# Beethoven's influence: Good or bad overall?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

“He not only left his mark on all subsequent composers but also molded entire institutions... How did Beethoven become ‘BEETHOVEN’? What prompted the ‘great transformation of musical taste,’ ... the shift on the concert stage from a living culture to a necrophiliac one?”

Alex Ross holds forth on this at greater length than usual, seemingly inspired by Swafford's new Beethoven biography, the heftiest in the English Language since Thayer's. (For those interested: I'm about a third of the way through it and recommend it highly.)


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Where does Alex Ross hold forth? Link?
Ta


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. I too would like to know what the majority of TC'ers opine regarding Beethoven's influence: Good or bad overall?

_I have a reason for asking._


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

MagneticGhost said:


> Where does Alex Ross hold forth? Link?
> Ta


Thanks for asking!

Speaking only for myself, I would have great difficulty moving forward on this subject without reading Alex Ross' opinion first.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/deus-ex-musica

Not the hardest thing in the world to find, tbh.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Good, because Beethoven brought a personal vision to his art, and was an independent composer. He was the first "superstar" of classical music, as I see it.

Feminists, however, will hold an opposing view, since the concept of "the genius" reinforces male dominance and patriarchy.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Outstanding overall


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Good... that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/deus-ex-musica
> 
> Not the hardest thing in the world to find, tbh.


Thanks Nereffid! Sorry I forgot the link...

Obviously Alex Ross is a bit conflicted about all this: "As a teen-ager, I contemplated becoming a composer; attending a concert at Symphony Hall, in Boston, I remember seeing, with wonder and dismay, the single name BEETHOVEN emblazoned on the proscenium arch. 'Don't bother,' it seemed to say."


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/deus-ex-musica
> 
> Not the hardest thing in the world to find, tbh.


It would be more polite to be dishonest though. 
I haven't got the time or energy to Google - Alex Ross Beethoven, so thank you for doing the hard work for me


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Nereffid said:


> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/deus-ex-musica
> 
> Not the hardest thing in the world to find, tbh.


Apart from some sporadic incoherence and a lack of clarity in his message, I found this article to be a quite interesting read.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well if it wasn't for Beethoven, we wouldn't have the following compositions as we know them:

1. Schubert Symphony No. 9

2. Brahms, Symphony No. 1

3. Ives Concord Piano Sonata

4. Pohjola Symphony No. 1

So, yes!! Beethoven's influence for me was good, since I love three out of four of the above compositions and wouldn't want a note of any of them altered, yet am puzzled why so many TC'ers love the other one.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Not possible to determine the 'good or bad overall' without knowing the world he didn't exist in.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Perhaps we wouldn't have had those 7 films about an errant St. Bernard! 
So there's good and bad.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Yes. I too would like to know what the majority of TC'ers opine regarding Beethoven's influence: Good or bad overall?
> 
> _I have a reason for asking._


_What influence_ is what I'd like to know!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> _What influence_ is what I'd like to know!


Brahms First Symphony, Schubert's Ninth, Ives Concord Sonata, Pojhola's first symphony would not have been written as we know them without Beethoven composing before them.

Where I come from, that's some pretty heavy influence.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Well if it wasn't for Beethoven, we wouldn't have the following compositions as we know them:
> 
> 1. Schubert Symphony No. 9
> 
> ...


Despite (or because of) its "heavenly length", it's a phenomenal work! It's just not something I can listen to too often, kinda like Beethoven's 7th. It's too much to absorb in one sitting sometimes!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Beethoven didn't influence just music, he influenced the western world and western thinking. I cannot see how this world would be just without his music and still be THIS world. It would be a completely different world and I cannot comment about it.

That said, our history has some happenings and figures that I'd rather omit, and others that I'm proud of. Beethoven, I think, is one of the very best things that ever happened to us.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Xaltotun said:


> Beethoven didn't influence just music, he influenced the western world and western thinking.


ROFL. Hyperbole much?


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Beethoven influenced Wagner (and Liszt? I'm not sure), who in turn influenced many other composers, who influenced others... Yes, it was a good thing, I think, because many of my favourite composers had been influenced by him.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Brahms First Symphony, Schubert's Ninth, Ives Concord Sonata, Pojhola's first symphony would not have been written as we know them without Beethoven composing before them.
> 
> Where I come from, that's some pretty heavy influence.


Lol. Not that I care to enter into all these 'who was the most influential' dealies, but more truly "influential," as in changing the direction of the music river, the _opening bars of his symphony no. 9_, with the audacious and ingenious interval of the open fifth being the only material for several minutes (like an East Indian Alap, the slow beginning of a Raga piece), or like to rolling around in the primordial musical muck before evolving into a higher and more advanced creature -- is _the_ precedent without which the opening of Wagner's _Die Gotterdammerung_, with its sustained orchestrated four-minute long Eb triad, just would not have been as we have it.

Credit / Blame goes to Beethoven, in a way, for Wagner.

Wagner _did_ opened a can _of harmonic worms (with Tristan und Isolde) which so influenced other composers it changed the harmonic landscape forever,_ something which can not be attributed to Beethoven as part of his sphere of influence.

Beethoven's influence was in so stretching classical form while staying within it that others after him would wonder what could be further done with it, and _his aesthetic import,_ i.e. "what everyone says about his _romantic tendencies._ (romanticism generally in the air, "romantic music" already being written from the get-go, by his near exact chronological peer, Carl Maria von Weber.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> ROFL. Hyperbole much?


Hey, I didn't say he made the western world self-handedly, did I? He influenced our culture beyond the music, nothing more, nothing less. Many people have done that, artists, politicians, thinkers... There's no hyperbole in it as far as I see it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The way his influence is bad is that people sometimes put him in the centre of things, as if all music before tended towards what he did, and all music after was a reaction. I think that's a mistaken view of music history.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Unanswerable question. Life without his music would be markedly poorer. I'll leave his "influence" to others.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> The way his influence is bad is that people sometimes put him in the centre of things, as if all music before tended towards what he did, and all music after was a reaction. I think that's a mistaken view of music history.


It's mistaken, but it's very "Harold Bloomian", if you know his _Anxiety of Influence._ Beethoven is a perfect example of what he calls a "strong poet"! A strong poet is someone who, by virtue of his strength alone, causes history to appear skewed (even though it isn't).


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> It's mistaken, but it's very "Harold Bloomian", if you know his _Anxiety of Influence._ Beethoven is a perfect example of what he calls a "strong poet"! A strong poet is someone who, by virtue of his strength alone, causes history to appear skewed (even though it isn't).


Yes! Good call!

In another musical genre (jazz), see *Coltrane, John*.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting that there has been little comment on Ross's suggestion (see the quote in the OP) that Beethoven's influence may not have been uniformly positive.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> Hey, I didn't say he made the western world self-handedly, did I? He influenced our culture beyond the music, nothing more, nothing less. Many people have done that, artists, politicians, thinkers... There's no hyperbole in it as far as I see it.


Make no mistake, Xaltotun. Your "crime" isn't what you said, it's whom your statement is about. "Beethoven influenced the Western World? Blasphemy. Don't you know how much I dislike Beethoven?"


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Transparent? Wrong. I do not dislike Beethoven (unless Beethoven fan boys think anyone who does not put him in the top 3 dislikes him). But to claim that beyond the music, he also influenced the western world and western thinking strikes me as, well, weird. Care to give examples?


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that there has been little comment on Ross's suggestion (see the quote in the OP) that Beethoven's influence may not have been uniformly positive.


Ken, I don't think Ross provides much evidence in his essay that Beethoven's influence has been pernicious.

Yeah, LvB changed things. But did he change them for the _worse_? I'm not convinced that he did.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Art Rock, any video discussing the impact of the 9th symphony (Politics, etc) I'll post the links later. I'm out and about right now.

Plus the very article this thread is talking about.

Poets, writers, etc. who were influenced (or affected) by him.

It's not unbelievable that an artist in a certain genre could influence western culture.

Ps. I apologize for and retract the "transparent". I shouldn't have used that.

*Here's one of the videos. I'd say his effects of his music were further than the realm of music.* Nothing really controversial or hyperbolic about that, Beethoven is one of _many_ artists who had a far-reaching effect.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I vote YES. If nothing else, he set a new standard for other composers to try to reach or exceed.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JACE said:


> Yes! Good call!
> 
> In another musical genre (jazz), see *Coltrane, John*.


And yet in another genre (or multi-genre) see Bob Dylan.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that there has been little comment on Ross's suggestion (see the quote in the OP) that Beethoven's influence may not have been uniformly positive.


More comments here...

http://www.talkclassical.com/2555-l-beethoven.html#post740636


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> The way his influence is bad is that people sometimes put him in the centre of things, as if all music before tended towards what he did, and all music after was a reaction. I think that's a mistaken view of music history.


And we have to thank for that the post-Beethoven homeboys (those mainly native German and Austrian Germanic culture fans and mavens) and their tendency toward extreme romantic-era hyperbole in their critiques and writings about art, the influence of the latter bleeding directly into English-language countries worldwide (England favoring their supposed ancestors and aesthetic far over, say the Italian or French sensibility), and that later romantic hyperbole lingering 'officially' well into the first half of the 20th century. All that gives a massively distorted and skewed context on 'evaluating Beethoven,' and his influence.

About later symphonic works which wend their way through a small universe of keys, and those being touted as of new extended length -- they were inevitable, with or without Beethoven, and Mozart had already had done as much, far more than just a little or virtually, in the first movement of his _Piano Concerto No. 27 K. 595_ in B-flat major (1791); Mozart had _been there, done that_ when Beethoven was but twenty-one years of age. (It is not a bad thing here to remind anyone of how obsessed with Mozart Beethoven was....)


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that there has been little comment on Ross's suggestion (see the quote in the OP) that Beethoven's influence may not have been uniformly positive.


Good point, I have nothing to add about the musical/expressive influence, it speaks for itself. Ross concentrates on the "post-mortem" Beethoven influence. It's the Beethoven-exterior events that happened _after_ his death that have had some negative effects. For instance, Beethoven symphonies played ad nauseam year-round denying other, lesser-known (but should be more known) and newer composers a chance. That is unequivocally a *negative effect*. The author, Ross, did well to make sure that these effects clearly had nothing to do with Beethoven himself.

As far as the deification or unofficial canonization, sure it's not the best thing, but it's one of those inevitabilities. Michelangelo, Dali', Picasso, Da Vinci are among deified visual artists It's just something that happens, it's part of human nature. I think it's for this that you have Mozart, Bach, Beethoven played year-round at the concert halls while other composers are passed over.

It's interesting, though, in Ross' article that he implies certain people's unwillingness to accept the uglier side of Beethoven, the less Romantic side, the ugly truths. Yet, ironically it's those who _are_ very interested in Beethoven that seek out his biographies, like Thayer's straightforward non-romanticizing biography, it's those who DO want to read about those ugly facts. The Beethoven "fanboys" (I don't really care for that word, though) won't admit there's anything unsightly, ugly, or negative about his life. They won't read the biographies as to be in ignorant bliss. As someone who's read a couple of his biographies, I can assure you there's very few things worth romanticizing about! That's part of why I enjoy reading about him, he was a "normie" who, for instance, didn't care to bow to royalty or nobility. I admire that.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that there has been little comment on Ross's suggestion (see the quote in the OP) that Beethoven's influence may not have been uniformly positive.


I find that it is the over-romanticizing _hagiography_ that distorts the undeniably positive influence.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> Transparent? Wrong. I do not dislike Beethoven (unless Beethoven fan boys think anyone who does not put him in the top 3 dislikes him). But to claim that beyond the music, he also influenced the western world and western thinking strikes me as, well, weird. Care to give examples?


The arc of his works contributed heavily to the notion of progress, that mankind is constantly developing (for the better), a crucial line of European thinking in the 19th century that still influences us today. Wagner was also a political person and a thinker, and he was influenced. He also introduced Mihail Bakunin, a famous political thinker, to Beethoven's music, and the latter even changed some of his opinions as a result. Beethoven was a "Christ of the bourgeoisie", who refused to respect the nobility and princes, favoring artistic "genius" over hereditary title. This attitude was very new, even to fellow intellectuals like Goethe.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Good point, I have nothing to add about the musical/expressive influence, it speaks for itself. Ross concentrates on the "post-mortem" Beethoven influence. It's the Beethoven-exterior events that happened _after_ his death that have had some negative effects. For instance, Beethoven symphonies played ad nauseam year-round denying other, lesser-known (but should be more known) and newer composers a chance. That is unequivocally a *negative effect*.


I don't agree. First, it makes sense that Beethoven would overshadow 2nd or 3rd rate lesser-known composers; that's life. Second, plenty of lesser-known composers have received a lot of exposure on recordings; I've been listening to them on record for decades.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I don't agree. First, it makes sense that Beethoven would overshadow 2nd or 3rd rate lesser-known composers; that's life. Second, plenty of lesser-known composers have received a lot of exposure on recordings; I've been listening to them on record for decades.


I don't agree with looking at it this way, Beethoven's symphonies WILL be played. Rest assured. Anytime that a deserving or lesser-known great composer is passed over so another Beethoven symphony-cycle can be played, I think we can say this isn't a positive thing. It certainly doesn't help grow the classical music community! One of the reasons why a lot of people think newer composers are 2nd or 3rd rate is because they're not given the same exposure. Whether it's on the radio or in the concert halls.

I certainly don't want to be in a museum that only displays Michelangelo and Botticelli! As great as that would be for a few days, I'm going to start to want something else! Give me some Diego Rivera, some Thomas Hart Benton, something else modern and fresh.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I don't agree with looking at it this way, Beethoven's symphonies WILL be played. Rest assured. Anytime that a deserving or lesser-known great composer is passed over so another Beethoven symphony-cycle can be played, I think we can say this isn't a positive thing. It certainly doesn't help grow the classical music community! One of the reasons why a lot of people think newer composers are 2nd or 3rd rate is because they're not given the same exposure. Whether it's on the radio or in the concert halls.
> 
> I certainly don't want to be in a museum that only displays Michelangelo and Botticelli! As great as that would be for a few days, I'm going to start to want something else! Give me some Diego Rivera, some Thomas Hart Benton, something modern and fresh.


A couple of questions to you:

1. When you say "newer composers", are you referring to late 20th century and 21st century composers?

2. Are you mainly talking about performances on record or in the concert hall?


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I fail to understand the utility to speculate how would the world be without an specific event hundreds of years ago. It is possible that Europe would destroy itself without such amazing music. Is also possible that apart from some explicit references to his music the world would be just the same.

He existed, he had a huge influence, that's the reality.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I don't agree with looking at it this way, Beethoven's symphonies WILL be played. Rest assured. Anytime that a deserving or lesser-known great composer is passed over so another Beethoven symphony-cycle can be played, I think we can say this isn't a positive thing. It certainly doesn't help grow the classical music community! One of the reasons why a lot of people think newer composers are 2nd or 3rd rate is because they're not given the same exposure. Whether it's on the radio or in the concert halls.
> 
> *I certainly don't want to be in a museum that only displays Michelangelo and Botticelli!*


I know where you're coming from, _Dies_, and I empathize, with certain caveats. I've become aware - via Naxos CDs (for example) and YouTube - of the music of Beethoven's close contemporaries such as Ries (his student) and Hummel (his friend and rival) to name but two out of many other examples (check out the original Diabelli Variations project that "called for tenders" from the leading 50 or so composers of the day). What I find fascinating is not so much that Beethoven's legacy is seen to be so overwhelmingly crushing, but rather that so many of his contemporaries were "formulaic". There are a good number of Hummel's piano concertos on YouTube that prove this point. Nevertheless, I think it is absolutely critical that Beethoven be listened to - and placed - in the context of his time, and I find it a never-ending source of joy to discover the music of his so-called "lesser" _confrères_.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> A couple of questions to you:
> 
> 1. When you say "newer composers", are you referring to late 20th century and 21st century composers?


When I say "newer", I'm mainly referring to "newer than the 100+ year dead guys from the 19th century and before". So, modern era and beyond, I suppose. There are neglected composers from the modern era and most certainly the contemporary era.



Bulldog said:


> 2. Are you mainly talking about performances on record or in the concert hall?


I'm mainly talking about the concert hall, but the radio is emblematic of the problem as well.

I'm not addressing recorded performances on CD. However, if I may, I'd like to bring up what PetrB once suggested in a thread asking for Recording Recommendations for new/er music. He said something along these lines, forgive the paraphrasing. This should give you some kind of idea of the dearth of recordings for newer composers as opposed to the wealth of recordings for, let's say, Bruckner No. 7.

[_Whatever recording you can find is what you should get, there are so few recordings that the one you see is perhaps the *only* one and thus the one you should get!_] (Paraphrased statement, please feel free to correct me, PetrB)


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> It's interesting, though, in Ross' article that he implies certain people's unwillingness to accept the uglier side of Beethoven, the less Romantic side, the ugly truths. Yet, ironically it's those who _are_ very interested in Beethoven that seek out his biographies, like Thayer's straightforward non-romanticizing biography, it's those who DO want to read about those ugly facts. The Beethoven "fanboys" (I don't really care for that word, though) won't admit there's anything unsightly, ugly, or negative about his life. They won't read the biographies as to be in ignorant bliss. As someone who's read a couple of his biographies, I can assure you there's very few things worth romanticizing about! That's part of why I enjoy reading about him, he was a "normie" who, for instance, *didn't care to bow to royalty or nobility. I admire that.*


I really think this bolded is what started to turn the tables of classical music. Of course, there were other expressive artists emerging before Beethoven... but who did it with such vitality and blatant disregard for the overhang of societal hierarchy? His balls of steel were a huge catalyst for other artist to truly express their inner world without fear.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I think Hitler liked him. Therefore Beethoven caused the holocaust.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Here is a thought I've had that might have some truth to - maybe not, I don't know. Don't want to infuriate his fans but I'll just put it out there. Beethoven's music is quite dramatic and at times even violent sounding. His themes often come across as triumphant and seem to hint at not just over-coming challenges - but conquering. This is part of the reason why perhaps his music has been propped up so much in the west, its pretty much a perfect soundtrack to encourage an imperialistic mindset. 

If you look at the classical music the Nazis enjoyed listening to it was pretty much Beethoven and some of his direct descendants (Bruckner, Wagner).

Edit - hilarious that this post happened right after Couchie's - I was typing it before he posted his.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I don't agree with looking at it this way, Beethoven's symphonies WILL be played. Rest assured. Anytime that a deserving or lesser-known great composer is passed over so another Beethoven symphony-cycle can be played, I think we can say this isn't a positive thing.


It may be the music or it may be people's pigheadedness, but I suspect that if Beethoven were no longer played there'd be a lot of bankrupt orchestras next year. He'd be missed. And those new and deserving guys? From a practical point of view, not so much.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> Here is a thought I've had that might have some truth to - maybe not, I don't know. Don't want to infuriate his fans but I'll just put it out there. Beethoven's music is quite dramatic and at times even violent sounding. His themes often come across as triumphant and seem to hint at not just over-coming challenges - but conquering. This is part of the reason why perhaps his music has been propped up so much in the west, its pretty much a perfect soundtrack to encourage an imperialistic mindset.
> 
> If you look at the classical music the Nazis enjoyed listening to it was pretty much Beethoven and some of his direct descendants (Bruckner, Wagner).
> 
> Edit - hilarious that this post happened right after Couchie's - I was typing it before he posted his.


The musical genius who was himself 'socially rough,' severely parochial, (or down-to-earth) and 'basic,' coming up with those bolder (or more obvious) characteristics of 'epic,' 'large' 'heroic' and that taking off like wildfire with the public who were / are more like the composer than some non-parochial highly educated cognoscenti, the privileged classes? What on earh could you be thinking?

LOL. It is exactly that 'he is one of us we all get the sound of the struggle and recognize that struggle' which endears him to so many, including those who don't care for much other classical music, and of many of his fans then preferring him to any other composer, thinking him 'the greatest of all time like ever.'

_"Very rough around the edges blue collar musical genius shows them all! ~ Film at eleven._ :lol:


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

tdc said:


> Here is a thought I've had that might have some truth to - maybe not, I don't know. Don't want to infuriate his fans but I'll just put it out there. Beethoven's music is quite dramatic and at times even violent sounding. His themes often come across as triumphant and seem to hint at not just over-coming challenges - but conquering. This is part of the reason why perhaps his music has been propped up so much in the west, its pretty much a perfect soundtrack to encourage an imperialistic mindset.
> 
> If you look at the classical music the Nazis enjoyed listening to it was pretty much Beethoven and some of his direct descendants (Bruckner, Wagner).
> 
> Edit - hilarious that this post happened right after Couchie's - I was typing it before he posted his.


Deducing an imperialistic and violent conquering is a pretty hefty extrapolation. You're saying that this "violence" is the reason why the West props up his music and why the Nazis enjoyed listening to him, Bruckner, and Wagner... (??)

(I understand you're not saying anything about Beethoven's intentions, just saying this is quite a stretch)

You might enjoy this, a feminist analysis of "Beethoven's 9th and Rape".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McClary#The_Beethoven_and_rape_controversy


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The musical genius who was himself 'socially rough,' severely parochial, (or down-to-earth) and 'basic,' coming up with those bolder (or more obvious) characteristics of 'epic,' 'large' 'heroic' and that taking off like wildfire with the public who were / are more like the composer than some non-parochial highly educated cognoscenti, the privileged classes? What on earh could you be thinking?
> 
> LOL. It is exactly that 'he is one of us we all get the sound of the struggle and recognize that struggle' which endears him to so many, including those who don't care for much other classical music, and of many of his fans then preferring him to any other composer, thinking him 'the greatest of all time like ever.'
> 
> _"Very rough around the edges blue collar musical genius shows them all! ~ Film at eleven._ :lol:


Some good points, but keep in mind my post said nothing about the traits of Beethoven himself - or his intentions - just with how his music has possibly been perceived and used by some. Now as I said I don't know if there is any truth to this, it might just be silly nonsense, but just throwing it out there as it pertains to the topic.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> LOL. It is exactly that 'he is one of us we all get the sound of the struggle and recognize that struggle' which endears him to so many, including those who don't care for much other classical music, and of many of his fans then preferring him to any other composer, thinking him 'the greatest of all time like ever.'


Umm, yeah, what's wrong with connecting with an artist because of the struggle and finding it endearing that he was "one of us"?

*For goodness sake. *


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> ... he was a "normie" who, for instance, didn't care to bow to royalty or nobility. I admire that.


He was that socially inept he could not play the game, that is all. That extreme anti-social trait being neither then or now considered anything like 'normal,' any more than his genius, then or now, would be considered normal.

Admiring him for what he did because he didn't have the ability to do it otherwise is like admiring the cleverness of an illiterate who nonetheless figures out how to get around town without being able to read the street signs.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> He was that socially inept he could not play the game, that is all. Admiring him for what he did because he didn't have the ability to do it otherwise is like admiring the cleverness of an illiterate who nonetheless figures out how to get around town without being able to read the street signs.


You speak like it was such a well formulated game... It was a game based on extreme delusions of grandeur, understand. Beethoven, among many others, were growing out of that social prison-house.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> He was that socially inept he could not play the game, that is all. Admiring him for what he did because he didn't have the ability to do it otherwise is like admiring the cleverness of an illiterate who nonetheless figures out how to get around town without being able to read the street signs.


Ok, thank you for the wonderful insight. I'll keep this in mind, make sure to email this extremely factual information to all future authors who plan on penning new Beethoven biographies.

If Alexander Thayer, Swafford, and Solomon knew what you know to be true. They'd need to immediately revise and edit their books. New and improved version with updated, cutting-edge Beethoven scholarship. :devil:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> He was that socially inept he could not play the game, that is all. That extreme anti-social trait being neither then or now considered anything like 'normal,' any more than his genius, then or now, would be considered normal.
> 
> Admiring him for what he did because he didn't have the ability to do it otherwise is like admiring the cleverness of an illiterate who nonetheless figures out how to get around town without being able to read the street signs.


:lol::lol::lol: I think his behavior was quite a bit more purposeful than that! Read any biography, his letters, or the multiple observations of friends and associates. Even relatively late in life he fired off an angry letter to Archbishop Rudolph, his main patron at the time, cussing him up one side and down the other for treating him like a "courtier." The Archbishop apologized and granted Beethoven the right to come and go without invitation at his household, something very unusual.

Again, meeting with Goethe in Teplitz in 1812. Bettina von Arnim reports, 'Beethoven said to Goethe: keep walking as you have until now, holding my arm, they must make way for us, not the other way around. Goethe thought differently; he drew his hand, took off his hat and stepped aside, while Beethoven, hands in pockets, went right through the dukes and their cortege... They drew aside to make way for him, saluting him in friendly fashion. Waiting for Goethe who had let the dukes pass, Beethoven told him: "I have waited for you because I respect you and I admire your work, but you have shown too much esteem to those people." '

Goethe's own account of his meeting with Beethoven fully supports this.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> When I say "newer", I'm mainly referring to "newer than the 100+ year dead guys from the 19th century and before". So, modern era and beyond, I suppose. There are neglected composers from the modern era and most certainly the contemporary era.
> 
> I'm mainly talking about the concert hall, but the radio is emblematic of the problem as well.
> 
> I'm not addressing recorded performances on CD.


Thanks, I now have a better idea of where you're coming from. Rarely attending concerts, my emphasis is on recorded music.

Concerning performances of Beethoven symphonies, I don't think they deny modern composers any significant exposure. I would suggest that it's the conservative preferences of the modern audience/programmers that do the denying. If Beethoven had never lived, the current situation would still be the same.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

KenOC said:


> :lol::lol::lol: I think his behavior was quite a bit more purposeful than that! Read any biography, his letters, or the multiple observations of friends and associates. Even relatively late in life he fired off an angry letter to Archbishop Rudolph, his main patron at the time, cussing him up one side and down the other for treating him like a "courtier." The Archbishop apologized and granted Beethoven the right to come and go without invitation at his household, something very unusual.


"Read any biography, his letters" and other evidence? C'mon, KenOC, let's not let any facts, recorded history, and academic scholarship get in the way.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Again, meeting with Goethe in Teplitz in 1812. Bettina von Arnim reports, 'Beethoven said to Goethe: keep walking as you have until now, holding my arm, they must make way for us, not the other way around. Goethe thought differently; he drew his hand, took off his hat and stepped aside, while Beethoven, hands in pockets, went right through the dukes and their cortege... They drew aside to make way for him, saluting him in friendly fashion. Waiting for Goethe who had let the dukes pass, Beethoven told him: "I have waited for you because I respect you and I admire your work, but you have shown too much esteem to those people." '
> 
> Goethe's own account of his meeting with Beethoven fully supports this.


Excellent, indeed. That's what I was referring to. A massive ideological shift coming to life.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

[Deleted by order of the Imperial Commission on Misunderstood Replies]


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "He not only left his mark on all subsequent composers but also molded entire institutions... How did Beethoven become 'BEETHOVEN'? What prompted the 'great transformation of musical taste,' ... the shift on the concert stage from a living culture to a necrophiliac one?"
> 
> Alex Ross holds forth on this at greater length than usual, seemingly inspired by Swafford's new Beethoven biography, the heftiest in the English Language since Thayer's. (For those interested: I'm about a third of the way through it and recommend it highly.)


Thanks to alerting me to a biography by Swafford. I really enjoyed his Brahms biography, so I suspect I will read this as well.
imo, Beethoven was an elemental force in music. He changed the scope of what could be accomplished within a Compostion and paved the way for the great Austro/German Composers that followed. One can't imagine the Symphonies of Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler, Composers generations removed from LvB, without detecting the influence of Beethoven.
Did those Composers sometimes feel that they had to live up to his standards? Certainly in the case of Brahms this was true. One reads that Mendelsohn, Schuman, and the Composers of their generation felt intimidated by his presence. That is what greatness can do.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

KenOC said:


> :lol::lol::lol: I think his behavior was quite a bit more purposeful than that! Read any biography, his letters, or the multiple observations of friends and associates. Even relatively late in life he fired off an angry letter to Archbishop Rudolph, his main patron at the time, cussing him up one side and down the other for treating him like a "courtier." The Archbishop apologized and granted Beethoven the right to come and go without invitation at his household, something very unusual.
> 
> Again, meeting with Goethe in Teplitz in 1812. Bettina von Arnim reports, 'Beethoven said to Goethe: keep walking as you have until now, holding my arm, they must make way for us, not the other way around. Goethe thought differently; he drew his hand, took off his hat and stepped aside, while Beethoven, hands in pockets, went right through the dukes and their cortege... They drew aside to make way for him, saluting him in friendly fashion. Waiting for Goethe who had let the dukes pass, Beethoven told him: "I have waited for you because I respect you and I admire your work, but you have shown too much esteem to those people." '
> 
> Goethe's own account of his meeting with Beethoven fully supports this.


I wonder if you realize that none of that contradicts PetrB's contention.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Ukko said:


> I wonder if you realize that none of that contradicts PetrB's contention.


I don't think you really comprehended what PetrB was alluding to. I usually agree with him, but not on this matter.

He was painting a picture as if Beethoven's "lack" of social sobriety was an incentive for modern slackers to rejoice. I just think that's wrong all over.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Ukko said:


> I wonder if you realize that none of that contradicts PetrB's contention.


KenOC's examples have everything to with what he said, it started with Petr's reply to a snippet of my post:

ME


> ... he was a "normie" who, for instance, didn't care to bow to royalty or nobility. I admire that.


Does Goethe's account sound like he was describing a "social inept", the equivalent of an "illiterate who gets around without being able to read the street signs"? Or does it sound exactly like someone who didn't revere royalty like other artists did? The example is pretty relevant.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

MagneticGhost said:


> Perhaps we wouldn't have had those 7 films about an errant St. Bernard!
> So there's good and bad.


I pride myself in having never seen any of them.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Vesuvius said:


> I really think this bolded is what started to turn the tables of classical music. Of course, there were other expressive artists emerging before Beethoven... but who did it with such vitality and blatant disregard for the overhang of societal hierarchy? His balls of steel were a huge catalyst for other artist to truly express their inner world without fear.


Sometimes I think his image as a rebel against the higher social class is a bit overblown. It's not like he was the only composer to butt heads with authority. Bach, for example, spent time in jail. And Mozart was dismissed from the Archbishop's service literally with a "kick in the ****" after arguments over his refusal to be treated as a servant. As for gutsyness/risk-taking, I thought Beethoven was the one who had all the rich patrons living in Vienna. He had a safety net and more freedom to compose what he wanted and could get away with occasionally acting like a pig. When Mozart went to Vienna, he was pretty much on his own, and taking a bigger risk. If Beethoven's situation was just as precarious, and talking back meant getting dumped out on the street with nowhere to live and no commissions, I doubt he would've acted the same way.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

trazom said:


> Sometimes I think his image as a rebel against the higher social class is a bit overblown. It's not like he was the only composer to butt heads with authority. Bach, for example, spent time in jail. And Mozart was dismissed from the Archbishop's service literally with a "kick in the ****" after arguments over his refusal to be treated as a servant. As for gutsyness/risk-taking, I thought Beethoven was the one who had all the rich patrons living in Vienna. He had a safety net and more freedom to compose what he wanted and could get away with occasionally acting like a pig. When Mozart went to Vienna, he was pretty much on his own, and taking a bigger risk. If Beethoven's situation was just as precarious, and talking back meant getting dumped out on the street with nowhere to live and no commissions, I doubt he would've acted the same way.


I did say there were others... but none so vivacious.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

julianoq said:


> I fail to understand the utility to speculate how would the world be without an specific event hundreds of years ago. It is possible that Europe would destroy itself without such amazing music. Is also possible that apart from some explicit references to his music the world would be just the same.
> 
> *He existed, he had a huge influence, that's the reality*.


Right on. But then there wouldn't be any need for a convoluted column that eventually gets lost down an imaginary road of LvB cultism.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> I don't think you really comprehended what PetrB was alluding to. I usually agree with him, but not on this matter.
> 
> He was painting a picture as if Beethoven's "lack" of social sobriety was an incentive for modern slackers to rejoice. I just think that's wrong all over.


Pardon me (taps Vesuvius on his shoulder) I am Petr B and you have mistaken what I said; you've assigned an implication to it which is not there, and so got what I said all wrong.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Vesuvius said:


> I did say there were others... but none so vivacious.


My point was he was so vivacious about flaunting authority was because, unlike earlier composers, he was in the unique position to get away with it. There would've been less risk for him. If people are pampering him with their high expectations, for him to become the next greatest living composer, then dumping on them on occasion doesn't seem like such a risk, or ballsy as you guys put it. Therefore, not such a big deal/overblown.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

trazom said:


> My point was he was so vivacious about flaunting authority was because, unlike earlier composers, he was in the unique position to get away with it. There would've been less risk for him. If people are pampering him with their high expectations, for him to become the next greatest living composer, then dumping on them on occasion doesn't seem like such a risk, or ballsy as you guys put it. Therefore, not such a big deal/overblown.


May I ask for some evidence of this and isn't conjecture? I've read two Beethoven biographies and a "big deal" is made of it. He also certainly did not have it "easy" by any means, you won't even have to read 1/4 of a biography to understand that, lol. He risked being kicked out of his home as well as _loads_ of financial problems.

Also, Mozart was in the same situation with high expectation, if not more, he was paraded around European royalty as a kid prodigy. The "high expectations therefore you can dump on them" doesn't seem to fly.

Plus what KenOC wrote beneath me.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

trazom said:


> If Beethoven's situation was just as precarious, and talking back meant getting dumped out on the street with nowhere to live and no commissions, I doubt he would've acted the same way.


I don't agree too much with that. Beethoven was an equal-opportunity abuser, insulting and fighting with major patrons from the time of his arrival in Vienna, pretty near penniless and his only future being through the salons of the nobility. Lichnowski and Lobkowitz were long-suffering, but they knew good music when they heard it.

He never felt financially secure (and he really wasn't) but that didn't moderate his behavior. He had to give up performing, and maybe half of his income, well short of 40. He was then the first major composer ever to make a living by his compositions only -- and that was one payment, one time, no royalties, and not a very good pay scale at that! So no, he was never secure.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Pardon me (taps Vesuvius on his shoulder) I am Petr B and you have mistaken what I said; you've assigned an implication to it which is not there, and so got what I said all wrong.


If I was wrong, then my apologies to you, good sir.



trazom said:


> My point was he was so vivacious about flaunting authority was because, unlike earlier composers, he was in the unique position to get away with it. There would've been less risk for him. If people are pampering him with their high expectations, for him to become the next greatest living composer, then dumping on them on occasion doesn't seem like such a risk, or ballsy as you guys put it. Therefore, not such a big deal/overblown.


Well, who's fault would that be? Beethoven wasn't born into nobility. He got to where he was through a series of ambitious actions, and even throughout he wasn't that well off. Regardless, I don't look at that as a fault. There were many who were indeed in similar "pampering" situations, and didn't act with such anti-establishment vivaciousness.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Umm, yeah, what's wrong with connecting with an artist because of the struggle and finding it endearing that he was "one of us"?
> 
> *For goodness sake. *


That statement is an observation, one that is hardly unique or new by the way, and not a criticism... 
*For goodness sake. *


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> That statement is an observation, one that is hardly unique or new by the way, and not a criticism...
> *For goodness sake. *


Ok, I apologize for the misunderstanding, then. I think it was because of the last part of the post that led me astray.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> May I ask for some evidence of this and isn't conjecture? I've read two Beethoven biographies and a "big deal" is made of it. He also certainly did not have it "easy" by any means, you won't even have to read 1/4 of a biography to understand that, lol. He risked being kicked out of his home as well as _loads_ of financial problems.
> 
> Also, Mozart was in the same situation with high expectation, if not more, he was paraded around European royalty as a kid prodigy. The "high expectations therefore you can dump on them" doesn't seem to fly.
> 
> Plus what KenOC wrote beneath me.


 I was saying the 'big deal' made of it, his rebel image, is somewhat over-hyped. Not that it didn't occur.

Here, Beethoven's support: http://www.ringnebula.com/Beet/Musical_Teachers_Patrons_Supporters_Secretaries_Associates.htm

Beethoven was being mentored by the most successful and famous composer of the time and he was supported by some of the richest families in the country. Also where did I say he had it "easy"? I said he had a greater safety net in Vienna, he had more connections, and was taking a smaller risk by acting towards authority the way he did. And Mozart's situation wasn't similar. His source of fame was primarily from his days as a prodigy and by the time he came to Vienna as an adult, he was largely forgotten, had to start promoting himself over again as a performer and composer through his piano concertos, did not have the secure source of income he had when while employed in Salzburg.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Deducing an imperialistic and violent conquering is a pretty hefty extrapolation.


Everything in this thread is heavy extrapolation, so singling out one person of doing that doesn't excuse anything else. We will all stick to our opinions regardless. Also, the ones who argue the best are not necessarily the most correct.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> Everything in this thread is heavy extrapolation, so singling out one person of doing that doesn't excuse anything else. We will all stick to our opinions regardless. Also, the ones who argue the best are not necessarily the most correct.


I think that was the only post in this thread worthy of being "singled out" as a _hefty extrapolation_. lol

I don't argue well at all, but nevertheless, I do agree with that statement. The best "arguers" are certainly not always the most "correct".


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

trazom said:


> I was saying the 'big deal' made of it, his rebel image, is somewhat over-hyped. Not that it didn't occur.
> 
> I said he had a greater safety net in Vienna, he had more connections, and was taking a smaller risk by acting towards authority the way he did.


Though the financial end of it diminished quickly enough, that 'lifetime stipend' given him by several higher up devotees in Vienna was unprecedented at the time: He was allowed to write "whatever he wanted" and to travel and have his works performed "wherever he wanted." The only stipulation being that he continued to compose, and keep his residence in Vienna.

Though that annual stipend of 4000 Florins a year (without any demand of so many works commissioned, even) soon dropped to far less than, to have that kind of contract, still bringing something in, saying what it said, must have been a huge safety net for this irascible composer -- a safety net not known by Mozart, and maybe only repeated much later with the lifetime stipend awarded Sibelius.

I don't think there is any merit in either glamorizing or minimizing the fact his behavior was, by all accounts, extreme enough for many a modern psychologist or psychiatrist to proffer the opinion the man was bi-polar, or something as severe and unmanageable, far outside the norm.

Getting around a severe limitation and still managing to work around it shows the omnipresent urgency of an atavistic survival mode present in all but the most extremely disturbed individuals, and while that should be acknowledged, it is not praise-worthy as other than a sort of devious cleverness which many a severely dysfunctional person comes up with in order to get by.

What is admirable about any one with any sort of disorder even vaguely like, can be stated in terms of how much they achieved _despite_ their disorder -- perhaps the genius part compelling them forward.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

trazom said:


> Beethoven was being mentored by the most successful and famous composer of the time and he was supported by by some of the richest families in the country. Also where did I say he had it "easy"? I said he had a greater safety net in Vienna, he had more connections, and was taking a smaller risk by acting towards authority the way he did. And Mozart's situation wasn't similar. His source of fame was primarily from his days as a prodigy and by the time he came to Vienna as an adult, he was largely forgotten, had to start promoting himself over again as a performer and composer through his piano concertos, did not have the secure source of income he had when while employed in Salzburg.


The first part of this is undoubtedly true. And due to his extraordinary talent, Beethoven could "get away with" behaving, as some felt, quite boorishly. I mean, were those Dukes at Teplitz going to throw him in prison? Not likely.

However, I choose to believe that the possible consequences of his unpleasantness would not have curbed him in any way. Certainly he could easily have lost the favor of Lichnowsky, Lobkowitz, or the Archbishop, with a considerable financial and social penalty that he could ill afford -- but that didn't slow him down!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Though the financial end of it diminished quickly enough, that 'lifetime stipend' given him by several higher up devotees in Vienna was unprecedented at the time: He was allowed to write "whatever he wanted" and to travel and have his works performed "wherever he wanted." The only stipulation being that he continued to compose, and keep his residence in Vienna.


Yes, the stipend bit is very interesting. It was offered because in his search for security he had *already accepted* the post of Kapellmeister to Napoleon's brother, which would have moved him far from Vienna. Mozart spent his whole life after Salzburg looking for such a permanent position but never found it, evidently because the circumstances of his leaving service there had gotten around and he wasn't considered a good candidate.

Moral: When you leave a job, always smile and say what a great guy the boss is. Always.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The first part of this is undoubtedly true. And due to his extraordinary talent, Beethoven could "get away with" behaving, as some felt, quite boorishly. I mean, were those Dukes at Teplitz going to throw him in prison? Not likely.
> 
> However, I choose to believe that the possible consequences of his unpleasantness would not have curbed him in any way. Certainly he could easily have lost the favor of Lichnowsky, Lobkowitz, or the Archbishop, with a considerable financial and social penalty that he could ill afford -- but that didn't slow him down!


Right. _Because he could not help himself on that front due to 'the disorder,' and one way or another, nose cut off to spite his face as one possibility, he would have gotten by._ The lionization really isn't necessary, since he was undoubtedly a great composer, and it would be nice if that lionization / canonization would stop... just think, his music might be better assessed and found that much less glossy glamorous and more deeply great without all the claptrap tinsel and banners draped all over it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Right. _Because he could not help himself on that front due to 'the disorder,' and one way or another, nose cut off to spite his face as one possibility, he would have gotten by_.


Well I suppose we all have a choice between laying Beethoven's behavior to deeply-held principles or, alternatively, a sad and uncontrolled pathology. I'll go with the one that makes better liner notes! BTW my choice is supported by his own statements and those of friends who were there...

Swafford's view BTW is simply that Beethoven was simply given to "outsize reactions," in this area as well as elsewhere.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

[Post Deleted]........


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Though he composed a fugue or two or three, Luigi's composite musical legacy in the overall musical timeline was one very big nail in the coffin of the further advance of homophony pushing polyphony into the backseat, then out of the moving vehicle.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Though the financial end of it diminished quickly enough, that 'lifetime stipend' given him by several higher up devotees in Vienna was unprecedented at the time: He was allowed to write "whatever he wanted" and to travel and have his works performed "wherever he wanted." The only stipulation being that he continued to compose, and keep his residence in Vienna.
> 
> Though that annual stipend of 4000 Florins a year (without any demand of so many works commissioned, even) soon dropped to far less than, to have that kind of contract, still bringing something in, saying what it said, must have been a huge safety net for this irascible composer -- a safety net not known by Mozart, and maybe only repeated much later with the lifetime stipend awarded Sibelius.
> 
> ...


But did he really have such a condition? Could it be that he simply saw the fallacy of his current era's delusional disposition, and he was fed up with it? It's a possibility that I could be romanticizing too much, but I also don't want to pin him down with... "oh, he was just crazy, but also a musical mastermind." There might be more to it than that.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> But did he really have such a condition? Could it be that he simply saw the fallacy of his current era's delusional disposition, and he was fed up with it? It's a possibility that I could be romanticizing too much, but I also don't want to pin him down with... "oh, he was just crazy, but also a musical mastermind." There might be more to it than that.


The way I see it, even if he had it "easy" with his patrons (he rarely did, he was essentially always on thin ice), or anything else that facilitated his lack of deference, or lessened its potential consequences. I'm not sure how that changes that it's something to admire. He wasn't some dumb brute that was oblivious to the fact that he wasn't kneeling before royalty. His enlightenment views and stances against absolute power aren't up for debate. He knew what he was doing, all that has been said is a very bizarre effort to diminish that fact.

So, let's postulate that he knew he could most likely get away with his lack of blind deference because of whatever the reason is. *So what*? He was that way regardless of the circumstances. It was because of his nature and character that he was this way, it's well documented in all of the biographies. I'm not interested in psychological conjecture of a dead composer, there are anecdotes, letters, accounts, scholarship on the matter (I'm not replying to you, just in general)

As far as the romanticization goes, there might be a little, but the facts are that he was _not _nobility, he was essentially "one of us". He had a "van" in his name and not a "von" which meant German nobility. He detested the very idea of the matter. He was kicked out of a Nobility Court House because it was discovered he wasn't actually nobility! The "Van" in his name only fooled them for so long. It didn't matter that he was Beethoven, the great composer with royal patrons and benefactors.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well I suppose we all have a choice between laying Beethoven's behavior to deeply-held principles or, alternatively, a sad and uncontrolled pathology. I'll go with the one that makes better liner notes! BTW my choice is supported by his own statements and those of friends who were there...
> 
> Swafford's view BTW is simply that Beethoven was simply given to "outsize reactions," in this area as well as elsewhere.


All the more pathetic if he was merely a pathological drama queen :-/


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Just a mild query. How could Beethoven's influence, assuming he had any, be a bad thing?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I tend to agree with the view that he suffered from plumbism - lead poisoning - rather than bipolar disorder.
But who knows?
Whatever, he was a genius, and his influence was good & in keeping with the zeitgeist.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Just a mild query. How could Beethoven's influence, assuming he had any, be a bad thing?


hpowders, that's a valid query.

What the article writer is attacking is an imagined Beethoven cultism (and not Beethoven's musical influence), as Vaneyes pointed out a few posts back.

That said, it was still an interesting read, I'm glad I read it. I agree with some of its points.



Vaneyes said:


> But then there wouldn't be any need for a convoluted column that eventually gets lost down an imaginary road of LvB cultism.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Just a mild query. How could Beethoven's influence, assuming he had any, be a bad thing?


Some possibilities: 1. He pretty much killed off improvisation as integral to performances, even in cadenzas.

2. He moved audiences from enjoyment of the music to adulation of the composer.

3. He increased the growing separation of "art music" from the rest of music and made it permanent.

4. He discouraged or inhibited many composers who followed, even up to the present. How would high-jumpers feel if somebody in the past had easily and repeatedly cleared twelve feet?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Some possibilities: 1. He pretty much killed off improvisation as integral to performances, even in cadenzas.
> 
> 2. He moved audiences from enjoyment of the music to adulation of the composer.
> 
> ...


There is a bit of truth in some of this I think, but I don't agree with number 4, in so far as Beethoven achieved any higher height than had already been achieved before him - it was just different. He excelled in certain areas and was out excelled in other areas by composers both before him and after him. Nobody will ever be able to express things musically in quite the same way as Beethoven - but the same can be said of any great composer. Great composers tend to find their own voice.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> There is a bit of truth in some of this I think, but I don't agree with number 4, in so far as Beethoven achieved any higher height than had already been achieved before him - it was just different.


Well, Brahms certainly agreed with number 4! But I put it in because Alex Ross mentions it in his article that started this thread, with reference to himself.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Well, Brahms certainly agreed with number 4! But I put it in because Alex Ross mentions it in his article that started this thread, with reference to himself.


Well I guess its fair to say that there is a grain of truth in all 4 points - but the high jump analogy didn't quite work for me. Again, I think all the "big" composers that come along will have some of the #4 effect on later composers. I'm not sure its really fair to single out Beethoven too much in this regard - I believe Brahms was also fairly intimidated by the works of J.S. Bach for example.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> Well I guess its fair to say that there is a grain of truth in all 4 points - but the high jump analogy didn't quite work for me. Again, I think all the "big" composers that come along will have some of the #4 effect on later composers. I'm not sure its really fair to single out Beethoven too much in this regard - I believe Brahms was also fairly intimidated by the works of J.S. Bach for example.


Well, I really wasn't singling out Beethoven as unique, just answering jpowders's query. But Bach, in fact, may be another example. Who, after him, even bothered trying to write "his kind" of music? I can think only of Shostakovich, and only once. I mean, you've got to have some massive cojones even to attempt that!


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Some possibilities: 1. He pretty much killed off improvisation as integral to performances, even in cadenzas.
> 
> 2. He moved audiences from enjoyment of the music to adulation of the composer.
> 
> ...


And by God if he didn't have the temerity to fix the length of the future CD so his last symphony would fit it
That Mahler chap didn't notice that one did he.


----------

