussion of the Apollonian and the Dionysian duality, or how about Yin/Yang? We've had French/German and cats/dogs. Chocolate v. vanilla? Sometimes I associate with the one; sometimes with the other, with Mozart as the more Apollonian composer and Beethoven the more Dionysian.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Because that view doesn't conform to the evidence. What I said has been objectively established by Mozart's letters and studies of his sketches. It's not my opinion. It's the current understanding of Mozart's working methods. Beethoven didn't start with nothing. Like Mozart, it seems he usually started by improvising _something_ at the piano.
> 
> The issue under discussion has nothing to do with speed.


Mozart's ability to produce a whole opera in such a short time is objective evidence that he had the whole opera in his mind/head/brain/you name it. Beethoven rewrote, rewrote, rewrote and lo! After a difficult struggle with the material finally a new _opus_ took shape. With Mozart the sketches are evidence of the fact that he conceived his new _opus_ instantly. Because of working at many projects at the same time he sketched his music down; that doesn't mean that the music itself was sketchy.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TxllxT said:


> Mozart's ability to produce a whole opera in such a short time is objective evidence that he had the whole opera in his mind/head/brain/you name it. Beethoven rewrote, rewrote, rewrote and lo! After a difficult struggle with the material finally a new _opus_ took shape. With Mozart the sketches are evidence of the fact that he conceived his new _opus_ instantly. Because of working at many projects at the same time he sketched his music down; that doesn't mean that the music itself was sketchy.


No, the ability to produce an opera in a short time is evidence that he could work quickly and nothing else. It doesn't bear in any way on how much of the opera appeared in his brain at any time. Your assertion about the sketches makes even less sense. If a work was conceived instantly in its entirety, incomplete sketches with differences from the finished work would not exist. Hence what you wrote has to be wrong.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mozart had a gift of being able to reproduce music that he heard once or twice, but he did also struggle with composing certain works, while others he was able to crank out very quickly. there is evidence in what Ed is saying above, he even wrote about to his dad. There was a tendency to romanticise Mozart’s ability, and he wasn’t above plagiarism of his own works and others (Handel in the Kyrie section of his Requiem). But there is evidence Beethoven took longer to tweak his works, which could be since his output is overall less imitative of the times.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

stomanek said:


> But what you cannot dismiss is the wonder of being able to compose an opera like Figaro in a couple of months - there is, as far as I know - no comparable feat by Beethoven or anyone else.


Totally agree with you. Right, EdwardBast?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> So how productive, really, were these Classical period guys? My rough calculations show how much music each wrote per productive year, based on what's available now in "complete editions".
> 
> Haydn: 3.3 hours per year over 46 years.
> Mozart: 6.5 hours per year over 26 years.
> ...


My own estimates on Mozart and Beethoven:

Mozart: *8.9 hours per year* over 27 years (240 hours/27).
Beethoven: *2.8 hours per year* over 31 years (88 hours/31).


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart had a gift of being able to reproduce music that he heard once or twice, but he did also struggle with composing certain works, while others he was able to crank out very quickly. there is evidence in what Ed is saying above, he even wrote about to his dad. There was a tendency to romanticise Mozart's ability, and he wasn't above plagiarism of his own works and others (Handel in the Kyrie section of his Requiem). But there is evidence Beethoven took longer to tweak his works, which could be since his output is overall less imitative of the times.


Before 1800 nobody was troubled by what you call 'plagiarism', because nobody was troubled by the romantic 19th century fixation on being 'original'. So your argumentation is plain anachronistic. One of the funny byproducts of 'romantice Mozart's ability' is again this fixation on 'you must be original'. Mozart just produced music out of the blue, in such a short time that it is mind-boggling. Well, Beethoven compares with that as a present day Ferrari or Tesla with an early 19th century locomotive. Strange how easily Mozart drives in the fast lane with lightning speed!


----------

