# Why don't I like Beethoven?



## Moesart

Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


----------



## CDs

Not everybody thinks he's the greatest but pretty much everyone thinks he is in the top 5. Some people will say Bach, Brahms, Mozart is the greatest. And I'm sure a lot of people would say many other composers are better than Beethoven. 
What classical music do you like? Maybe you just haven't heard the right piece by Beethoven.


----------



## GreenMamba

It's no sin to say you don't like him. 

Beethoven brings tremendous drama and energy to music, and at times great beauty. He was very good at conjuring this out of very basic themes.


----------



## Moesart

CDs said:


> Not everybody thinks he's the greatest but pretty much everyone thinks he is in the top 5. Some people will say Bach, Brahms, Mozart is the greatest. And I'm sure a lot of people would say many other composers are better than Beethoven.
> What classical music do you like? Maybe you just haven't heard the right piece by Beethoven.


I have heard (and regretfully own) all 9 sypmhonies, all 6 piano concertos, all 16 string quartets (plus the Grosse fugue), all 32 piano sonatas. I can not get my self to like or appreciate it at all. Could I have some idea why he is considered generally to be the best? I really don't see it. and what else should I hear that I haven't?


----------



## Weston

Almost everything he did was unexpected -- and still is on first listen if you're deeply immersed in it. It's those passages where he leads you along and you think he's going to resolve a phrase on the tonic or root chord as most others composers of the time did, but then goes off on a completely surprising tangent. Combine that with the headbanging thrust, Thrust, THRUST of his sforzando passages and he must have had people fainting in the aisles.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Casebearer

I'm not the biggest Beethoven fan myself but if you don't even like any of the string quartets you'd better just turn around and focus on what you do like. What do you like?


----------



## GreenMamba

I'm surprised you bought that much of his music if you don't like it (six piano concertos!).

If you don't like it, set it aside for now. Don't force yourself. If you want to know why he's considered great, that's another story. Weston gives you some of the answer. But no explanation matters if you don't like how it sounds.


----------



## Strange Magic

GreenMamba said:


> I'm surprised you bought that much of his music if you don't like it (six piano concertos!).


Just the very question I was about to ask. That elusive 6th concerto....


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven...what a tool! Deaf? Yeah, I'll bet, but it did pump up the box office. And what about that cello concerto that he "forgot" to write? Huh.


----------



## Weston

Strange Magic said:


> Just the very question I was about to ask. That elusive 6th concerto....


Surely this is just the violin concerto rewritten as a piano concerto. It's my second favorite Beethoven PC.


----------



## Moesart

Strange Magic said:


> Just the very question I was about to ask. That elusive 6th concerto....


Of course it was unfinished by there are recordings of it available.


----------



## Moesart

GreenMamba said:


> I'm surprised you bought that much of his music if you don't like it (six piano concertos!).


I brought some box sets of the symphonies and the piano sonatas together and collected the others on cd after that. It has been an investment I heavily regret, I may end up selling them off to get rid of them, unless someone is able to find me a love for it.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

You don't like Beethoven. From your posts, it doesn't seem like someone would be able "to find you a love for it". It's all right to move on.

Edit: To be honest, unlike others on this thread, I have no desire whatsoever to evangelize, much less to someone who creates a thread with the title you originally wrote (which the moderators had to clean up).


----------



## violadude

Moesart said:


> I have heard (and regretfully own) all 9 sypmhonies, all 6 piano concertos, all 16 string quartets (plus the Grosse fugue), all 32 piano sonatas. I can not get my self to like or appreciate it at all. Could I have some idea why he is considered generally to be the best? I really don't see it. and what else should I hear that I haven't?


Is there any of those pieces that seemed to stand out to you more than others? We can start from there.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

DiesIraeCX said:


> You don't like Beethoven. From your posts, it doesn't seem like someone would be able "to find you a love for it". It's all right to move on.
> 
> Edit: To be honest, unlike others on this thread, I have no desire whatsoever to evangelize, much less to someone who creates a thread with the title you originally wrote (which the moderators had to clean up).


Yes, I agree with your post very much.

One can have a complete palette of musical interests and tastes without liking Beethoven, even rejecting Beethoven. Indeed, without the bravery to trace a path that derives its greatness from completely un-Beethovenian means, we wouldn't have Chopin, Debussy, Cage, Feldman...

And of course, without the greatness of Beethoven, we wouldn't have Brahms, Mahler, and Schoenberg!


----------



## DaveM

I'm trying to figure out why one would buy all those Beethoven CDs if they didn't like anything about the music. Okay, I've just bought the CD's of the first 12 sonatas and I don't like any of them. I know, I'll go out and buy the next 20!


----------



## Pugg

Moesart said:


> Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


I think you should explain why he isn't a great composer. :devil:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Moesart said:


> I have heard (and regretfully own) all 9 sypmhonies, all 6 piano concertos, all 16 string quartets (plus the Grosse fugue), all 32 piano sonatas. I can not get my self to like or appreciate it at all. Could I have some idea why he is considered generally to be the best? I really don't see it. and what else should I hear that I haven't?


Try his Wellington Victory Symphony 

Well, if you've heard (but have you actually listened attentively? I cannot imagine anyone understanding the music and not liking it) all his symphonies, piano concertos, sonatas and string quartets and you don't like any of them, I'm afraid there isn't anything else that you are likely to like. You could try little (and famous) Fur Elise(but I'm sure you've heard it) or Septet for strings for something more immediately appealing but there is lots that is also immediately appealing in his symphonies and concertos.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Moesart said:


> I have heard (and regretfully own) all 9 sypmhonies, all 6 piano concertos, all 16 string quartets (plus the Grosse fugue), all 32 piano sonatas. I can not get my self to like or appreciate it at all. Could I have some idea why he is considered generally to be the best? I really don't see it. and what else should I hear that I haven't?


You are taking in way too much. Try focusing on one symphony for starters, perhaps the 4th. I really like Beethoven a lot but mostly his symphonies. I almost never listen to the string quartets or piano sonatas. I do like the violin concerto though.


----------



## tdc

SeptimalTritone said:


> Yes, I agree with your post very much.
> 
> One can have a complete palette of musical interests and tastes without liking Beethoven, even rejecting Beethoven. Indeed, without the bravery to trace a path that derives its greatness from completely un-Beethovenian means, we wouldn't have Chopin, Debussy, Cage, Feldman...
> 
> And of course, without the greatness of Beethoven, we wouldn't have Brahms, Mahler, and Schoenberg!


But we don't know what kind of composers we would have had without Beethoven. Maybe we would have had even greater composers if Beethoven did not exist. It is impossible to say.

Also you could use the same kind of reasoning for _any_ important composer. (ie - None of the great post-Renaissance composers we know could have existed without Palestrina etc.)

But it doesn't really tell us much since we only know about the world we exist in, and it doesn't address any of the merits of the music itself.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

tdc said:


> But we don't know what kind of composers we would have had without Beethoven. Maybe we would have had even greater composers if Beethoven did not exist. It is impossible to say.
> 
> Also you could use the same kind of reasoning for _any_ important composer. (ie - None of the great post-Renaissance composers we know could have existed without Palestrina etc.)
> 
> But it doesn't really tell us much since we only know about the world we exist in, and it doesn't address any of the merits of the music itself.


That's not the point I was trying to make.

I was merely saying that liking Beethoven isn't a requirement, and that there were great composers who really were "Beethovenish", and great composers who really weren't "Beethovenish".

I.e. there's no moral requirement to like Beethoven (or anyone else). Chopin, Debussy, and Cage didn't like him much. Brahms, Mahler, and Schoenberg liked him a lot. One is in good company no matter his or her liking of Beethoven.

That's all. Not that the world would be better/worse if Beethoven had or hadn't existed. I said nothing about that, and indeed, I only have a faint speculative idea of what would have been without Beethoven.


----------



## Becca

Strange Magic said:


> Just the very question I was about to ask. That elusive 6th concerto....


The Choral Fantasia ... however there is indeed a partly finished 6th piano concerto from 1814 with enough extant material that a reconstruction of it has been made.


----------



## tdc

SeptimalTritone said:


> That's not the point I was trying to make.
> 
> I was merely saying that liking Beethoven isn't a requirement, and that there were great composers who really were "Beethovenish", and great composers who really weren't "Beethovenish".
> 
> I.e. there's no moral requirement to like Beethoven (or anyone else). Chopin, Debussy, and Cage didn't like him much. Brahms, Mahler, and Schoenberg liked him a lot. One is in good company no matter his or her liking of Beethoven.
> 
> That's all. Not that the world would be better/worse if Beethoven had or hadn't existed. I said nothing about that, and indeed, I only have a faint speculative idea of what would have been without Beethoven.


Ok I got you, that makes more sense to me now, thank you for clarifying.

On a semi-related note I think sometimes people will end up liking composers that were directly influenced by other composers they don't like so much too, but in that case it is good to be aware and acknowledge that influence.

That said its clear that Beethoven had a lot of influence in the Romantic era, but that doesn't mean he deserves most of the credit for their accomplishments just as Haydn and CPE Bach don't deserve most of the credit for what Beethoven composed. (I'm not suggesting Septimal claimed this).


----------



## Haydn man

OK you don't like Beethoven
So what do you like?


----------



## Guest

He makes the sound of fate knocking on the door sound exactly like the sound made by fate knocking on the door - but only if you have a highly functional mind.

http://www.talkclassical.com/43735-music-genetic-what-post1073399.html#post1073399

For the rest of us who like music, the unsubtle Louis's relentless beating round the head with a rolled up newspaper, followed by dunking us gently in a warm bath is what we love.


----------



## DavidA

I lve Beethven because of the stirring she brings inside of us, which are a response to the stirrings he himself felt. He was probably the first composer to wea his heart on his sleeve in such a blatant fashion. His revolutionary treatment of nearly all the forms he attempted revolutionised the concept of music. Beethoven is up there with the three greats - Bach, Mozart and LvB. If you don't like him that's fine but I'm afraid your loss.


----------



## Nereffid

Moesart said:


> I have heard (and regretfully own) all 9 sypmhonies, all 6 piano concertos, all 16 string quartets (plus the Grosse fugue), all 32 piano sonatas. I can not get my self to like or appreciate it at all. Could I have some idea why he is considered generally to be the best? I really don't see it. and what else should I hear that I haven't?


Is it just that you simply wish to know why so many people think Beethoven is a great composer, or do you actually want to be persuaded? And if the latter, what kind of argument is likely to persuade you?

I've found from my own experience that merely being told that X is great, or that I'm listening the wrong way and should change my attitude/perspective, hasn't been enough to persuade me to change my taste. Such a change simply comes over time, if it comes at all. There's been a lot of music that I've grown to like over the years despite being unmoved by it for quite a while, but there's never been a "road to Damascus" moment, nor have I ever deliberately tried hard to change from disliking to liking something.

So my advice is: you don't like Beethoven at all; that's not an especially common thing among classical listeners, but not hugely unusual either; so accept it and move on. All listening is voluntary; you've lost nothing by not spending time on something you don't like.


----------



## Art Rock

CDs said:


> Not everybody thinks he's the greatest but pretty much everyone thinks he is in the top 5.


Not even that - I've seen plenty of top10 composers lists at TC without him.

Of course, overall, he is one of three most frequently mentioned names, but let's keep to the facts.


----------



## joen_cph

Becca said:


> The Choral Fantasia ... however there is indeed a partly finished 6th piano concerto from 1814 with enough extant material that a reconstruction of it has been made.


Works with a concertante piano also includes the juvenile 1784 complete concerto, a Rondo for piano & Orchestra which is quite OK, the piano version of the Violin Concerto, and another juvenile concerto opening movement, possibly by Rösler - plus the Triple Concerto.


----------



## juliante

All I can say is, that is an extraordinary feat of determination. I mean, I have loved Beethoven for about 7 years but there are about 15 piano sonatas and 4 string quartets I have not yet listened to. You must have a lot of time on your hands. I recommend focussing on activities you enjoy.


----------



## BoggyB

It could be a question of too high expectations. Let me tell you a story.

When I discovered the Classic FM Hall of Fame umpteen years ago, I saw that Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto - which I'd never heard - was at number one. Oh, I thought, so this is better than Beethoven's, Mozart's, Brahms's, Grieg's, and all the others. I listened to it some time later (radio, CD, internet, I don't remember) and I was unimpressed, finding it quite lame. But a couple of years later, I decided to give it another go with an open mind, forgetting about the opinions of Classic FM listeners (whom I noted were in love with The Lark Ascending, which I've never understood). I can report that I found it very good, and to this day rate it as one of the best piano concertos in the repetoire. It's well put together and nicely melodic, albeit perhaps a bit soppy.


----------



## Marinera

^
I second that,_but_ it can be also different kind of expectations, maybe his music doesn't mesh with your personality very well. 
A.Einstein wasn't too keen on Beethoven either, to quote him, he said : 'I feel uncomfortable listening to Beethoven. I think he is too personal, almost naked. Give me Bach rather, and then more Bach.'


----------



## EdwardBast

Haydn man said:


> OK you don't like Beethoven
> So what do you like?


This question is the right answer. We need a diagnosis before we can help you. Tell us what you like and then we might know whether or not it is worth the trouble.


----------



## Ukko

EdwardBast said:


> This question is the right answer. We need a diagnosis before we can help you. Tell us what you like and then we might know whether or not it is worth the trouble.


Hah. The OP got a thought stirring in my head, so it isn't a complete waste. I treat all nonvocal music 'effectually' i.e. it's all a matter of what it does in my head. Most classical music has length-with-links. The links are dependent on the effect of the music that precedes them. If the link is a hook, and it is preceded by a loop, no problem. If it's a hook the connection is chancy. If the link is a loop and the music preceding it is also a loop, there is no connection, and the music has a hiccup.

These hooks and loops are not present in the score, or even in the performance; they are in the 'mind music'. The listener has a partially volitionless influence in creating the mind music.

So, to sum up, If you "don't like Beethoven", it's because you are messing up the mind music.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

Nothing can make you appreciate music you've heard more than you already do except maybe time. Otherwise just listen to music you do enjoy. I've found most of my first impressions of pieces I've listened to have stayed the same throughout the years, so these days I only listen to them once before moving on. Then in a couple years I'll listen to it again to see if my opinions have changed.

That being said, if you really _want_ to like Beethoven when you don't, I'm sure other Talk Classical members could give you their reasons why they like him. For me it's the drama in his music. It always feels like his pieces are conflicts between stormy and light, and I want to hear how they unfold.


----------



## Vasks

It does not matter that the OP doesn't "get" Beethoven, *now*. But unless he/she is really old, one day he/she will.


----------



## arpeggio

All of us have a list of great composers we do not get.

We have had several threads where members discussed great composers we do not get.

A few years ago we had a thread that chastised Beethoven's _Ninth_.


----------



## CDs

Vasks said:


> It does not matter that the OP doesn't "get" Beethoven, *now*. But unless he/she is really old, one day he/she will.


They could just be trolling too. But even if they are just trolling it has been a very interesting thread.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

arpeggio said:


> All of us have a list of *great composers we do not get*.
> 
> We have had several threads where members discussed great composers we do not get.
> 
> A few years ago we had a thread that chastised Beethoven's _Ninth_.


Yes but not to the extreme that we do not like a single work of theirs. OP said he'd heard almost all of Beethoven's major works and liked none of them. There is so much variation in his symphonies, sonatas, concertos and string quartets that I find it really hard to fathom how one cannot find a single piece to their liking.

If one listens to the major works of any of the highly-regarded composers(let's not have a debate about who they are; Beethoven is certainly on that list), they are likely to find something to their liking. At least that is my experience but perhaps others have more rigid minds as far as musical likes and dislikes.


----------



## vallaths

He did initiate the romantic era in classical music, his style with its drama and energy opening up new ways of expression. That said I do prefer Bach (who I consider above all), Mozart and maybe even Chopin (whose style s from that inspired by Beethoven) but the influence of Beethoven, as well as the beauty of his many masterpieces, cant be disregarded.


----------



## DavidA

Frankly I can't see why anyone who likes beautiful music can't get the Pastoral Symphony. I can remember getting a vinyl record of it as a lad (for 10 shillings - 50p now!) and thinking Wow!


----------



## DaveM

This is a futile exercise. The man doesn't like Beethoven and having bought and listened to all the major works he should know why by now. Case closed.


----------



## KenOC

"Why don't I like Beethoven?"

Lot of answers to this sort of question have been suggested in the past: Severely inbred, mind-slave of the Krell, Beethoven doesn't bite the heads off bats in concert, and so forth. :devil:


----------



## arpeggio

Even though Beethoven is one of my favorite composers I have no problem with people who dislike like him. If a person dislikes Beethoven I seriously doubt that there is anything I can do to change their minds.


----------



## clavichorder

Ukko said:


> Hah. The OP got a thought stirring in my head, so it isn't a complete waste. I treat all nonvocal music 'effectually' i.e. it's all a matter of what it does in my head. Most classical music has length-with-links. The links are dependent on the effect of the music that precedes them. If the link is a hook, and it is preceded by a loop, no problem. If it's a hook the connection is chancy. If the link is a loop and the music preceding it is also a loop, there is no connection, and the music has a hiccup.
> 
> These hooks and loops are not present in the score, or even in the performance; they are in the 'mind music'. The listener has a partially volitionless influence in creating the mind music.
> 
> So, to sum up, If you "don't like Beethoven", it's because you are messing up the mind music.


This is one of the more cryptic posts of yours I've seen, at a glance. I will have to re-read it, because it seems interesting.


----------



## Ukko

clavichorder said:


> This is one of the more cryptic posts of yours I've seen, at a glance. I will have to re-read it, because it seems interesting.


The 'crypticism' is not deliberate, but a way of making an end run around my ignorance of the correct terminology. Music _may_ be considered to have three... modes of existence; on the paper, in the air, and in the mind. In a way, the mind has to translate the music as it receives it. Those hooks & loops are part of the job. If the mind can't get them done, you won't like Beethoven.

[Beethoven did, for me, cause an initial problem with how things fitted together; I managed to get useful connections pretty rapidly, as I recall. Mind you, my focus here is only on the hooks & loops. With Bartók, there were a lot more connections that my mind had to sort out, in the midst of the music.]


----------



## Haydn man

Moesart said:


> Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


Well Moesart, your thread has had a good few replies so far, any of them been any help to you?


----------



## Blancrocher

Moesart said:


> Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason.


This is a rare problem. Is it possible that you were at one time the member of an ultra-violent gang, and that after your incarceration the state subjected you to an operation that removed your desire for sex and violence but had the unintended side-effect of ruining any pleasure you might have in the works of Ludwig Van?


----------



## Boldertism

I think he's the best because of the way he makes me feel.


----------



## ArtMusic

Moesart said:


> Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


Give yourself some more time. I am 99% sure you will come to enjoy his music. He is one of the very greatest musical genius, ever.


----------



## arpeggio

Moesart is a smart guy. He can figure it out for himself. He does not need me to tell him whether or not he should like Beethoven.

I do not understand why some members can not respect his feelings concerning Beethoven.


----------



## MarkW

An interesting question but not one to fret about. No one came down from Mt., Sinai with a tablet that said you had to like Beethoven. I dislike asparagus and just about all contemporary pop music, but that doesn't make me a bad person. Make a list of the works you disliked least and come back to them in five years and see what happens. Then another five. And another, They'll either grow on you or they won't.


----------



## PlaySalieri

At last - an interesting thread on TC.

I must come back to this.


----------



## DavidA

arpeggio said:


> Moesart is a smart guy. He can figure it out for himself. He does not need me to tell him whether or not he should like Beethoven.
> 
> I do not understand why some members can not respect his feelings concerning Beethoven.


If he doesn't want our advice / opinion then why post in the first place?

Secondly it is not a matter of respect for him personally but rather disagreement with his feelings about LvB. I mean, if he is a smart guy, he would know that his OP was bound to stir some opinions up on a classical music forum. Maybe saying it on a Pop Idol forum might have been less controversial.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

You don't like Beethoven's music? Don't worry. Personally, I can't be doing with Mahler or Bruckner (Can I smell hot tar? And ... feathers??).
Enjoy the music that does 'speak' to you and occasionally dip into something new or something that you have previously rejected (yes, even Mahler...but maybe not Reger). 
People are different and so are their likes and dislikes. That may matter in religion or politics but not in music.


----------



## bharbeke

He may not be for you. If you want another suggestion of works to try of his, he wrote some fine cello sonatas and overtures.

In general, I do not recommend buying recordings until you have some more listening experience under your belt. You can easily listen on YouTube, Spotify, or other services at no monetary cost, and you can figure out what appeals to you. Recordings definitely vary, and what works for some will not work for others.

I am curious which CDs you got of Beethoven for your first listens. Are they ones with high acclaim like Carlos Kleiber's Symphony No. 5 and 7 disc?


----------



## TxllxT

Beethoven is hype. It's like entering a house: you think you're inside, but after entering you're still outside. Beethoven offers cold comfort. More or less the same nope - nothing - fake - Potemkin village experience I encounter while listening to Stravinsky.


----------



## Ukko

TxllxT said:


> Beethoven is hype. It's like entering a house: you think you're inside, but after entering you're still outside. Beethoven offers cold comfort. More or less the same nope - nothing - fake - Potemkin village experience I encounter while listening to Stravinsky.


Your mind music skills need work.


----------



## Atrahasis

*"Music is, for me, like a beautiful mosaic which God has put together. He takes all the pieces in his hand, throws them into the world, and we have to recreate the picture from the pieces." 
― Jean Sibelius*

Every composer grasped a piece of that mosaic of the univeres and of the music of the spheres, every composer contributed to the creation of our own mosaics! Beethoven like many other great composers helped the evolution of our music, isnt that enought? What is music? If you do not understand the meaning behind the music, dont blame Beethoven. And if you dont like the part of mosaic that Beethoven created, well, you always have the possibility to listen to other composers and to contemplate on other parts of the grand mosaic of music.

Beethoven was a genius. I will say no more.






P.S. Every part (even the smallest one) is very importan to create the whole mosaic!


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Beethoven is hype. It's like entering a house: you think you're inside, but after entering you're still outside. Beethoven offers cold comfort. More or less the same nope - nothing - fake - Potemkin village experience I encounter while listening to Stravinsky.


I just don't believe this!


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> I just don't believe this!


Compare it to someone who is constantly repeating: "I will make America great again!" The more often I hear this, the more America is apparently in trouble. Beethoven is surrounded by an inflationary bubble of hallowing, even God (Sibelius') is praising HIM. So I try to listen to HIM: Hmmm, ................. --------------------____________________??????????????????????


----------



## Atrahasis

You certanly know how to compare things. 
Everyone have their tastes, but some people have problems with hearing too.

It takes all sorts to make a world.


----------



## Mahlerian

Regardless of what anyone says, if you don't like Beethoven, there's nothing wrong with you or your ears. Beethoven was a great composer, but you shouldn't expect that you'll enjoy everything that's great. That's fine. Enjoy the works you enjoy.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Compare it to someone who is constantly repeating: "I will make America great again!" The more often I hear this, the more America is apparently in trouble. Beethoven is surrounded by an inflationary bubble of hallowing, even God (Sibelius') is praising HIM. So I try to listen to HIM: Hmmm, ................. --------------------____________________??????????????????????


Just a couple of small points you appear to have missed:
(i) Most of us who admire Beethoven the composer don't hallow him - he was a genius but a man - we just enjoy his music. He wasn't actually that nice a man.
(ii) Sibelius is not God - he was also (like Beethoven) very human.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Regardless of what anyone says, if you don't like Beethoven, there's nothing wrong with you or your ears.


Absolutely right. If you dislike Beethoven, that's perfectly normal. Absolutely normal, nothing to worry about. And of course there are treatments available, some of which may be covered by ACA-compliant health care policies.


----------



## MarkW

Also, you're going about it completely wrong. Beethoven was great because of what he did within individual works. To listen through 32 piano sonatas, 9 symphonies, 16 quartets, etc. is to lose sight of the trees for the forest. (If you tried to do that with Vivaldi, you'd wind up shooting yourself -- even though a couple of his works are quite good).


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> (i) Most of us who admire Beethoven the composer don't hallow him - he was a genius but a man - we just enjoy his music.


Quite right. Now you'll have to excuse me. I need to tidy up my Beethoven shrine before making the evening offerings.


----------



## tdc

TxllxT said:


> Beethoven is hype. It's like entering a house: you think you're inside, but after entering you're still outside. Beethoven offers cold comfort. More or less the same nope - nothing - fake - Potemkin village experience I encounter while listening to Stravinsky.


This mirrors to some extent my experience with both composers as well. I've never really connected the two though, because they are so different. In my mind Stravinsky's strengths are more vertical, and Beethoven's horizontal, but both seem to lack something internal (in my subjective listening experience). Yet I can also sense there is some genius in both.

Sometimes I read people on this site claiming they have a hard time appreciating Bach because something about the music seems too religious or uptight. (Bach is my favorite composer) But I have a similar problem with Beethoven, the very tone of his musical statements seems 'off' to me.

I recently listened to Beethoven's 5th and I thought 'boy this would be really exhilarating if I could let myself go into the atmosphere of this music' but somehow I can't fully enter into it, because I am not able to believe Beethoven. His musical arguments come across to me as those of a gifted car salesman - well crafted perhaps but ultimately there is just too much hot air in there.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Quite right. Now you'll have to excuse me. I need to tidy up my Beethoven shrine before making the evening offerings.


Years ago the place I was teaching at the time was offered the record collection of a gentleman who had died. There was quite a sizeable record collection of LPs (these were pre-digital days) mainly of Beethoven but the feature was a music room made out as a shrine to the great composer. A case of admiration going slightly over the top. The widow said she was glad to get rid of the records as she was sick of hearing them!


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Years ago the place I was teaching at the time was offered the record collection of a gentleman who had died. There was quite a sizeable record collection of LPs (these were pre-digital days) mainly of Beethoven but the feature was a music room made out as a shrine to the great composer. A case of admiration going slightly over the top. *The widow said she was glad to get rid of the records as she was sick of hearing them!*


Poor chap - I know the feeling - as I have a wife who wont listen to Mozart.
If you are strongly devoted to a composer the only way to live is with another devotee of the same.
I have spent the last 15 years of my life meditating on this truth.


----------



## TxllxT

tdc said:


> This mirrors to some extent my experience with both composers as well. I've never really connected the two though, because they are so different. In my mind Stravinsky's strengths are more vertical, and Beethoven's horizontal, but both seem to lack something internal (in my subjective listening experience). Yet I can also sense there is some genius in both.
> 
> Sometimes I read people on this site claiming they have a hard time appreciating Bach because something about the music seems too religious or uptight. (Bach is my favorite composer) But I have a similar problem with Beethoven, the very tone of his musical statements seems 'off' to me.
> 
> I recently listened to Beethoven's 5th and I thought 'boy this would be really exhilarating if I could let myself go into the atmosphere of this music' but somehow I can't fully enter into it, because I am not able to believe Beethoven. His musical arguments come across to me as those of a gifted car salesman - well crafted perhaps but ultimately there is just too much hot air in there.


Why do Beethoven and that skyscraper bloke seem comparable to me? It's this mix: lack of substance being substituted with plenty of sweet nothings. I suggest him to dump the Rolling Stones & Adele and to have the ode to joy being played solemnly instead. As to Sibelius, I was referring to Sibelius*' *God, i.e. the God of Sibelius, who Sibelius himself regards as a sweet nothing.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> This mirrors to some extent my experience with both composers as well. I've never really connected the two though, because they are so different. In my mind Stravinsky's strengths are more vertical, and Beethoven's horizontal, but both seem to lack something internal (in my subjective listening experience). Yet I can also sense there is some genius in both.
> 
> Sometimes I read people on this site claiming they have a hard time appreciating Bach because something about the music seems too religious or uptight. (Bach is my favorite composer) But I have a similar problem with Beethoven, the very tone of his musical statements seems 'off' to me.
> 
> I recently listened to Beethoven's 5th and I thought 'boy this would be really exhilarating if I could let myself go into the atmosphere of this music' but somehow I can't fully enter into it, because I am not able to believe Beethoven. His musical arguments come across to me as those of a gifted car salesman - well crafted perhaps but ultimately there is just too much hot air in there.


As a lover of both Bach and Beethoven, I can understand that musical representatives of such different, almost opposite, eras and sensibilities would not appeal equally to everyone. Yet in terms of his own aesthetic, Beethoven doesn't lack anything "internal." It's just that your innards don't resemble his innards. Those whose do, find in him a traversal of human experience as wide as that of any composer, and wider than most. When I first heard his late quartets at the age of 15 or so I was convinced that I was listening to some of music's ultimate expressions. Fifty years later I haven't changed my mind.

No one is wrong to dislike any music (even Bach, baffling as that may seem to you or me), but neither Beethoven's music nor the widespread veneration of it are, as Txllxt calls them, "hype."

A gifted car salesman? Generations of music lovers are happily driving that car!


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Why do Beethoven and that skyscraper bloke seem comparable to me? It's this mix: lack of substance being substituted with plenty of sweet nothings. I suggest him to dump the Rolling Stones & Adele and to have the ode to joy being played solemnly instead. As to Sibelius, I was referring to Sibelius*' *God, i.e. the God of Sibelius, who Sibelius himself regards as a sweet nothing.


Now you're talkng compketely in riddles!


----------



## DaveM

DavidA said:


> Now you're talkng compketely in riddles!


No, it's worse than that: Comparisons of Beethoven to Trump (now mentioned twice) is just silliness. Someone needs a reality check.


----------



## amfortas

*Why don't I like this thread?*

Everybody says it's the greatest thread ever written but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes it better than every other thread that has ever been written before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


----------



## CDs

amfortas said:


> *Why don't I like this thread?*
> 
> Everybody says it's the greatest thread ever written but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes it better than every other thread that has ever been written before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


Well if you read post #22 again you will see its beauty and how it transformed this thread and every thread thereafter. If you don't see how well written that post is then nothing can be done for you and you need to have your head examined. :tiphat:


----------



## GraemeG

I think the OP is just trolling.
GG


----------



## tdc

TxllxT said:


> Why do Beethoven and that skyscraper bloke seem comparable to me? It's this mix: lack of substance being substituted with plenty of sweet nothings. I suggest him to dump the Rolling Stones & Adele and to have the ode to joy being played solemnly instead. As to Sibelius, I was referring to Sibelius*' *God, i.e. the God of Sibelius, who Sibelius himself regards as a sweet nothing.


I gave this post a 'like' not because I fully understand it, but because I think I agree with its essence.


----------



## TxllxT

DaveM said:


> No, it's worse than that: Comparisons of Beethoven to Trump (now mentioned twice) is just silliness. Someone needs a reality check.


I'm not comparing Beethoven to Trump, but comparing Beethoven to someone who gets to the forefront with being cleverish: smart in a superficial way.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> I'm not comparing Beethoven to Trump, but comparing Beethoven to someone who gets to the forefront with being cleverish: smart in a superficial way.


I don't know whether to laugh or cry!


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> I don't know whether to laugh or cry!


You see, the comparison with ... fits: with ... I don't know whether to laugh or cry!!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

TxllxT said:


> I'm not comparing Beethoven to Trump, but comparing Beethoven to someone who gets to the forefront with being cleverish: smart in a superficial way.


If you think Beethoven's music is superficial, you lose all credibility on the subject.


----------



## TxllxT

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If you think Beethoven's music is superficial, you lose all credibility on the subject.


Smart in a superficial way is something else than superficial.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

TxllxT said:


> Smart in a superficial way is something else than superficial.


Help me understand by giving a concrete example.


----------



## Woodduck

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Help me understand by giving a concrete example.


I'd like to see some examples too. _Wellington's Victory_ doesn't count.


----------



## Nereffid

For some reason this reminds me of the old joke about _Hamlet_ being a disappointment because it was full of clichés.
Not a valid criticism of the play, but perhaps an acceptable explanation for not liking it.


----------



## TxllxT

From the very start I feel like a door being rudely shut right into my face. Behind that shut door the orchestra plays on, but I cannot enter, am not allowed to enter.






From the very start I feel like being welcome. No rudeness at all, just magic!


----------



## GreenMamba

Those chords do sound like doors slamming (perhaps). But how does that make it superficial (or "smart in a superficial way")? And why aren't you allowed to enter? How does the metaphor play out that way? Surely you can keep listening and see where he goes with it.


----------



## DavidA

Just seen a programme about Beethoven's 5th with John Elliot Gardiner and Ian Hislop. Incredibly complex work. I'd say (whether you like the work or not) that anyone who calls it 'smart in a superficial way' has either a problem with the English language or a problem grasping revolutionary pieces of music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

TxllxT said:


> From the very start I feel like a door being rudely shut right into my face. Behind that shut door the orchestra plays on, but I cannot enter, am not allowed to enter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the very start I feel like being welcome. No rudeness at all, just magic!


The beethoven symphonies are great - but I also would rather sit down and listen to the berlioz.


----------



## CDs

I love how this thread all got started because some new member was just trolling. But however it got started it has been a very interesting thread to read.
If you, like *TxllxT* put it, "feel like a door being rudely shut right into my face" then by all means don't listen to that piece or composer. No need to explain.
There are many composers I don't "feel" and I'm OK with that because there are many I do "feel". But I am curious as to why people like music I do not and I will ask questions to see if I'm just missing something. But even after that I still don't like that composer or piece I just move on with no disdain for the other person. It's what makes life interesting! 
I do love discovering new music and genres that I will give the composer another try later down the road to see if my "feelings" have changed.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> From the very start I feel like a door being rudely shut right into my face. Behind that shut door the orchestra plays on, but I cannot enter, am not allowed to enter.


If that opening is a door, Beethoven is simultaneously shutting it on the past and opening it on the future. It isn't an invitation. It's a challenge. The exultant bang of it never intimidated me (or Berlioz). Bernstein once pointed out that, depending on the tempo chosen, those two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in. We aren't "allowed" to enter; we're already in - unless we're determined not to be.


----------



## metalbiff

Oh its a sin! jk


----------



## metalbiff

Im curious to hear your opinion on his contemporaries. Most composers are influenced by him. Its kinda like saying you don't like Chuck Berry but your really into rock and roll


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> If that opening is a door, Beethoven is simultaneously shutting it on the past and opening it on the future. It isn't an invitation. It's a challenge. The exultant bang of it never intimidated me (or Berlioz). Bernstein once pointed out that, depending on the tempo chosen, those two explosive chord could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in. We aren't "allowed" to enter; we're already in - unless we're determined not to be.


That's the difference: you play the rude banging down & transform it into a propelling force. I just feel rudeness (just like that you know who). Beethoven crossed the border of gentleness.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

TxllxT said:


> That's the difference: you play the rude banging down & transform it into a propelling force. I just feel rudeness (just like that you know who). Beethoven crossed the border of gentleness.


Why is it that Woodduck is the one who is doing the "transforming"? Why is your interpretation the correct one which Wooduck must transform? What's wrong with crossing the border of "gentleness"? (Whatever that actually means). What is rudeness in music?

What Beethoven does with such bare elements is one of the definitions of subtlety in music. Especially in the Eroica, to say nothing of his late works.


----------



## gardibolt

I could answer but it would violate the ToS.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> That's the difference: you play the rude banging down & transform it into a propelling force. I just feel rudeness (just like that you know who). Beethoven crossed the border of gentleness.


You don't have to play anything down. You just have to play it at Beethoven's metronome marking, and the propulsive power of it is irresistible. One! - Two! - GO! No, it isn't gentle. It's called "Eroica"! But his oeuvre taken as a whole is full of the most generous and consoling gentleness. Listen to the slow movements of the greater proportion of his works, and especially to the chamber and piano music: the piano sonatas, the cello sonatas, the violin sonatas, the quartets... Beethoven is large: his work runs the gamut, and incessantly creates new gamuts to run. About few composers is it harder to generalize. If you feel that his "rudeness" shuts you out, you aren't listening to the right stuff.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> You don't have to play anything down. You just have to play it at Beethoven's metronome marking, and the propulsive power of it is irresistible. One! - Two! - GO! No, it isn't gentle. It's called "Eroica"! But his oeuvre taken as a whole is full of the most generous and consoling gentleness. Listen to the slow movements of the greater proportion of his works, and especially to the chamber and piano music: the piano sonatas, the cello sonatas, the violin sonatas, the quartets... Beethoven is large: his work runs the gamut, and incessantly creates new gamuts to run. About few composers is it harder to generalize. If you feel that his "rudeness" shuts you out, you aren't listening to the right stuff.


Your argumentation follows the composer, I'm just a listener, who feels maltreated. Eroica is trampling gentleness.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Mahlerian said:


> Regardless of what anyone says, if you don't like Beethoven, there's nothing wrong with you or your ears. Beethoven was a great composer, but you shouldn't expect that you'll enjoy everything that's great. That's fine. Enjoy the works you enjoy.


In fact, there are people who don't like "classical" music at all. They prefer ... er, country western songs, or dance divas "hits", or ... Justin Bieber ... polkas ... rap! And there's nothing wrong with them. Sure there isn't!


----------



## Barbebleu

In response to the original OP - Who knows? Who cares? I, like many others, admire and enjoy his music but many others don't. That's the way the mop flops.


----------



## DaveM

TxllxT said:


> Your argumentation follows the composer, I'm just a listener, who feels maltreated. Eroica is trampling gentleness.


Okay, so you have a persecution complex. Don't blame it on Beethoven. Yes, no one is obligated to like Beethoven, but if you have all these issues of feeling rudeness, maltreated and shut out, that's not his fault. Not to mention that comparing the Beethoven Eroica with Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique is apples and oranges.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Your argumentation follows the composer, I'm just a listener, who feels maltreated. Eroica is trampling gentleness.


I don't think you have ever realised the point. Eroica is the music of revolution and is therefore SUPPOSED not to be gentle. There is no need for you to feel maltreated. Just don't listen to it rather than adopt that martyred attitude!


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> I don't think you have ever realised the point. Eroica is the music of revolution and is therefore SUPPOSED not to be gentle. There is no need for you to feel maltreated. Just don't listen to it rather than adopt that martyred attitude!


I will never bow to Napoleon and his revolution.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> Your argumentation follows the composer, I'm just a listener, who feels maltreated. Eroica is trampling gentleness.


Well, if all you need is a hug, just say so. Here...

:kiss:

Feel better?


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> I will never bow to Napoleon and his revolution.


You are the champion at missing the point! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

I will never bow to those who refuse to bow to Napoleon and his glorious revolution! As for Beethoven, he "received an offer from Napoleon's brother Jérôme Bonaparte, then king of Westphalia, for a well-paid position as Kapellmeister at the court in Cassel." He accepted, but reneged when offered a generous lifetime stipend that required nothing of him but to remain in Vienna and its environs.

Must have been nice to have that kind of negotiating leverage!


----------



## Nereffid

KenOC said:


> I will never bow to those who refuse to bow to Napoleon and his glorious revolution! As for Beethoven, he "received an offer from Napoleon's brother Jérôme Bonaparte, then king of Westphalia, for a well-paid position as Kapellmeister at the court in Cassel." He accepted, but reneged when offered a generous lifetime stipend that required nothing of him but to remain in Vienna and its environs.
> 
> Must have been nice to have that kind of negotiating leverage!


He must have read _The Art of the Deal_.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Beethoven may not be the greatest one considering JS Bach, but he is surely among the top by any standard. I think it's perfectly OK for someone to say that he doesn't like Beethoven at all. He was great not because his music can amuse everyone, but because it revolutionized the way of making music, and enlightened generations of musicians.
It will take too long to elaborate on the statement, and I can not make it as clear as professional composers do in their books, which is easily accessible in a library. Frankly speaking, I myself can not quite understand some of his most abysmal pieces, like the Grosse Fugue, as it is too technically complicated to me. But I did heard at least two of my friends who majored in conducting and musical composition said that this piece represents THE CULMINATION of the entire western music. I wish I could be able to finally figure it out in my lifetime.
Anyway, as amateurs, we enjoy what we understand. No problem with it.


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> You are the champion at missing the point! :lol:


At the start of Eroica Beethoven makes the orchestra sound like a firing squad. Well, of course there always will be people who blindly love militarism & imperialism & bowing to Napoleon.


----------



## KenOC

Er...firing squads typically shoot once.


----------



## TxllxT

KenOC said:


> Er...firing squads typically shoot once.


Look at Napoleonic times: one group kneels & shoots, another stands & shoots, a third is busy with reloading...


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> At the start of Eroica Beethoven makes the orchestra sound like a firing squad. Well, of course there always will be people who blindly love militarism & imperialism & bowing to Napoleon.


Oh you are hilarious! :lol: Please read some history instead of putting your own fond fancies down!


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Oh you are hilarious! :lol: Please read some history instead of putting your own fond fancies down!


From Wikipedia, hilarious reading:
Beethoven originally dedicated the third symphony to Napoleon Bonaparte, who he believed embodied the democratic and anti-monarchical ideals of the* French Revolution*. In autumn of 1804, Beethoven withdrew his dedication of the third symphony to Napoleon, lest it cost the composer's fee paid him by a royal patron; so, Beethoven re-dedicated his third symphony to Prince Joseph Franz Maximilian Lobkowitz - nonetheless, *despite such a bread-and-butter consideration*, the politically idealistic Beethoven titled the work "Buonaparte".[4] Later, about the composer's response to Napoleon having proclaimed himself Emperor of the French (14 May 1804), Beethoven's secretary, Ferdinand Ries said that:

Bonaparte, First Consul, by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

The composer Ferdinand Ries (1784-1838) friend, pupil, and secretary to Ludwig van Beethoven
In writing this symphony, Beethoven had been thinking of Buonaparte, but Buonaparte while he was First Consul. At that time Beethoven had the highest esteem for him, and compared him to the greatest consuls of Ancient Rome. Not only I, but many of Beethoven's closer friends, saw this symphony on his table, beautifully copied in manuscript, with the word "Buonaparte" inscribed at the very top of the title-page and "Ludwig van Beethoven" at the very bottom ...

I was the first to tell him the news that Buonaparte had declared himself Emperor, whereupon he broke into a rage and exclaimed, *"So he is no more than a common mortal!* Now, too, he will tread under foot all the rights of Man, indulge only his ambition; now he will think himself superior to all men, become a tyrant!" Beethoven went to the table, seized the top of the title-page, tore it in half and threw it on the floor. The page had to be recopied, and it was only now that the symphony received the title Sinfonia eroica.[5]

An extant copy of the score bears two scratched-out, hand-written sub-titles; initially, the Italian phrase Intitolata Bonaparte ("Titled Bonaparte"), secondly, the German phrase Geschriben auf Bonaparte ("Written for Bonaparte"), four lines below the Italian sub-title. Three months after retracting his initial Napoleonic dedication of the symphony, Beethoven informed his music publisher that "The title of the symphony is really Bonaparte". In 1806, the score was published under the Italian title Sinfonia Eroica ... composta per festeggiare il sovvenire di un grande Uomo ("Heroic Symphony, Composed to celebrate the memory of a great man").[6]

When informed of the death of Napoleon (5 May 1821), Beethoven said, "I wrote the music for this sad event seventeen years ago"[citation needed], referring to the funereal second movement. Composed from the autumn of 1803 until the spring of 1804, the premiere performance of the third symphony was private - for Beethoven's royal patron, Prince Lobkowitz, at the castle Eisenberg (Jezeří) in Bohemia. The first public performance was on 7 April 1805, at the Theater an der Wien, Vienna; for which concert the announced (theoretical) key for the symphony was Dis (D-sharp major, 9 sharps).[7]

Actually, the Lobkovich palace in Roudnice nad Labem houses the military conservatory of the Czech Republic.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> From Wikipedia, hilarious reading:
> Beethoven originally dedicated the third symphony to Napoleon Bonaparte, who he believed embodied the democratic and anti-monarchical ideals of the* French Revolution*. In autumn of 1804, Beethoven withdrew his dedication of the third symphony to Napoleon, lest it cost the composer's fee paid him by a royal patron; so, Beethoven re-dedicated his third symphony to Prince Joseph Franz Maximilian Lobkowitz - nonetheless, *despite such a bread-and-butter consideration*, the politically idealistic Beethoven titled the work "Buonaparte".[4] Later, about the composer's response to Napoleon having proclaimed himself Emperor of the French (14 May 1804), Beethoven's secretary, Ferdinand Ries said that:
> 
> Bonaparte, First Consul, by Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres
> 
> The composer Ferdinand Ries (1784-1838) friend, pupil, and secretary to Ludwig van Beethoven
> In writing this symphony, Beethoven had been thinking of Buonaparte, but Buonaparte while he was First Consul. At that time Beethoven had the highest esteem for him, and compared him to the greatest consuls of Ancient Rome. Not only I, but many of Beethoven's closer friends, saw this symphony on his table, beautifully copied in manuscript, with the word "Buonaparte" inscribed at the very top of the title-page and "Ludwig van Beethoven" at the very bottom ...
> 
> I was the first to tell him the news that Buonaparte had declared himself Emperor, whereupon he broke into a rage and exclaimed, *"So he is no more than a common mortal!* Now, too, he will tread under foot all the rights of Man, indulge only his ambition; now he will think himself superior to all men, become a tyrant!" Beethoven went to the table, seized the top of the title-page, tore it in half and threw it on the floor. The page had to be recopied, and it was only now that the symphony received the title Sinfonia eroica.[5]
> 
> An extant copy of the score bears two scratched-out, hand-written sub-titles; initially, the Italian phrase Intitolata Bonaparte ("Titled Bonaparte"), secondly, the German phrase Geschriben auf Bonaparte ("Written for Bonaparte"), four lines below the Italian sub-title. Three months after retracting his initial Napoleonic dedication of the symphony, Beethoven informed his music publisher that "The title of the symphony is really Bonaparte". In 1806, the score was published under the Italian title Sinfonia Eroica ... composta per festeggiare il sovvenire di un grande Uomo ("Heroic Symphony, Composed to celebrate the memory of a great man").[6]
> 
> When informed of the death of Napoleon (5 May 1821), Beethoven said, "I wrote the music for this sad event seventeen years ago"[citation needed], referring to the funereal second movement. Composed from the autumn of 1803 until the spring of 1804, the premiere performance of the third symphony was private - for Beethoven's royal patron, Prince Lobkowitz, at the castle Eisenberg (Jezeří) in Bohemia. The first public performance was on 7 April 1805, at the Theater an der Wien, Vienna; for which concert the announced (theoretical) key for the symphony was Dis (D-sharp major, 9 sharps).[7]
> 
> Actually, the Lobkovich palace in Roudnice nad Labem houses the military conservatory of the Czech Republic.


Now please read the article you have quoted. Beethoven scratched out the dedication to Napoleon in a rage after hearing Napoleon had betrayed the cause Beethoven admired him for. The symphony is about Napoleon but the idealised picture in Beethoven's mind of the common man who rose to greatness not the man who became a dictator.


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Now please read the article you have quoted. Beethoven scratched out the dedication to Napoleon in a rage after hearing Napoleon had betrayed the cause Beethoven admired him for. The symphony is about Napoleon but the idealised picture in Beethoven's mind of the common man who rose to greatness not the man who became a dictator.


Is Napoleon (ideally) presented in Beethoven's music or not? That's the question. And that's something you cannot scratch away.


----------



## Bulldog

TxllxT said:


> At the start of Eroica Beethoven makes the orchestra sound like a firing squad. Well, of course there always will be people who blindly love militarism & imperialism & bowing to Napoleon.


Among other things, music reflects the emotional foundation of people. There is a lot of militaristic music because humans have militaristic traits. One doesn't have to like it, but don't be surprised by its prevalence. Personally, some of this music makes me think of invading foreign lands.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Is Napoleon (ideally) presented in Beethoven's music or not? That's the question. And that's something you cannot scratch away.


Of course Napoleon is in the mysic. An idealised one as I told you.


----------



## TxllxT

Bulldog said:


> Among other things, music reflects the emotional foundation of people. There is a lot of militaristic music because humans have militaristic traits. One doesn't have to like it, but don't be surprised by its prevalence. Personally, some of this music makes me think of invading foreign lands.


I have the same feeling that this music is imperialistic. I don't mean this pejoratively, but just to understand its meaning.


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Of course Napoleon is in the mysic. An idealised one as I told you.


I'm not a musicologist. I'm interested in classical music first and foremost for listening & enjoyment. But tell me, if Napoleon is in the music, does this make the music imperialistic, is this the inner drive of the music?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

It is just an allegro con brio written in a way to conjure up heroic feelings in the listener. There is no evidence that Beethoven had Napoleon in mind when he wrote the music; only evidence is that when he finished, he thought of dedicating it to him but then changed his mind.

As Toscanini famously (or perhaps not so famously) said: ""To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle. To me it is allegro con brio"


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> *I'm not a musicologist. *I'm interested in classical music first and foremost for listening & enjoyment. But tell me, if Napoleon is in the music, does this make the music imperialistic, is this the inner drive of the music?


That is obvious! :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

TxllxT said:


> Is Napoleon (ideally) presented in Beethoven's music or not? That's the question. And that's something you cannot scratch away.


That's your question; it doesn't matter to me. Actually, I'm not even a fan of the Eroica.

You're not the only person on the board who appears to have a problem with music that might be considered on the militaristic side. Is there are virus going around?


----------



## Woodduck

If the Eroica was a portrait of Napoleon, he might have pointed out that the news of his death was greatly exaggerated.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Bulldog said:


> That's your question; it doesn't matter to me. Actually, *I'm not even a fan of the Eroica.*
> 
> You're not the only person on the board who appears to have a problem with music that might be considered on the militaristic side. Is there are virus going around?









aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## KenOC

Before feeling all militaristic and trying to march off to war to the first movement of the Eroica, you might notice it's in waltz time. Difficult to march unless you have three legs.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

KenOC said:


> Before feeling all militaristic and trying to march off to war to the first movement of the Eroica, you might notice it's in waltz time. *Difficult to march unless you have three legs*.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## TxllxT

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It is just an allegro con brio written in a way to conjure up heroic feelings in the listener. There is no evidence that Beethoven had Napoleon in mind when he wrote the music; only evidence is that when he finished, he thought of dedicating it to him but then changed his mind.
> 
> As Toscanini famously (or perhaps not so famously) said: ""To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle. To me it is allegro con brio"


L'art pour l'art, and merely 'dedication': what if Beethoven didn't dedicate it, but wanted to become Napoleon himself... in musical terms of course, but just as imperialistic. To read about his heel licking attitude towards the real guy is making me repeat: smart in a superficial way, hype & clever salesmanship.


----------



## EdwardBast

TxllxT said:


> L'art pour l'art, and merely 'dedication': what if Beethoven didn't dedicate it, but wanted to become Napoleon himself... in musical terms of course, but just as imperialistic. To read about his heel licking attitude towards the real guy is making me repeat: *smart in a superficial way, hype & clever salesmanship*.


What nonsense! You (and tdc) are listening to Beethoven with an 18thc sensibility and you have gotten it backwards. "Smart in a superficial way" precisely describes the aesthetic ideal of the previous generation and it is what Beethoven spent his whole career overturning. In 1776 Charles Burney defined this sensibility when he described music as "an innocent luxury, unnecessary, indeed, to our existence, but a great improvement and gratification to the sense of hearing." As Mozart put it a few years later in a letter to his father about some of his mature concertos: "Passions, violent or not, must never be expressed to the point of disgust, and music must never offend the ear … but must always be pleasing. … These concertos are a healthy medium between what is too easy and too difficult, they are brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and natural, without being vapid." This is why Mozart wrote only two concertos and two symphonies in the minor mode: avoiding "violent passions" that might "offend the ear." Being clever and ingratiating and demanding no deep thought of the audience. By and large Mozart and Haydn's instrumental works are about grace and balance, a world of ideal form and continuity. That is the aesthetics of the smart and superficial!

Beethoven's Eroica is an assault on the superficial. To make sense of its first movement's structure one must follow how oppositions in the initial theme play out over sixteen minutes of music. It takes a far greater attention span and concentration than the music of the previous generation. Those going for smart and superficial effects don't spend years sketching and revising their ideas as Beethoven did. They don't invent entirely new structural principles their contemporaries will take decades to comprehend (or in the case of some listeners, apparently, more than two centuries to misapprehend!). Beethoven's music is about life, and like Shakespeare's art, fuses the tragic and comic and reflects conflicts and contradictions that go to the depths of human experience. To judge the Eroica as smart and superficial proves only that the symphony remains beyond ones comprehension.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> What nonsense! You (and tdc) are listening to Beethoven with an 18thc sensibility and you have gotten it backwards. "Smart in a superficial way" precisely describes the aesthetic ideal of the previous generation and it is what Beethoven spent his whole career overturning. In 1776 Charles Burney defined this sensibility when he described music as "an innocent luxury, unnecessary, indeed, to our existence, but a great improvement and gratification to the sense of hearing." As Mozart put it a few years later in a letter to his father about some of his mature concertos: "Passions, violent or not, must never be expressed to the point of disgust, and music must never offend the ear … but must always be pleasing. … These concertos are a healthy medium between what is too easy and too difficult, they are brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and natural, without being vapid." This is why Mozart wrote only two concertos and two symphonies in the minor mode: avoiding "violent passions" that might "offend the ear." Being clever and ingratiating and demanding no deep thought of the audience. By and large Mozart and Haydn's instrumental works are about grace and balance, a world of ideal form and continuity. That is the aesthetics of the smart and superficial!
> 
> Beethoven's Eroica is an assault on the superficial. To make sense of its first movement's structure one must follow how oppositions in the initial theme play out over sixteen minutes of music. It takes a far greater attention span and concentration than the music of the previous generation. Those going for smart and superficial effects don't spend years sketching and revising their ideas as Beethoven did. They don't invent entirely new structural principles their contemporaries will take decades to comprehend (or in the case of some listeners, apparently, more than two centuries to misapprehend!). Beethoven's music is about life, and like Shakespeare's art, fuses the tragic and comic and reflects conflicts and contradictions that go to the depths of human experience. To judge the Eroica as smart and superficial proves only that the symphony remains beyond ones comprehension.


He was excellent with form and he was popular for a classical composer. I think that is really all he excelled at. In other areas I think he was outclassed by composers both before him and after him. I'll never believe his music is somehow deeper than Bach or Mozart's. Maybe if you think bigger, longer and louder equals deeper. I don't.

I'm more interested in composers who focus(ed) on beauty and things like subtle use of orchestration, harmony and counterpoint. Beethoven was average (compared to other great composers) in these areas to my ears (and people like Bernstein's), so no matter how many loud violent blasts he creates, or flashy runs - or even his genius ways of developing his themes - these things don't interest me much, because his general harmonic language too often sounds ugly, flashy or just too plain Jane to my ears.

I think its quite possible that someone could be so enamored by his flair for drama and his over-all compositional voice that they could over-look these other things, and be blown away by the incredible ways Beethoven structured his works, and the visceral effect of his showmanship, violence and passion. But I don't think people who point out the less tasteful attributes of his music (plenty of people including professional musicians and composers) necessarily have any issues understanding the music, it more comes down to what exactly interests a person most in music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

deleted yoyo ma


----------



## TxllxT

In _'Napoleonic leadership, a study in power'_ by Stephanie Jones & Jonathan Gosling on page 80 there is mention being made of the 'judicial murder' of d'Enghien under the direct responsibility of the First Consul. This d'Enghien ended his life in front of a firing squad. It is exactly this news that outraged Beethoven so much, that he struck out the dedication of the Eroica symphony.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> *He was excellent with form and he was popular* for a classical composer. *I think that is really all he excelled at.* In other areas I think he was outclassed by composers both before him and after him. I'll never believe his music is somehow deeper than Bach or Mozart's. *Maybe if you think bigger, longer and louder equals deeper. I don't.*
> 
> I'm more interested in composers who focus(ed) on beauty and things like subtle use of orchestration, harmony and counterpoint. Beethoven was average (compared to other great composers) in these areas to my ears (and people like Bernstein's), so no matter how many loud violent blasts he creates, or flashy runs - or even his genius ways of developing his themes - these things don't interest me much, because *his general harmonic language too often sounds ugly, flashy or just too plain Jane* to my ears.
> 
> I think its quite possible that someone could be so enamored by his flair for drama and his over-all compositional voice that they could over-look these other things, and be blown away by the incredible ways Beethoven structured his works, and *the visceral effect of his showmanship, violence and passion.* But I don't think people who point out the less tasteful attributes of his music (plenty of people including professional musicians and composers) necessarily have any issues understanding the music, it more comes down to what exactly interests a person most in music.


If all you hear in Beethoven are his drama and his genius for form - as if those were minor achievements, for Pete's sake! - you are not hearing Beethoven, and not comprehending many of the qualities of spirit that mean the most to those who love his work. Believe it or not, the violence in his music, though essential to his nature, is not what many of us treasure most about him. We hear things in him - idealism, heroism, tragedy, triumph, suffering, endurance, humor, compassion, exultation, reverence, mystery - which speak to us of many of mankind's noblest values and aspirations. Surely this rather widely shared sense of Beethoven's artistic nature - indeed of his actual artistic intent - has not escaped your notice completely?

Apparently you don't get these things from him, or perhaps care about them. Well, that's fine. But why keep saying things like "I think that is really all he excelled at" when a more accurate statement would be "I don't know what Beethoven was trying to do"? If you did know, you wouldn't be complaining about the things you think he lacks. Every artist, according to his expressive needs, chooses to do this thing rather than that thing. You talk as if Beethoven's choices are defects or limitations. Beethoven's musical vocabulary, like the verbal diction of a writer, is the language he needed to do what he wanted to do and to say what he wanted to say, and what he wanted to do and say was peculiarly his. You call his harmony "ugly," "flashy," and "plain Jane." Ignoring the question of how these three qualities belong together, let me suggest that Beethoven's harmony, like the vocabulary of a writer who knows exactly what he wants to say and can say it without a wasted word, is utterly purposeful, and superbly economical. There is no indulging in "coloristic" effects, and no loosening of structure to indulge in them. Beethoven is a Classical composer; at no other time in music history is the language of tonality more sharply focused on delineating and clarifying form. Beethoven's "father" in this respect is Haydn, and Beethoven is a worthy son. When these composers use a chord, it's because that chord is required, and no other chord will do at that exact moment. Given the constant innovations in form which Beethoven carried out throughout his entire composing life, his ability to find that right chord -that right _everything_ - ought to inspire awe. Beethoven's harmony is, by and large, less chromatic than Mozart's before him or Weber's and Spohr's after him; in his strongly diatonic idiom, a modulation or a dissonance is an event that commands attention, and his economy of language will seem a deficiency only if you are basically unsympathetic to his aesthetic or expressive goals. As with all great artists, form and meaning in Beethoven are inseparable, and objecting to an absence of chromaticism or counterpoint or whatever simply indicates an inability to appreciate the message for which the language is the proper and inevitable expression.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> He was excellent with form and he was popular for a classical composer. I think that is really all he excelled at. In other areas I think he was outclassed by composers both before him and after him. I'll never believe his music is somehow deeper than Bach or Mozart's. Maybe if you think bigger, longer and louder equals deeper. I don't.


All he excelled at? He vastly expanded the technical resources of piano writing and playing, inventing a great variety of new and beautiful textures and resources. He did the same thing for the string quartet and piano trio, as well as horn and cello music. He was by all accounts the greatest improvisor of his generation, and arguably the greatest master of the art of variation. He was not just excellent with form. Haydn and Mozart were excellent with form. Beethoven had the genius to realize that that isn't enough; that highly individual themes sometimes demand to be unfolded in entirely new and idiosyncratic forms, and in accommodating them he created a large number of sui generis structures far beyond the formal imaginations of earlier composers. And, of course, he was a great melodist.

As for being deeper: Beethoven's depth has nothing to do with bigger, longer and louder. It has to do with creating themes and larger paragraphs which by their internal structure and content metaphorically embody profound human truths. The opening theme of the Eroica does precisely this. It is a musical metaphor for heroism, specifically, the will to press on in the face of overwhelming resistance and danger. These negative forces are manifest in mm. 23ff by an extraordinarily long prolonging of the dominant harmony and sforzando accents in two beat units cutting violently against the theme's triple meter. Only by pushing through this resistance does the theme achieve its full voice in m. 37. It is the playing out of these opposing forces at the structural level that generates the most original treatment of sonata form to that time. The first long paragraph of the Largo e mesto from the Sonata op. 10 no.3 likewise embodies a profound human conflict: frustrated longing for an unattainable ideal. The disjointed progression of unresolved dim7 harmonies in mm. 23-25 encapsulates the failure to grasp and hold onto this ideal, which is the overall thrust of the first paragraph. The movement as a whole plays out the consequences of this failure in rage and despair. There are numerous other examples.



tdc said:


> I'm more interested in composers who focus(ed) on beauty and things like subtle use of orchestration, harmony and counterpoint. Beethoven was average (compared to other great composers) in these areas to my ears (and people like Bernstein's), so no matter how many loud violent blasts he creates, or flashy runs - or even his genius ways of developing his themes - these things don't interest me much, because his general harmonic language too often sounds ugly, flashy or just too plain Jane to my ears.


Beethoven orchestrated as well as anyone in his era. As for ugly harmony, you would have to give examples for me to have any idea what you are talking about. Beethoven's harmonic and tonal imagination, especially on the grand scale, was unmatched by Haydn and Mozart. His tonal and harmonic experiments are far bolder and more systematic than either of them.



tdc said:


> I think its quite possible that someone could be so enamored by his flair for drama and his over-all compositional voice that they could over-look these other things, and be blown away by the incredible ways Beethoven structured his works, and the visceral effect of his showmanship, violence and passion. But I don't think people who point out the less tasteful attributes of his music (plenty of people including professional musicians and composers) necessarily have any issues understanding the music, it more comes down to what exactly interests a person most in music.


Yes, tasteful. Once again, the 18thc sensibility. The French didn't accept Shakespeare for two centuries because of his lack of taste, just as it took them a couple of generations to get Beethoven. Hugo had to educate them on both counts.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> As for being deeper: Beethoven's depth has nothing to do with bigger, longer and louder. It has to do with creating themes and larger paragraphs which by their internal structure and content metaphorically embody profound human truths. The opening theme of the Eroica does precisely this. It is a musical metaphor for heroism, specifically, the will to press on in the face of overwhelming resistance and danger.


Thanks for your specificity in all you've said. Beethoven accomplishes so much by the simplest means. With the above statement you've got me thinking about the opening of the _Eroica._ It is stunningly terse and original, and prescient of the whole work's trajectory. It encapsulates in fifteen bars exactly that "will to press on in the face of overwhelming resistance and danger." Two cracks of the whip, a little noodling around an Eb Major triad, with only the quick pulsations of the accompaniment carrying forward the energetic potential of the opening chords - and suddenly a stab of anxiety as the tune slips down onto a Db over a diminished seventh, the tension of which is increased by the crescendo of repeated Gs in the violins. What the hell is this? We don't know that these pulses will be the continuation of the melody until it gratefully exhales its anxiety into the dominant seventh chord, affirms the tonic by way of a suspension noble out of all proportion to its brevity, and with its - and our - confidence renewed takes us joyfully back to home base. Fifteen bars, and we've already experienced the journey of the piece in microcosm - yet we know the journey has just begun, and as our happy tune sallies forth again we know now to expect the unexpected. Knowing Beethoven, he'll give it to us - and make it all sound inevitable.

I've always thought the _Eroica_ one of that handful of works - the _Symphonie Fantastique_ and _Tristan und Isolde_ are two of the others - that seems too unprecedented and inspired ever to have been conceived and executed by a human being. Beethoven, even after having composed his 9th, cited it as his favorite among his symphonies. I think he understood what a thing he had done. But in fact he did such things again and again.

Moment of slightly embarrassed confession: I have been fighting back tears while writing this, and failing.


----------



## KenOC

It seems odd to see the focus of discussions like this almost exclusively on Beethoven's "heroic" works -- of which he wrote only a handful. He brought the same virtues to many of his other works, whether lyrical, playful, of whatever.

I wonder if people who are put off by works like the Eroica have the same reaction to his other less heroic works.


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> It seems odd to see the focus of discussions like this almost exclusively on Beethoven's "heroic" works -- of which he wrote only a handful. He brought the same virtues to many of his other works, whether lyrical, playful, of whatever.
> 
> I wonder if people who are put off by works like the Eroica have the same reaction to his other less heroic works.


To anyone who says they hate Beethoven, I would like to recommend listening to Für Elise over and over again.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Blancrocher said:


> To anyone who says they hate Beethoven, I would like to recommend listening to Für Elise over and over again.


Yes, lets drive it in, torture them! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Blancrocher said:


> To anyone who says they hate Beethoven, I would like to recommend listening to Für Elise over and over again.


And finally, they will cry out, "Enough! Enough! I love Big Bro...I mean Beethoven."

So now we know what's in Room 101.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

You might need to run out and buy yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven.


----------



## EdwardBast

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> You might need to run out and by yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven.


I don't share this sentiment. It is of course perfectly fine to not like Beethoven and, thankfully, all hearts are not the same. But I just can't see a claim that his music is smartly superficial as anything but a cry for help or evidence of incomprehension.


----------



## Pugg

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> You might need to run out and by yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven.


​


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Vaughan Williams didn't like Beethoven's music. He recognised the skill which went into it but hated listening to it.


----------



## Art Rock

It would be a good day for TC if people would accept that not everyone likes their personal favourites instead of resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks. But don't expect it any time soon.


----------



## TxllxT

KenOC said:


> It seems odd to see the focus of discussions like this almost exclusively on Beethoven's "heroic" works -- of which he wrote only a handful. He brought the same virtues to many of his other works, whether lyrical, playful, of whatever.
> 
> I wonder if people who are put off by works like the Eroica have the same reaction to his other less heroic works.


Please, be more specific. I wonder how Beethoven with muted heroic looks like: isn't that just 18th century aesthetics? :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

Art Rock said:


> It would be a good day for TC if people would accept that not everyone likes their personal favourites instead of resorting to thinly veiled personal attacks. But don't expect it any time soon.


I can fully accept that not everyone likes (e.g.) Beethoven. That's just their loss. What does baffle me is when people use words like 'superficial' wrt his music. A bit like saying the mathematics behind Stephen Hawking's theories on black holes are too elementary to interest them.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I can fully accept that not everyone likes (e.g.) Beethoven. That's just their loss. What does baffle me is when people use words like 'superficial' wrt his music. A bit like saying the mathematics behind Stephen Hawking's theories on black holes are too elementary to interest them.


Well, it's no more surprising than the nonsense people write about Mozart, Mahler, Schoenberg, and contemporary music on a near-daily basis.

As I said above, I don't think there's anything wrong with people who dislike Beethoven, though I certainly do not myself.


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> I can fully accept that not everyone likes (e.g.) Beethoven. That's just their loss. What does baffle me is when people use words like 'superficial' wrt his music. A bit like saying the mathematics behind Stephen Hawking's theories on black holes are too elementary to interest them.


I'm baffled by the hysteria, that resembles the manner how the sultan of Turkey reacts, if you point a finger at him.


----------



## SixFootScowl

The person who started this thread has not posted since 136 posts ago. Guess he was not as interested in discussing dislike of Beethoven as the rest of us are. Perhaps it is time to abandon this thread? 

How about nobody post to this thread anymore? Can we do it? There are many other Beethoven threads we can more constructively post to.


----------



## DaveM

TxllxT said:


> I'm baffled by the hysteria, that resembles the manner how the sultan of Turkey reacts, if you point a finger at him.


He doesn't react. The leader of Turkey is a president.


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> Well, it's no more surprising than the nonsense people write about Mozart, Mahler, Schoenberg, and contemporary music on a near-daily basis.


The only thing that could make this thread even sillier than it is would be to introduce the subject of what people write about Schoenburg & contemporary music.


----------



## amfortas

DaveM said:


> The only thing that could make this thread even sillier than it is would be to introduce the subject of what people write about Schoenburg & contemporary music.


Ooh, can we please do that? We've never had such a thread before!


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> The only thing that could make this thread even sillier than it is would be to introduce the subject of what people write about Schoenburg & contemporary music.


It's not becoming about that, though. It's about the ridiculousness of people's reactions, and the hypocrisy that seems endemic to classical forums. The names are immaterial, which is why it can be about Mahler and Mozart as much as Beethoven and Boulez.


----------



## Nereffid

Mahlerian said:


> It's not becoming about that, though. It's about the ridiculousness of people's reactions, and the hypocrisy that seems endemic to classical forums. The names are immaterial, which is why it can be about Mahler and Mozart as much as Beethoven and Boulez.


It's not confined to classical forums, it seems to be just a general human thing to feel vexed and take it personally when people are vocal in their dislikes of stuff we like. Some of us are better than others at hiding our vexation, or suppressing it so it's not a conscious thought. I complain about it from time to time, though it's something I fall prey to myself.


----------



## Mahlerian

Nereffid said:


> It's not confined to classical forums, it seems to be just a general human thing to feel vexed and take it personally when people are vocal in their dislikes of stuff we like. Some of us are better than others at hiding our vexation, or suppressing it so it's not a conscious thought. I complain about it from time to time, though it's something I fall prey to myself.


But the problem is that much of the time people here seem unable to tell the difference between subjective dislike and objective criticism.

Subjective (potentially arguable in basis, but in themselves neither fully right nor wrong):
- Beethoven sounds ugly to me
- Mahler strikes me as screechy

Objective (and, in these cases, objectively wrong):
- Mozart wrote in a style that was completely within contemporary tastes
- Schoenberg's music has no melodies

When people write the latter kind of statement, and then defend it as being their own subjective opinion, they are confusing the categories. Worse, when people defend objectively wrong statements and claim any attack on them is related to taste, while criticizing statements of the former kind, it's rank hypocrisy, and I'm disgusted by it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Not liking Beethoven's music is one thing but calling it superficial or "superficially clever" is just objectively wrong. I think that post started a whole bunch of heated back and forth.

The internet is full of people who cannot distinguish between the objective and subjective and some of us feel like this:


----------



## amfortas

Mahlerian said:


> Objective (and, in these cases, objectively wrong):
> - Mozart wrote in a style that was completely within contemporary tastes
> - Schoenberg's music has no melodies


I invite discussion on the following objective claims:
- Schoenberg wrote in a style that was completely within contemporary tastes
- Mozart's music has no melodies


----------



## DaveM

amfortas said:


> I invite discussion on the following objective claims:
> - Schoenberg wrote in a style that was completely within contemporary tastes
> - Mozart's music has no melodies


I think it is a great accomplishment to write as much music in all the various categories as Mozart did and not include a single melody. Take The Marriage of Figaro: one of the most famous of all operas, drawing tremendous audiences and listeners in general and yet, not one melody! How is it possible, especially when it has more music than recitatives? Absolutely amazing!


----------



## DavidA

amfortas said:


> I invite discussion on the following objective claims:
> - Schoenberg wrote in a style that was completely within contemporary tastes
> - Mozart's music has no melodies


Schoenberg was deliberately iconoclastic, writing outside the box. He was therefore not in line with public tastes then or now, nor did he want to be if he is to be believed.
To say the supreme master of melodies music has no melodies is a complete contradiction of what we hear. Unless we redefine melody.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> But I just can't see a claim that his music is smartly superficial as anything but a cry for help or evidence of incomprehension.


Not necessarily. It depends on how the claim is interpreted. For instance while I always find it interesting and educational to read about Beethoven's approach to composition and his brilliant use of form and expression, I do think that Beethoven was also adept at employing the more superficially attractive elements in his music as well. I would also surmise that a large percentage of the listeners who enjoy his music do not really understand the mechanics of how the music is put together, but are often immediately attracted to the more superficial elements of it (loudness, flashiness, virtuosity etc.).


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> Schoenberg was deliberately iconoclastic, writing outside the box. He was therefore not in line with public tastes then or now, nor did he want to be if he is to be believed.
> To say the supreme master of melodies music has no melodies is a complete contradiction of what we hear. Unless we redefine melody.


Schoenberg was also an incredible melodist, and he very much wanted to be loved by the public, though he did not want to go against what he felt called to write to gain that appreciation.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Not liking Beethoven's music is one thing but calling it superficial or "superficially clever" is just objectively wrong. I think that post started a whole bunch of heated back and forth.


I disagree. The term "superficial" is not well enough defined, and we would do better to ask what is meant by it than to ridicule the person who says such a thing.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg was also an incredible melodist, and he very much wanted to be loved by the public, though he did not want to go against what he felt called to write to gain that appreciation.
> 
> I disagree. The term "superficial" is not well enough defined, and we would do better to ask what is meant by it than to ridicule the person who says such a thing.


su·per·fi·cial
ˌso͞opərˈfiSHəl/Submit
adjective
*existing or occurring at or on the surface.*
"the building suffered only superficial damage"
*synonyms:	surface, exterior, external, outer, outside, slight*
"superficial burns"
situated or occurring on the skin or immediately beneath it.
"the superficial muscle groups"

Seems pretty clearly defined to me in the English language.

I don't think there was any ridicule. If there was, I clearly missed it. It was repeatedly pointed out that Beethoven's music is far from being superficial.


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> su·per·fi·cial
> ˌso͞opərˈfiSHəl/Submit
> adjective
> *existing or occurring at or on the surface.*
> "the building suffered only superficial damage"
> *synonyms:	surface, exterior, external, outer, outside, slight*
> "superficial burns"
> situated or occurring on the skin or immediately beneath it.
> "the superficial muscle groups"
> 
> Seems pretty clearly defined to me in the English language.
> 
> I don't think there was any ridicule. If there was, I clearly missed it. It was repeatedly pointed out that Beethoven's music is far from being superficial.


I agree that superficiality, as a general concept, is clearly defined. I do not think that its application to music is clearly defined however. Music can be complex or nuanced in a number of dimensions even as it lacks complexity or nuance in others.


----------



## Nereffid

Mahlerian said:


> But the problem is that much of the time people here seem unable to tell the difference between subjective dislike and objective criticism.
> 
> Subjective (potentially arguable in basis, but in themselves neither fully right nor wrong):
> - Beethoven sounds ugly to me
> - Mahler strikes me as screechy
> 
> Objective (and, in these cases, objectively wrong):
> - Mozart wrote in a style that was completely within contemporary tastes
> - Schoenberg's music has no melodies
> 
> When people write the latter kind of statement, and then defend it as being their own subjective opinion, they are confusing the categories. Worse, when people defend objectively wrong statements and claim any attack on them is related to taste, while criticizing statements of the former kind, it's rank hypocrisy, and I'm disgusted by it.


While I acknowledge all the above as true, again I see this as a basic human-nature issue and I don't waste much emotion on it. People confuse objective and subjective all the time - sometimes deliberately, sometimes not.

"Schoenberg's music has no melodies" is an interesting one because to me it seems that it has both objective and subjective components. Yes, in objective terms it's a wrong statement, but many people have a subjective conception of what a melody should be. You can explain clearly why they're wrong in objective terms, but that doesn't address their subjective conception. Ultimately all you're doing is stopping the person from erroneously using a word to describe something for which they have no other word.

_ETA_... which doesn't mean you shouldn't correct people over it. Just as, for instance, one should always correct people who claim that the moon landings were faked or that Obama's not American; but responding to such people with facts doesn't address the underlying psychological issue that makes them want to believe such a thing in the first place.


----------



## TxllxT

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> su·per·fi·cial
> ˌso͞opərˈfiSHəl/Submit
> adjective
> *existing or occurring at or on the surface.*
> "the building suffered only superficial damage"
> *synonyms:	surface, exterior, external, outer, outside, slight*
> "superficial burns"
> situated or occurring on the skin or immediately beneath it.
> "the superficial muscle groups"
> 
> Seems pretty clearly defined to me in the English language.
> 
> I don't think there was any ridicule. If there was, I clearly missed it. It was repeatedly pointed out that Beethoven's music is far from being superficial.


Surfing over the surface, that's a clear concept, which to my ears suits Beethoven's music. But now show me Beethoven's *depth, deep thoughts, profundity *etc. This is a show of constantly repeating "Beethoven is not superficial", which is in itself a superficial hype.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Not necessarily. It depends on how the claim is interpreted. For instance while I always find it interesting and educational to read about Beethoven's approach to composition and his brilliant use of form and expression, I do think that Beethoven was also adept at employing the more superficially attractive elements in his music as well. *I would also surmise that a large percentage of the listeners who enjoy his music do not really understand the mechanics of how the music is put together, but are often immediately attracted to the more superficial elements* of it (loudness, flashiness, virtuosity etc.).


This is true of virtually every audience. The fact that a listener doesn't understand the formal or expressive function of a loud or virtuosic passage does not reflect on the composer or the composer's aesthetic goals. Those claiming that Beethoven's music is full of such flashy and superficial passages should be ready with examples. Has anyone offered a single such example in this thread? How hard could it be?


----------



## EdwardBast

TxllxT said:


> Surfing over the surface, that's a clear concept, which to my ears suits Beethoven's music. But now show me Beethoven's *depth, deep thoughts, profundity *etc. This is a show of constantly repeating "Beethoven is not superficial", which is in itself a superficial hype.


I have done so at considerable length citing specific examples. So has Woodduck. You are the one speaking in nothing but empty generalities. Do you have any actual content to offer on the issue or will you simply continue to repeat your superficial and unsupported claims?


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg was also an incredible melodist, and he very much wanted to be loved by the public, though he did not want to go against what he felt called to write to gain that appreciation.
> 
> I disagree. The term "superficial" is not well enough defined, and we would do better to ask what is meant by it than to ridicule the person who says such a thing.


Wrong. The persons claiming Beethoven's music is superficial should define what they mean by the word if they have some nuanced connotations in mind not covered by the standard definitions. In fact, they have been asked repeatedly to clarify what they mean by citing passages of actual music.

Schoenberg again? Relevance to the issues at hand? None. I guess there is no thread into which he can't be dragged.


----------



## Steatopygous

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Not liking Beethoven's music is one thing but calling it superficial or "superficially clever" is just objectively wrong. I think that post started a whole bunch of heated back and forth.
> 
> The internet is full of people who cannot distinguish between the objective and subjective and some of us feel like this:
> 
> View attachment 85444


I came across this cartoon a few years ago, and its objective brilliance struck me immediately - along, actually, with its subjective brilliance. Well done for posting it.


----------



## Blancrocher

EdwardBast said:


> This is true of virtually every audience. The fact that a listener doesn't understand the formal or expressive function of a loud or virtuosic passage does not reflect on the composer or the composer's aesthetic goals. Those claiming that Beethoven's music is full of such flashy and superficial passages should be ready with examples. Has anyone offered a single such example in this thread? How hard could it be?


Ask, and you shall receive:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Blancrocher said:


> Ask, and you shall receive:


Yeah, well, as already mentioned in this thread, this doesn't count


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg was also an incredible melodist, and he very much wanted to be loved by the public, though he did not want to go against what he felt called to write to gain that appreciation.


"...if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art."


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> "...if it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art."


And there are no pieces of classical music that we here discuss that are in fact "for all." Regardless of wrangling, isn't that what this very thread is about? Beethoven's music is not universal. Neither is Mozart's, nor Bach's, nor Brahms', nor Chopin's, nor anyone else's you might care to name. None of them expected that they were writing "for all," nor could they have. Music above a certain level of complexity will not be able to capture the same mass audience of pop.

You are inferring that Schoenberg did not want public appreciation on the basis of a statement that is only vaguely, if at all, related, while we have statements that directly state his desires on record.


----------



## Blancrocher

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yeah, well, as already mentioned in this thread, this doesn't count


I'll assume there are good reason's for this--though I have to say it seems rather like telling a prosecutor that the defendant's murder confession is inadmissible on some obscure legal technicality.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Schoenberg again? Relevance to the issues at hand? None. I guess there is no thread into which he can't be dragged.


I explained the relevance. It has to do with the hypocrisy surrounding these issues more than the composer himself. And is it really so surprising that one of the greatest of all classical composers should be someone whose name comes up often on a classical music forum?


----------



## Blancrocher

Mahlerian said:


> And there are no pieces of classical music that we here that are in fact "for all." Regardless of wrangling, isn't that what this very thread is about?


Actually, I thought this thread was about stimulating debate (in a way that is in keeping with the Terms of Service, of course).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Blancrocher said:


> I'll assume there are good reason's for this--though I have to say it seems rather like telling a prosecutor that the defendant's murder confession is inadmissible on some obscure legal technicality.


That analogy is so not applicable in this case.

Wellington's Victory is very much the exception in Beethoven's symphonic output. You wouldn't judge an artist's output based on one really bad work and ignoring all of his good ones and expect to arrive at a fair conclusion about the artist's skills.


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> Ask, and you shall receive:


The critics above thread were citing the Eroica as an example of the superficial and flashy(!), so it is clear they believe the judgment applies to Beethoven's best work. If one must sink to Wellington's Victory to prove the point, then one is just conceding the argument.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> I explained the relevance. It has to do with the hypocrisy surrounding these issues more than the composer himself. And *is it really so surprising that one of the greatest of all classical composers should be someone whose name comes up often on a classical music forum?*


At the risk of further polluting this thread:

Schoenberg's name comes up so often because he is, historically, the iconic symbol of the "problem" of modern music, because he is and always will be divisive, and because one of our most prominent members considers him "one of the greatest of all classical composers" - an opinion which is neither objective nor, I'll wager, widely shared among lovers of classical music, depending on how many composers they feel occupy that "greatest" category.

Most will agree on his historical importance, but surely not on his "greatness" - especially not when Beethoven is under discussion.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> I explained the relevance. It has to do with the hypocrisy surrounding these issues more than the composer himself. And is it really so surprising that one of the greatest of all classical composers should be someone whose name comes up often on a classical music forum?


Schoenberg didn't come up. He is being wedged in on some nonsensical pretext. What hypocrisy are you talking about?


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> *Surfing over the surface, that's a clear concept,* which to my ears suits Beethoven's music. *But now show me Beethoven's **depth, deep thoughts, profundity *etc. This is a show of constantly repeating "Beethoven is not superficial", which is in itself a superficial hype.


In other words, we are obliged to demonstrate Beethoven's profundity, while your assessment of him as superficial requires no evidence?

Which is more likely: that those who who experience something as meaningful are imagining things, or that those who don't are simply missing out?


----------



## Blancrocher

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> That analogy is so not applicable in this case.
> 
> Wellington's Victory is very much the exception in Beethoven's symphonic output. You wouldn't judge an artist's output based on one really bad work and ignoring all of his good ones and expect to arrive at a fair conclusion about the artist's skills.


Well, let me ask you this (just for the sake of argument, mind you): if you find out that a person tortured someone until he screamed in his basement dungeon (Wellington's Victory), how inclined are you to take the transcript of his ostensibly heartfelt and soulful existential meditation to his psychoanalyst (Hammerklavier) at face value? Are you sure there isn't a _little_ but of that Wellington's-Victory razzmatazz in the 32nd Piano Sonata? Is this really something we can turn a blind eye to?


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Wellington's Victory was no more than a money-making potboiler to its composer. Beethoven had no illusions about its merits, and responded to similar criticism in his own time: "What I **** (scheisse) is better than anything you could ever think up!"


Now, now! Blanrocher is a smart guy and pretty reasonable. He probably just overlooked the fact that the argument was centrally about the merits of the Eroica. I would wonder whether he read the early parts of the thread carefully to get the drift before joining us?


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> Well, let me ask you this (just for the sake of argument, mind you): if you find out that a person tortured someone until he screamed in his basement dungeon (Wellington's Victory), how inclined are you to take the transcript of his ostensibly heartfelt and soulful existential meditation to his psychoanalyst (Hammerklavier)? Are you sure there isn't a _little_ but of that Wellington's-Victory razzmatazz in the 32nd Piano Sonata? Is this really something we can turn a blind eye to?


This is pretty funny. ^^^ For this argument to be relevant one would have to be locked in a cell at Guantanamo Bay with 140 decibel speakers aimed at ones head. The only issue raised by Wellington's Victory is whether or not it is fair to call a composer a smartly superficial composer based on the worst piece they ever wrote. Would you be comfortable submitting to public judgment based on the stupidest page of doggerel you ever penned? I wouldn't.

Okay, I am going out to climb a little mountain now …


----------



## DaveM

TxllxT said:


> Surfing over the surface, that's a clear concept, which to my ears suits Beethoven's music. But now show me Beethoven's *depth, deep thoughts, profundity *etc. This is a show of constantly repeating "Beethoven is not superficial", which is in itself a superficial hype.


Listen to the Piano Sonata #32 Arrietta. If you don't hear depth, deep thoughts and profundity, then you're unlikely to hear it in any Beethoven work.


----------



## TxllxT

This interpretation I like the best. But as soon as I listen to Schiff playing Bach I do not listen to the instrument anymore but to the music. With Beethoven I feel like getting chained to the piano sound.


----------



## DaveM

Personally, I find Schiff's interpretation profunctory. I don't think he 'gets' the gravity and profound beauty of the opening theme. I much prefer Barenboim:






Or Pogorelich:


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> ... The only issue raised by Wellington's Victory is whether or not it is fair to call a composer a smartly superficial composer based on the worst piece they ever wrote. Would you be comfortable submitting to public judgment based on the stupidest page of doggerel you ever penned?


I note that Beethoven _did _submit Wellington's Victory to public judgment, and they loved it. "To that end, the most beloved national songs of the British-Rule Britannia, Marlborough and God save the King-have been incorporated with great ingenuity, partly before the battle and partly after it. We hardly need to add that laymen were completely amazed at this work and did not know what had happened to them..."


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> This interpretation I like the best. But as soon as I listen to Schiff playing Bach I do not listen to the instrument anymore but to the music. With Beethoven *I feel like getting chained to the piano sound*.


Hmmm Quite a problem! Keep taking the tablets!


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> I note that Beethoven _did _submit Wellington's Victory to public judgment, and they loved it. "To that end, the most beloved national songs of the British-Rule Britannia, Marlborough and God save the King-have been incorporated with great ingenuity, partly before the battle and partly after it. We hardly need to add that laymen were completely amazed at this work and did not know what had happened to them..."


Let's face it, the 1812 is one of Tchaikovsky's worst pieces and one of his most popular!


----------



## DavidA

Try the great Annie Fischer on Op 111


----------



## amfortas

DavidA said:


> To say the supreme master of melodies music has no melodies is a complete contradiction of what we hear. Unless we redefine melody.


Or redefine "tongue in cheek."


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Hmmm Quite a problem! Keep taking the tablets!


Indeed, it means there's no spirit in Beethoven.


----------



## Dan Ante

DavidA said:


> Let's face it, the 1812 is one of Tchaikovsky's worst pieces and one of his most popular!


Why is it one of his worst is it too theatrical or perhaps bad construction or just that it is so popular?


----------



## Woodduck

Frasier: _Remember when you used to think the 1812 Overture was a great piece of classical music?_

Niles: _Was I ever that young?_


----------



## KenOC

I'm way past retirement and I _still _think the 1812 Overture is a great piece of music. My charity doesn't extend to that Beethoven thing, though. But glad to see him make some money.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I'm way past retirement and I _still _think the 1812 Overture is a great piece of music. My charity doesn't extend to that Beethoven thing, though. But glad to see him make some money.


Actually, I'm old and I still think the 1812 is good too (better than Wellington). It does what it sets out to do, it's tuneful, engaging, memorable and well-constructed except for that endless sequence of string figures before the finale (Peter Schickele has fun with that). Tchaikovsky liked to pile up sequences when he couldn't think of anything else.

I'll demur slightly at "great" so as not to cheapen the language, as in "Wow, man, that was _great!_"


----------



## GreenMamba

Woodduck said:


> Frasier: _Remember when you used to think the 1812 Overture was a great piece of classical music?_
> 
> Niles: _Was I ever that young?_


Yes but:

Frasier: _Yes, you sit at that piano every Sunday morning and play Mahler for Maris. But you hate Mahler. Besides Maris, who doesn't?_

The 1812 Overture joke was at least in character.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

you don't win friends with salad


----------



## Woodduck

GreenMamba said:


> Yes but:
> 
> Frasier: _Yes, you sit at that piano every Sunday morning and play Mahler for Maris. But you hate Mahler. Besides Maris, who doesn't?_
> 
> The 1812 Overture joke was at least in character.


You've reminded me of a hilarious episode of "Cheers" in which Rebecca (Kirstie Alley) attends a posh party at which the entertainment is a very corpulent baritone singing Mahler's _Kindertotenlieder_. She gets thoroughly soused and starts singing along, telling everyone else to "be quiet, Raymond Burr is singing for us."

"Cheers" and "Frasier" are the only two sitcoms I can think of with references to classical music.


----------



## isorhythm

Woodduck said:


> "Cheers" and "Frasier" are the only two sitcoms I can think of with references to classical music.


Can't forget Fresh Prince....


----------



## Art Rock

Woodduck said:


> "Cheers" and "Frasier" are the only two sitcoms I can think of with references to classical music.


Major Winchester in MASH was a classical music lover and references occurred a number of times (e.g. when he teaches a Korean music ensemble to play some Mozart).

And then there is the brilliant John Cleese in Fawlty Towers:

_Sybil: You could have had them both done by now if you hadn't spent the whole morning skulking in there listening to that racket.
Basil: Racket? That's Brahms! Brahms' Third Racket!
_


----------



## GreenMamba

Woodduck said:


> You've reminded me of a hilarious episode of "Cheers" in which Rebecca (Kirstie Alley) attends a posh party at which the entertainment is a very corpulent baritone singing Mahler's _Kindertotenlieder_. She gets thoroughly soused and starts singing along, telling everyone else to "be quiet, Raymond Burr is singing for us."
> 
> "Cheers" and "Frasier" are the only two sitcoms I can think of with references to classical music.


Lisa Simpson's grade school band once performed Schubert's 8th Symphony, and it went about as well as you'd expect.

I couldn't find an English-language version where you hear the principal calling it "Sherbert's" symphony.


----------



## mmsbls

Several posts have been deleted or edited due to inappropriate content or quoting others' posts which had been deleted. Disagree with others, but please do not insult or otherwise violate the Terms of Service.


----------



## CDs

mmsbls said:


> Several posts have been deleted or edited due to inappropriate content or quoting others' posts which had been deleted. Disagree with others, but please do not insult or otherwise violate the Terms of Service.


To DavidA:

Please accept my apologies if I said anything that hurt your feelings, that was not my intent.


----------



## Dedalus

Schumann/Les Miserables reference on Seinfeld...


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> Those claiming that Beethoven's music is full of such flashy and superficial passages should be ready with examples. Has anyone offered a single such example in this thread? How hard could it be?


To me it is just how his style often sounds. It is a hard thing to prove beyond subjective taste. The majority of pieces he composed have certain passages that don't seem to have much function to me other than showing off or sounding flashy. The entrance of the piano in the 5th Piano Concerto is an example. For those who like it I am certain it doesn't sound superficial. Almost every piano sonata has these long runs in them or flashy passages he uses between chords that strike me in much the same way.

I think Beethoven was a hard working composer with a lot of heart and some genius. I would place him in the top ten all time but possibly not top 5. I have a hard time hearing how he could be greater than Debussy or Wagner, the latter two seemed so much more advanced at the subtle, fine (what I perceive as less obvious) aspects of composition, yet I think these subtle aspects are more powerful. Others may feel sonata form and development is more important.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> *To me* it is just how his style often sounds. It is a hard thing to prove beyond subjective taste.


Excellent response. It might seem tedious, but the more people take the trouble to insert these or similar words, the easier dialogue becomes about what we each feel about music.

At least, IMO!


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven's sometimes-sweaty earnestness can certainly put some people off. But 90% of his works don't partake of this.

Beethoven cared, which is always a risk.


----------



## EdwardBast

More classical music in sitcoms. South Park roasts Philip Glass:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

tdc said:


> To me it is just how his style often sounds. It is a hard thing to prove beyond subjective taste. The majority of pieces he composed have certain passages that don't seem to have much function to me other than showing off or sounding flashy. The entrance of the piano in the 5th Piano Concerto is an example. For those who like it I am certain it doesn't sound superficial. Almost every piano sonata has these long runs in them or flashy passages he uses between chords that strike me in much the same way.
> 
> I think Beethoven was a hard working composer with a lot of heart and some genius. I would place him in the top ten all time but possibly not top 5. *I have a hard time hearing how he could be greater than Debussy or Wagner*, the latter two seemed so much more advanced at the subtle, fine (what I perceive as less obvious) aspects of composition, yet I think these subtle aspects are more powerful. Others may feel sonata form and development is more important.


And I have a hard time seeing how Debussy or Wagner would be greater than Beethoven, and Debussy especially is laughable.


----------



## bz3

EdwardBast said:


> More classical music in sitcoms. South Park roasts Philip Glass:


SP always did go for the low-hanging fruit. Good comedy aims up. Still amusing though.


----------



## tdc

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And I have a hard time seeing how Debussy or Wagner would be greater than Beethoven, and Debussy especially is laughable.


I think Debussy's contribution to harmony was equal to Beethoven's contribution to form. Beethoven did compose more works, but I value Debussy's ability to achieve profundity in a concise manner.


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And I have a hard time seeing how Debussy or Wagner would be greater than Beethoven, and Debussy especially is laughable.


Debussy was a revolutionary composer who influenced nearly everyone who followed him. His contributions to the orchestral and piano literature, as well as his chamber music and his lone completed opera, mark him out as one of the best of his or any era.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> I have a hard time hearing how he could be greater than Debussy or Wagner





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And I have a hard time seeing how Debussy or Wagner would be greater than Beethoven, and Debussy especially is laughable.


Would either of you be willing to elaborate on this theme of comparable 'greatness'?


----------



## Dan Ante

Well, I like Debussy and Beethoven they are both brilliant at what they do, I also like Wagner's orch music but I must admit I do not like, not one little bit the type of singing in his operas, to compare these three is like comparing Grapes, cheese and snake meat. pointless.


----------



## DaveM

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And I have a hard time seeing how Debussy or Wagner would be greater than Beethoven, and Debussy especially is laughable.


Yes, Wagner was without doubt greater than Beethoven when it came to opera. But Debussy up against Beethoven is the anthill next to Mt. Everest!


----------



## TxllxT

DaveM said:


> Yes, Wagner was without doubt greater than Beethoven when it came to opera. But Debussy up against Beethoven is the anthill next to Mt. Everest!


If you come closer and closer to the anthill it will be greater than any Mt. Everest or say, three Mt. Everest mountains on top of each other. Everything is relative.


----------



## tdc

MacLeod said:


> Would either of you be willing to elaborate on this theme of comparable 'greatness'?


I've elaborated in post 213 already.


----------



## DaveM

TxllxT said:


> If you come closer and closer to the anthill it will be greater than any Mt. Everest or say, three Mt. Everest mountains on top of each other. Everything is relative.


Well yes, but let's get the relativity a little more accurate. The closer I get to the anthill, the more likely I can step on it. No matter how close I get to Everest, my ability to scale it remains in question.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Comparing composers often comes to subjective opinions about the relative importance of musical attributes. I think we can objectively agree that Beethoven is better than Debussy in certain aspects such as form and development while Debussy is better at harmony, for example. How do you weigh all these factors when arriving at the final verdict? To me what Beethoven did great is better than what Debussy did but of course that is my subjective opinion. I am not usually ranking composers but when I see a claim that so and so is better than one of the all-time greats, I feel the urge to respond. Claiming that Wagner or Debussy are better than Beethoven is laughable because there will never be a convincing argument, other than based on very strong subjectivity, for such a claim.

As far influence on other composers, as was mentioned, I would like to see someone argue successfully that any composers in the history of music was more influential than Beethoven.


----------



## Chronochromie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Comparing composers often comes to subjective opinions about the relative importance of musical attributes. I think we can objectively agree that Beethoven is better than Debussy in certain aspects such as form and development while Debussy is better at harmony, for example. How do you weigh all these factors when arriving at the final verdict? To me what Beethoven did great is better than what Debussy did but of course that is my subjective opinion. I am not usually ranking composers but when I see a claim that so and so is better than one of the all-time greats, I feel the urge to respond. Claiming that Wagner or Debussy are better than Beethoven is laughable because there will never be a convincing argument, other than based on very strong subjectivity, for such a claim.
> 
> As far influence on other composers, as was mentioned, I would like to see someone argue successfully that any composers in the history of music was more influential than Beethoven.


How is Debussy not one of the all-time greats, and why is it more difficult to argue for him as opposed to Beethoven?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

tdc said:


> I think Beethoven was a hard working composer with a lot of heart and some genius.


I think we have our first nomination for "Understatement of the Year"


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Chronochromie said:


> How is Debussy not one of the all-time greats, and why is it more difficult to argue for him as opposed to Beethoven?


I love Debussy, but I think even he wouldn't place himself in the same league as Beethoven. Debussy idolised Wagner, and said that _Parsifal_ was one of the greatest monuments ever erected to the glory of music. Wagner, in turn, idolised Beethoven. From the very mouths of Debussy and Wagner themselves, therefore, one could argue that Beethoven was greater than either. I'd certainly agree with that conclusion, despite the fact that I'm a committed Wagnerite.


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> As far influence on other composers, as was mentioned, I would like to see someone argue successfully that any composers in the history of music was more influential than Beethoven.


What about Palestrina, whose methods of counterpoint (somewhat garbled) were transmitted to every generation of composers from Bach through to Bruckner and beyond?

As mentioned before, in harmony and sonority, Debussy opened the door to 20th century modernism.

Schoenberg (with a few precedents, true) gave us the fusion of the vertical and horizontal dimensions that still characterizes much contemporary music, even and especially that which people consider contrary to his legacy.

Haydn was the one who gave Beethoven the tool he needed to achieve what he did in motivic development, and through Beethoven he influenced every major Austro-German composer who followed him.

Wagner revolutionized dramatic form and content, and every operatic composer since has been forced to grapple with his towering legacy.

Stravinsky has been the model for nearly every American composer from Schuman and Copland to Reich and Adams.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Mahlerian said:


> Haydn was the one who gave Beethoven the tool he needed to achieve what he did in motivic development.


Haydn may have provided the mould, but Beethoven shattered it.


----------



## Chronochromie

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I love Debussy, but I think even he wouldn't place himself in the same league as Beethoven. Debussy idolised Wagner, and said that _Parsifal_ was one of the greatest monuments ever erected to the glory of music. Wagner, in turn, idolised Beethoven. From the very mouths of Debussy and Wagner themselves, therefore, one could argue that Beethoven was greater than either. I'd certainly agree with that conclusion, despite the fact that I'm a committed Wagnerite.


Not really. Beethoven greatly admired Mozart, Handel and Cherubini, Mozart greatly admired Handel and the Bach sons,...


----------



## Mahlerian

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Haydn may have provided the mould, but Beethoven shattered it.


I agree that Beethoven is exceptional in any number of ways. But if we're talking about influence in itself, can't the one who provided Beethoven with the means to become so influential be considered as influential in his own way?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Chronochromie said:


> Not really. Beethoven greatly admired Mozart, Handel and Cherubini, Mozart greatly admired Handel and the Bach sons,...


I don't know that Beethoven would have placed Cherubini above Mozart or Handel, nor that Mozart rated CPE or JC Bach greater than Handel, or JSB himself. I do know that Debussy rated Wagner very highly, and that Wagner rated Beethoven in like manner.

Besides - Handel/Bach were admired by Mozart, all three of whom were admired by Beethoven, who was admired by Wagner, who in turn was greatly admired by Debussy. That still ought to tell us something.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I didn't know he was considered best. He's my favorite but maybe because his symphonies were my introduction to classical. 
I am also terribly fond of all the other old favs and starting to like some new ones.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> I agree that Beethoven is exceptional in any number of ways. But if we're talking about influence in itself, can't the one who provided Beethoven with the means to become so influential be considered as influential in his own way?


I agree with this, although Haydn wouldn't have been so influential without his megawatt amplifier (Beethoven). Either way, Beethoven was certainly very influential, which was not always a fortunate thing. Subsequent composers took from Beethoven what they thought made his music "great," even when that went beyond their natures or talents. Perhaps if more of them, like Chopin, had placed Beethoven at a safe distance...


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> What about Palestrina, whose methods of counterpoint (somewhat garbled) were transmitted to every generation of composers from Bach through to Bruckner and beyond?


There is nothing unique about Palestrina's style of counterpoint. Treatises based on Lassus, Willaert and others would have served as well. There were books on renaissance species counterpoint long before Fux came along and one of those would have been used to accomplish the same ends.



Mahlerian said:


> Haydn was the one who gave Beethoven the tool he needed to achieve what he did in motivic development, and through Beethoven he influenced every major Austro-German composer who followed him.


Everybody in the preceding century developed material, including J.S. Bach in every concerto and fugue he wrote. Then there are his sons and Handel and Mozart and an army of lesser composers. There is no basis for granting Haydn this overwhelming importance in the area of motivic development.



Mahlerian said:


> Wagner revolutionized dramatic form and content, and every operatic composer since has been forced to grapple with his towering legacy.


Not everyone cared enough to grapple. There were plenty of other models for opera.



Mahlerian said:


> Stravinsky has been the model for nearly every American composer from Schuman and Copland to Reich and Adams.


_The_ model? Vast overstatement.


----------



## poconoron

Chronochromie said:


> Not really. Beethoven greatly admired Mozart, Handel and Cherubini, Mozart greatly admired Handel and the Bach sons,...


And Wagner said about Mozart: "_The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. "_

I don't know a higher praise than that!


----------



## TxllxT

DaveM said:


> Well yes, but let's get the relativity a little more accurate. The closer I get to the anthill, the more likely I can step on it. No matter how close I get to Everest, my ability to scale it remains in question.


Now suppose you're an ant, keeping in mind that everything is relative. Then only one mt.Everest remains: the anthill.


----------



## DaveM

TxllxT said:


> Now suppose you're an ant, keeping in mind that everything is relative. Then only one mt.Everest remains: the anthill.


An anthill is not a Mt Everest to an ant. The ant goes in and out of the top of the anthill at will.

Anyway back to Debussy, other than one mediocre (okay arguably) opera and quartet, take away the preludes and nocturnes and what else is there? Yes, I understand his influence on contemporary music that was to come, but his output in amount, variety, quality and influence absolutely pales in comparison to that of Beethoven. Clair de Lune: meh


----------



## violadude

DaveM said:


> An anthill is not a Mt Everest to an ant. The ant goes in and out of the top of the anthill at will.
> 
> Anyway back to Debussy, other than one mediocre (okay arguably) opera and quartet, take away the preludes and nocturnes and what else is there? Yes, I understand his influence on contemporary music that was to come, but his output in amount, variety, quality and influence absolutely pales in comparison to that of Beethoven. Clair de Lune: meh


The Etudes
Jeux
Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (I know it might seem overplayed and mundane today, but at the time it was written it was tremendously revolutionary. Easily comparable to the Eroica Symphony)
La Mer
Images books 1 and 2
Estampes
L'Isle Joyeuse
Sonata for Flute Viola and Harp
Cello Sonata


----------



## Blancrocher

violadude said:


> The Etudes
> Jeux
> Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (I know it might seem overplayed and mundane today, but at the time it was written it was tremendously revolutionary. Easily comparable to the Eroica Symphony)
> La Mer
> Images books 1 and 2
> Estampes
> L'Isle Joyeuse
> Sonata for Flute Viola and Harp
> Cello Sonata


Masterpieces all. I'd like to add that Debussy completely owns the solo flute repertoire, imo.


----------



## Chronochromie

violadude said:


> The Etudes
> Jeux
> Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (I know it might seem overplayed and mundane today, but at the time it was written it was tremendously revolutionary. Easily comparable to the Eroica Symphony)
> La Mer
> Images books 1 and 2
> Estampes
> L'Isle Joyeuse
> Sonata for Flute Viola and Harp
> Cello Sonata


Also:

Images for Orchestra
Syrinx
Violin Sonata
En blanc et noir
Chansons de Bilitis
Lots of great mélodies for voice and piano, including the song cycles:
Ariettes oubliées
Proses lyriques
Fêtes galantes
Poèmes de Stéphane Mallarmé


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chronochromie said:


> How is Debussy not one of the all-time greats, and why is it more difficult to argue for him as opposed to Beethoven?


I didn't say Debussy isn't one of the all-time greats. I said that claiming he is greater than Beethoven is ridiculous. I am going to have a hard time "proving" that Beethoven is greater but I didn't make the claim. I value what Beethoven excelled at in music much more than Debussy but that is my subjective opinion.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mahlerian said:


> What about Palestrina, whose methods of counterpoint (somewhat garbled) were transmitted to every generation of composers from Bach through to Bruckner and beyond?
> 
> As mentioned before, in harmony and sonority, Debussy opened the door to 20th century modernism.
> 
> Schoenberg (with a few precedents, true) gave us the fusion of the vertical and horizontal dimensions that still characterizes much contemporary music, even and especially that which people consider contrary to his legacy.
> 
> Haydn was the one who gave Beethoven the tool he needed to achieve what he did in motivic development, and through Beethoven he influenced every major Austro-German composer who followed him.
> 
> Wagner revolutionized dramatic form and content, and every operatic composer since has been forced to grapple with his towering legacy.
> 
> Stravinsky has been the model for nearly every American composer from Schuman and Copland to Reich and Adams.


Right, these were all very influential composers. But none of this proves that any of these composers exerted greater influence on music than Beethoven.


----------



## Chronochromie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I didn't say Debussy isn't one of the all-time greats. I said that claiming he is greater than Beethoven is ridiculous.


Well as you said:"I am not usually ranking composers but when I see a claim that so and so is better than one of the all-time greats, I feel the urge to respond." in that context I thought you were implying it, but maybe I misunderstood.


----------



## Dan Ante

Blancrocher said:


> Masterpieces all. I'd like to add that Debussy completely owns the solo flute repertoire, imo.


I agree 100% The Flute is more suitable to Debussy and the French impressionist movement that any other composer that I have heard. I should add IMO!


----------



## Woodduck

Enormous range and intensity of expression; a continuous quest for the unprecedented, in form and expression, throughout a lifetime; mastery of each self-imposed formal and expressive challenge; a collection of works that again and again reach the pinnacle of attainment in their diverse genres; a voice that spoke with the most personal accent yet heard in music, yet embodied the revolutionary spirit of a time and has spoken to the breadth of humanity in all times since... 

I find all composers who followed Beethoven, even the greatest, smaller.


----------



## KenOC

Whenever I hear flute and harp, and it's not Mozart, I think "That's Debussy!" And it always is, him or one of those decadent effete characters of his age, in France of course. Toodle-oo music, I believe, is the correct technical term.


----------



## DaveM

violadude said:


> The Etudes
> Jeux
> Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (I know it might seem overplayed and mundane today, but at the time it was written it was tremendously revolutionary. Easily comparable to the Eroica Symphony)
> La Mer
> Images books 1 and 2
> Estampes
> L'Isle Joyeuse
> Sonata for Flute Viola and Harp
> Cello Sonata


The Eroica has never been mundane so the comparison falls flat on that alone.

The additional pieces mentioned above plus those mentioned elsewhere are supposed to be a legitimate comparison to the influence of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas, 9 symphonies, 5 piano concertos, 16 quartets, Grosse Fugue, Violin Concerto, Fidelio, piano trios, overtures and many other compositions? It's fantasy by any measure and that's a fact not an opinion.

I do have one opinion though. Put me in a cell with Afternoon of a Faun and Clair de Lune played over and over and I would put myself out of my misery in a few hours or less. Yes I know that there are other pieces more representative of Debussy's best work, but those are 2 that he is best known for. And that's a prime part of his legacy?


----------



## violadude

DaveM said:


> The Eroica has never been mundane so the comparison falls flat on that alone.


That's not the point of comparison I was making. PAF is easily as revolutionary for its time as the Eroica Symphony, if not more so.


----------



## DaveM

violadude said:


> That's not the point of comparison I was making. PAF is easily as revolutionary for its time as the Eroica Symphony, if not more so.


Okay, I don't agree, but point taken.


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> The additional pieces mentioned above plus those mentioned elsewhere are supposed to be a legitimate comparison to the influence of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas, 9 symphonies, 5 piano concertos, 16 quartets, Grosse Fugue, Violin Concerto, Fidelio, piano trios, overtures and many other compositions? It's fantasy by any measure and that's a fact not an opinion.


I don't put much value on "influence". Whether I'm listening to Beethoven or Debussy, I'm not listening to influence, but music. Some prefer Beethoven, others Debussy; it's all good.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chronochromie said:


> Well as you said:"I am not usually ranking composers but when I see a claim that so and so is better than one of the all-time greats, I feel the urge to respond." in that context I thought you were implying it, but maybe I misunderstood.


I can see how my comment may be interpreted the way you did but I did not intend it.


----------



## EdwardBast

violadude said:


> That's not the point of comparison I was making. PAF is easily as revolutionary for its time as the Eroica Symphony, if not more so.


Of course being revolutionary in Beethoven's time was arguably a very different thing. Different cultures have different levels of tolerance for - and yearning for - the extraordinary. And Beethoven's revolution was within a unified culture whereas Debussy's was, at least in part, a revolution of one culture against another? I'm not sure it is possible to make this kind of comparison in a well-grounded way. Above my pay grade at least.


----------



## Pugg

EdwardBast said:


> Of course being revolutionary in Beethoven's time was arguably a very different thing. Different cultures have different levels of tolerance for - and yearning for - the extraordinary. And Beethoven's revolution was within a unified culture whereas Debussy's was, at least in part, a revolution of one culture against another? I'm not sure it is possible to make this kind of comparison in a well-grounded way. Above my pay grade at least.


Completely understood .:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Of course being revolutionary in Beethoven's time was arguably a very different thing.


Beethoven may have written revolutionary music, but (Swafford says) he always believed in the rule of wise and enlightened kings and princes. No democrat he! As for revolution: "As long as the Austrians have their brown beer and little sausages, they will never revolt." (quoted at Marxist.com among other places)


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> "As long as the Austrians have their brown beer and little sausages, they will never revolt." (quoted at Marxist.com among other places)


Exactly the same ideology is in use today but they call it democracy, what mugs we are!


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> As for revolution: "As long as the Austrians have their brown beer and little sausages, they will never revolt." (quoted at Marxist.com among other places)


I find this quote to be true, except in modern day America it's Ipods and fastfood.


----------



## KenOC

iPods and fast food? Like 'em both! So what are the Sanders revolutionaries offering? My vote is up for grabs, but it's gotta be a good offer!


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> Anyway back to Debussy, other than one mediocre (okay arguably) opera and quartet, take away the preludes and nocturnes and what else is there? Yes, I understand his influence on contemporary music that was to come, but his output in amount, variety, quality and influence absolutely pales in comparison to that of Beethoven. Clair de Lune: meh


But I think it needs to be mentioned that not all of Beethoven's music is of the highest quality. We are listing Debussy's best works, and while much of Beethoven's early music, for example, is good music...I don't think it can be convincingly referred to much in these arguments. Not only that, when we are talking about influence, quantity of influential music probably doesn't matter that much: it's about the radical traits inherent in the music in the general sense, rather than the number of pieces that have radical aspects to them. As for variety? I believe that is up for debate (both as far as how much variety there is in each output, and how much variety matters (and when it does/doesn't)), and quality is generally subjective.

Your argument reeks of bias: just because you say something about a composer doesn't make it so. Pelleas is generally considered to be one of the pinnacles of French Opera, and the quartet is a fine work, but an early work. If we are going to say 'Meh' about Clair de Lune, we thus have to say 'Meh' about Beethoven's Op. 27 No. 2, and so forth.

To violadude's admirable list we may add the Images for Orchestra, along with many fine songs, chamber works, and miscellany.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

So this thread has taken an unexpected(not really) turn. From "why don't I like Beethoven" to "is Debussy better than Beethoven"? All you Debussy fans, do you actually believe Debussy is a greater composer than Beethoven? You can't be serious. I can understand liking his music better but actually claiming his music is better, a distinction that is often very blurry, is a very hard argument to win. I don't like Wagner very much and would rather listen to most every other major composer but I see the greatness in his music nonetheless.


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> Your argument reeks of bias: just because you say something about a composer doesn't make it so. Pelleas is generally considered to be one of the pinnacles of French Opera, and the quartet is a fine work, but an early work. If we are going to say 'Meh' about Clair de Lune, we thus have to say 'Meh' about Beethoven's Op. 27 No. 2, and so forth.


And so forth? Okay cancel out Clair de Lune and the Moonlight. And cancel out Pelleas and Fidelio. And the one quartet with any one of Beethoven's you choose (there are 14 still left) Now Debussy is left with one household name work (Aft of a Faun) and Beethoven is left with the Pathetique, Appassionata, Hammerklavier, #32 Arietta, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th symphonies, Violin Concerto, 5th piano concerto etc. (just to mention some works that the 'common man/woman' might be familiar with).

Where's the bias? I've got nothing against Debussy. He was just never in Beethoven's league no matter from which direction you come from.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Now Debussy is left with one household name work (Aft of a Faun) and Beethoven is left with the Pathetique, Appassionata, Hammerklavier, #32 Arietta, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 9th symphonies, Violin Concerto, 5th piano concerto etc.


Not true, (Preludes, Nocturnes, Arabesques, etc.) and even if it were, does it matter how many household works a composer has? I didn't know we were talking about popularity.

But really, when you say that Pelleas is "okay" or "mediocre" and then go on to say that Debussy is objectively not on Beethoven's league it's hard to take you seriously.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> Where's the bias?


Here: Now Debussy is left with one household name work (Aft of a Faun).

Also, a work being a 'house-hold name work' is hardly an indicator of quality. Bieber is more of a house-hold name than any of the works you mentioned.

I don't really have a problem with you thinking Beethoven was greater than Debussy (honestly I find such discussions tiresome when so much of it is subjective and isn't a competition). I'm a huge fan of both. What I have a problem is the way you go about arguing it. Some opinions should not be used as argument, and let your bias taint your perfectly fine (but imo seemingly too certain) opinion that is 'Beethoven is greater than Debussy,' and have been intolerant of differing opinions.


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> *I think we can objectively agree *that Beethoven is better than Debussy in certain aspects such as form and development while Debussy is better at harmony, for example. How do you weigh all these factors when arriving at the final verdict? *To me what Beethoven did great is better than what Debussy did but of course that is my subjective opinion*. I am not usually ranking composers but when I see a claim that so and so is better than one of the all-time greats, I feel the urge to respond. Claiming that Wagner or Debussy are better than Beethoven is laughable because there will never be a convincing argument, other than based on very strong subjectivity, for such a claim.
> 
> As far influence on other composers, as was mentioned, I would like to see someone argue successfully that any composers in the history of music was more influential than Beethoven.


You seem to haver between acknowledging that all your opinions are subjective, yet still trying to argue that they have some objective merit.

I don't believe any of these comparisons - yours or any others setting out claims for this degree of greatness or that - carry much validity as objective claims. Take "influence", for example. That has nothing to say about the intrinsic qualities of the music, only about the effectiveness of the argument that 'what he did is important to me, so I'm going to make use of it'. It doesn't establish that what the predecessor (or in some cases, peer) did was actually important, or that it has musical value greater than any other composer. All that can be pointed out is where, in the historical progression of classical, links between composers may be made, and where the peaks and troughs in prominence (rather than 'greatness') occur.

I even fail to see how, for example, Woodduck's or Mahlerian's analyses hold objectively true either.



Mahlerian said:


> What about Palestrina, whose methods of * counterpoint *(somewhat garbled) were transmitted to every generation of composers from Bach through to Bruckner and beyond?
> 
> As mentioned before, in *harmony and sonority*, Debussy opened the door to 20th century modernism.
> 
> Schoenberg (with a few precedents, true) gave us the *fusion of the vertical and horizontal dimensions* that still characterizes much contemporary music, even and especially that which people consider contrary to his legacy.
> 
> Haydn was the one who gave Beethoven the tool he needed to achieve what he did in *motivic development*, and through Beethoven he influenced every major Austro-German composer who followed him.





Woodduck said:


> Enormous *range and intensity of expression*; a continuous *quest for the unprecedented*, in form and expression, throughout a lifetime; mastery of each self-imposed formal and expressive challenge; a collection of works that again and again reach the pinnacle of attainment in their diverse genres; *a voice that spoke with the most personal accent yet heard in music, yet embodied the revolutionary spirit* of a time and has spoken to the breadth of humanity in all times since...


All of these elements carry a subjectivity for these two listeners in terms of their relevance to the quality of the music - none can do more than say that 'here was a composer who did things that might be considered important for the march of classical history'. But as indicators of what makes the music qualitatively better than others - they're no more than personal preferences, supported by a high degree of intersubjectivity perhaps, but not absolute objective statements of fact.


----------



## Lisztian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> So this thread has taken an unexpected(not really) turn. From "why don't I like Beethoven" to "is Debussy better than Beethoven"? All you Debussy fans, do you actually believe Debussy is a greater composer than Beethoven? You can't be serious. I can understand liking his music better but actually claiming his music is better, a distinction that is often very blurry, is a very hard argument to win. I don't like Wagner very much and would rather listen to most every other major composer but I see the greatness in his music nonetheless.


First of all, I like them about the same. Secondly, if you 'see greatness' in music yet don't like it very much, then perhaps it isn't great at all. The aim of art is not to be technically accomplished (although it is often required for greatness of expression), but rather to be enjoyed and stimulated by. That's another reason I don't like these arguments. I think that if, for example, more people who are initmately familiar with Beethoven's music like it than people who are intimately familiar with Debussy's music, that doesn't mean Beethoven is better: rather the style of expression is different, and will affect different people in different ways. One style of expression being more popular does not mean that other styles are not just as good. Thank goodness we have all of them to choose out of and listen to at different times. I also don't think we can speak of quantity of great music, because music cannot be platonically great.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> You seem to haver between acknowledging that all your opinions are subjective, yet still trying to argue that they have some objective merit.


If you need truly objective views, I suggest you solicit mine. Their objectivity can be readily measured by my patented Object-o-Meter, available now for $99.95 or three easy monthly payments of $35 each. Every new Object-o-Meter comes with five free opinions of your choice, each guaranteed to measure 95% objective or better. Additional opinions are only $5 each. PayPal accepted, as always.


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> ...honestly I find such discussions tiresome when so much of it is subjective and isn't a competition.


And yet, you're taking part in it.


> ...Bieber is more of a house-hold name than any of the works you mentioned...What I have a problem is the way you go about arguing it...


Well, at least I didn't bring Justin Bieber into the conversation...


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Blancrocher said:


> I'd like to add that Debussy completely owns the solo flute repertoire, imo.


I'd go along with that, although Stockhausen runs him close; he wrote some extraordinary solo flute works for Kathinka Pasveer. Not to everyone's taste, by far, but extraordinary nevertheless.


----------



## EdwardBast

Lisztian said:


> But I think it needs to be mentioned that not all of Beethoven's music is of the highest quality. We are listing Debussy's best works, and while much of Beethoven's early music, for example, is good music...I don't think it can be convincingly referred to much in these arguments. Not only that, when we are talking about influence, quantity of influential music probably doesn't matter that much: it's about the radical traits inherent in the music in the general sense, rather than the number of pieces that have radical aspects to them. As for variety? I believe that is up for debate (both as far as how much variety there is in each output, and how much variety matters (and when it does/doesn't)), and quality is generally subjective.
> 
> Your argument reeks of bias: just because you say something about a composer doesn't make it so. Pelleas is generally considered to be one of the pinnacles of French Opera, and the quartet is a fine work, but an early work. If we are going to say 'Meh' about Clair de Lune, we thus have to say 'Meh' about Beethoven's Op. 27 No. 2, and so forth.
> 
> To violadude's admirable list we may add the Images for Orchestra, along with many fine songs, chamber works, and miscellany.


I agree with your post in general. But I think a better counterpoise to _Clair de Lune_ would have been something like _Für Elise_. I don't understand the fashionable dissing of Op. 27 no. 2/i (I assume you meant the first movement?) I find it a remarkably well-constructed and original movement and absolutely perfect in the context of the whole sonata.


----------



## Lisztian

EdwardBast said:


> I agree with your post in general. But I think a better counterpoise to _Clair de Lune_ would have been something like _Für Elise_. I don't understand the fashionable dissing of Op. 27 no. 2/i (I assume you meant the first movement?) I find it a remarkably well-constructed and original movement and absolutely perfect in the context of the whole sonata.


Don't get me wrong I love Op. 27 no. 2, and yes I meant the first movement. I see your point and I didn't really think what I said through there: I agree that Fur Elise would be a better counterpoise if only because the entire sonata by Beethoven is remarkable, and you can't really compare a miniature to a fully fledged sonata (as in, not because one is more significant than the other, but they are completely different things). Let's not discount Clair de Lune though: I find it, too, to be a wonderful piece! Indeed the entire Suite Bergamasque is great stuff, even if I don't like it as much as many of his later works (just like how I really enjoy the Moonlight but prefer Op. 109, for example).


----------



## DiesIraeCX

I don't find it controversial to put Debussy in the same league as Beethoven, Mozart, or Bach (gasp! yes, Bach ). Same goes for Wagner, for that matter.


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> So this thread has taken an unexpected(not really) turn. From "why don't I like Beethoven" to "is Debussy better than Beethoven"? All you Debussy fans, do you actually believe Debussy is a greater composer than Beethoven? You can't be serious. I can understand liking his music better but actually claiming his music is better, a distinction that is often very blurry, is a very hard argument to win. I don't like Wagner very much and would rather listen to most every other major composer but I see the greatness in his music nonetheless.


I don't necessarily believe that Debussy is better than Beethoven. Their aesthetic aims are so different as to be difficult to rank against each other. I consider them roughly equal in the top echelon of composers.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> If you need truly objective views, I suggest you solicit mine. Their objectivity can be readily measured by my patented Object-o-Meter, available now for $99.95 or three easy monthly payments of $35 each. Every new Object-o-Meter comes with five free opinions of your choice, each guaranteed to measure 95% objective or better. Additional opinions are only $5 each. PayPal accepted, as always.


For a limited time only, can I get another one free if I pay an extra charge for shipping and handling?


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> For a limited time only, can I get another one free if I pay an extra charge for shipping and handling?


I can send you one for free in return for a detailed and unbiased review on Amazon. If you want any more free stuff, of course, the expected tenor of the review should be clear enough. Nudge nudge wink wink.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MacLeod said:


> *You seem to haver between acknowledging that all your opinions are subjective, yet still trying to argue that they have some objective merit.*
> 
> I don't believe any of these comparisons - yours or any others setting out claims for this degree of greatness or that - carry much validity as objective claims. *Take "influence", for example. That has nothing to say about the intrinsic qualities of the music, only about the effectiveness* of the argument that 'what he did is important to me, so I'm going to make use of it'. It doesn't establish that what the predecessor (or in some cases, peer) did was actually important, or that it has musical value greater than any other composer. All that can be pointed out is where, in the historical progression of classical, links between composers may be made, and where the peaks and troughs in prominence (rather than 'greatness') occur.
> 
> I even fail to see how, for example, Woodduck's or Mahlerian's analyses hold objectively true either.
> 
> All of these elements carry a subjectivity for these two listeners in terms of their relevance to the quality of the music - none can do more than say that 'here was a composer who did things that might be considered important for the march of classical history'. But as indicators of what makes the music qualitatively better than others - they're no more than personal preferences, supported by a high degree of intersubjectivity perhaps, but not absolute objective statements of fact.


I don't think I'm doing any wavering. My claim is that it is objective (as much as one can be about art) to say that Beethoven is better at theme development than Debussy. Is that disputable on objective grounds? I don't think so. Is it not objective to say Bach was a better fugue writer than Wagner? I don't think anyone who has studied their music can deny it. Where subjectivity enters is when one tries to determine if being better at thematic development than harmony makes music intrinsically better.

And I agree with you completely about influence being irrelevant as far as music greatness is concerned. I only mentioned it because someone else said how influential Debussy was, in support of the claim that Debussy was greater than Beethoven.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mahlerian said:


> I don't necessarily believe that Debussy is better than Beethoven. Their aesthetic aims are so different as to be difficult to rank against each other. I consider them roughly equal in the top echelon of composers.


I can get behind this idea even though I personally think Debussy is a tier below Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I can get behind this idea even though I personally think Debussy is a tier below Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.


Who from the modernist movement _would_ you consider on par with those three, if not Debussy?


----------



## Woodduck

Debussy's range seems to me much, much narrower than Beethoven's. Evocative, lovely and enchanting, and masterful as what he is - but what is he? How much of life does his view take in? What aspects of human experience does he touch on, and what does he ignore, if not reject? Could he ever say to a struggling mankind, "Seid umschlungen, Millionen," or is he talking mostly to his fellow aesthetes?

It occurred to me decades ago that as the philosophy and sensibility of individualism pervaded Western culture it resulted in artists focusing more and more intently on less and less, narrowing their focus from the universal to the particular, from broad, philosophical and moral concerns and themes to the particularities of subjective experience and the minutiae of perception. At the extreme of this trend, an artist would find his essentially personal "thing" - a narrow range of ideas or perceptual effects - and stake his claim to distinction on cultivating a "style" to the highest degree. This progression can be traced through Romanticism, Naturalism and abstraction in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it can be observed in music.

Beethoven, inheriting a Classical concern with the universal yet infusing it with unprecedented personal expression - and achieving this expression not through a narrowing of style but, on the contrary, through a tremendous expansion of Classical form - stands most prominently astride the old and new sensibilities, seeming to be neither inhibited by Classical conventions nor tempted by Romantic self-indulgence. He embodies, in other words, the strengths of both the Classic and the Romantic, and avoids the pitfalls of both. This is a major reason why he is commonly perceived as a "universal" artist, and it's at least a good a claim as any more technical qualification to justify his reputation as one of a handful of the greatest artists in history.

Of course there is no final "objective" proof of such claims, so I propose none. Ultimately you either see it - hear it - or you don't.


----------



## KenOC

What Woodduck said.

Mandatory appeal to populism: How many concert halls have "Debussy" inscribed over the entrance doors?


----------



## Chronochromie

I for one wouldn't say "universality" (quite problematic a concept I think) is a criteria for greatness (if such a thing exists). He does speak to more than his "fellow aesthetes" or we wouldn't be listening to him today.


----------



## violadude

Woodduck said:


> Of course there is no final "objective" proof of such claims, so I propose none. Ultimately you either see it - hear it - or you don't.


Perhaps the same goes for the variety of expression found in Debussy's music. You either hear it or you don't.


----------



## kanishknishar

All you chumps thinking who has most influence or more: Debussy or Beethoven? Ha! You're looking in the wrong direction.

It's *clearly* Joseph Haydn. Bow to the man. Worship him. The great grandfather of everything that followed. The _real _rockstar.


----------



## Nereffid

Why do we need Beethoven or Debussy, or whoever, to be the greatest?
Is it not enough that we and many others love their music?


----------



## Mahlerian

Nereffid said:


> Why do we need Beethoven or Debussy, or whoever, to be the greatest?
> Is it not enough that we and many others love their music?


I don't need Debussy to be the greatest. I was saying that he's on par with Beethoven, and they both excelled in different areas.

I would prefer that people who dislike something not suffer abuse and ridicule for their tastes, and this thread has been a shameful display of that.


----------



## EdwardBast

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't think I'm doing any wavering. My claim is that it is objective (as much as one can be about art) to say that Beethoven is better at theme development than Debussy. Is that disputable on objective grounds? I don't think so. Is it not objective to say Bach was a better fugue writer than Wagner?


The issue is not whether Beethoven or Debussy was better at thematic development, but whether the issue has any relevance at all. I'd say it doesn't, as that kind of development was generally not all that interesting or meaningful in the styles Debussy cultivated. If one is listening to Debussy because one wants to hear more classical style development, one is misguided. And why on earth would Wagner be writing fugues? Once again, Bach was undoubtedly a better composer of fugues, but that has no relevance to evaluating Wagner's art. None I can see anyway.


----------



## EdwardBast

Herrenvolk said:


> All you chumps thinking who has most influence or more: Debussy or Beethoven? Ha! You're looking in the wrong direction.
> 
> It's *clearly* Joseph Haydn. Bow to the man. Worship him. The great grandfather of everything that followed. The _real _rockstar.


No it was CPE Bach, the great great grandfather of them all!


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> I would prefer that people who dislike something not suffer abuse and ridicule for their tastes, and this thread has been a shameful display of that.


I haven't seen much of that. People get passionate over some of the subjects brought up here. Given the limitations of forums where we don't really know each other, there are no facial/body cues to go by, the discussions are in English which is not the primary language for some and there are cultural differences such that some people take offense over things that others don't, it's amazing to me how relatively civil a discussion like this has been.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> I haven't seen much of that. People get passionate over some of the subjects brought up here. Given the limitations of forums where we don't really know each other, there are no facial/body cues to go by, the discussions are in English which is not the primary language for some and there are cultural differences such that some people take offense over things that others don't, it's amazing to me how relatively civil a discussion like this has been.


Civil?



Atrahasis said:


> Everyone have their tastes, but some people have problems with hearing too.





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If you think Beethoven's music is superficial, you lose all credibility on the subject.





DavidA said:


> Just seen a programme about Beethoven's 5th with John Elliot Gardiner and Ian Hislop. Incredibly complex work. I'd say (whether you like the work or not) that anyone who calls it 'smart in a superficial way' has either a problem with the English language or a problem grasping revolutionary pieces of music.





Woodduck said:


> If that opening is a door, Beethoven is simultaneously shutting it on the past and opening it on the future...We aren't "allowed" to enter; we're already in - unless we're determined not to be.





gardibolt said:


> I could answer but it would violate the ToS.





DaveM said:


> Okay, so you have a persecution complex. Don't blame it on Beethoven.





DavidA said:


> There is no need for you to feel maltreated. Just don't listen to it rather than adopt that martyred attitude!





DavidA said:


> You are the champion at missing the point! :lol:





EdwardBast said:


> To judge the Eroica as smart and superficial proves only that the symphony remains beyond ones comprehension.





Woodduck said:


> If all you hear in Beethoven are his drama and his genius for form - as if those were minor achievements, for Pete's sake! - you are not hearing Beethoven, and not comprehending many of the qualities of spirit that mean the most to those who love his work.





SalieriIsInnocent said:


> You might need to run out and buy yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven.





TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> All you Debussy fans, do you actually believe Debussy is a greater composer than Beethoven? You can't be serious.


EVERY ONE of these posts is about the deficiencies about the others in disagreement with the poster.

I disagree with every argument presented here against Beethoven's music, and I think that the points given were poor and not particularly meaningful, but these kinds of personal attacks are unconscionable.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Civil?
> 
> EVERY ONE of these posts is about the deficiencies about the others in disagreement with the poster.
> 
> I disagree with every argument presented here against Beethoven's music, and I think that the points given were poor and not particularly meaningful, but these kinds of personal attacks are unconscionable.


Your standard for what constitutes a "personal attack" is certainly different from mine. I see most of the above as just the sort of self-expression one would expect in a conversation in which people get animated in defending their artistic enthusiasms. A touch of hyperbole here and there, a bit of incredulity that others don't see what we see...

If this is personal attack, you mods had better get out the mops and brooms and keep them at the ready for the next time someone accuses someone of lying because they claim there's no melody in Schoenberg.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Civil?
> 
> EVERY ONE of these posts is about the deficiencies about the others in disagreement with the poster.
> 
> I disagree with every argument presented here against Beethoven's music, and I think that the points given were poor and not particularly meaningful, but these kinds of personal attacks are unconscionable.


Wrong in my case. Saying "the symphony remains beyond _ones_ comprehension" is literally not personal, since ones is not a personal pronoun, nor is it about a deficiency of the listener. It is not stating anyone is unable to comprehend or deficient in any way, but only that they have not yet comprehended the symphony. It is ludicrous to call this statement unconscionable. At worst it is a slightly stronger version of "Go listen again, you'll get it."


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Of course, when someone says "go listen again, you'll get it" for Schoenberg, people strongly react negatively.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Wrong in my case. Saying "the symphony remains beyond _ones_ comprehension" is literally not personal, since ones is not a personal pronoun, nor is it about a deficiency of the listener. It is not stating anyone is unable to comprehend or deficient in any way, but only that they have not yet comprehended the symphony. It is ludicrous to call this statement unconscionable. At worst it is a slightly stronger version of "Go listen again, you'll get it."


In the technical, not popular, sense, it is an ad hominem argument. You are saying that for someone to judge the Eroica as superficial they must necessarily not get the piece. I disagree with saying the work is superficial, but I also don't believe that there are literally no cases in which someone could get the work and still, by their own personal standards, judge it as superficial.

All of the quotes I posted are ad hominem arguments.


----------



## GreenMamba

Am I misremembering this, or did this thread title once use the phrase "suck a**"? 

Surely that had some influence on the types of responses the OP received.


----------



## KenOC

(Deleted due to misapprehension)


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> All arguments against the music I like are ad hominem arguments. Mostly from haters, or course. I am thankful that none of the people who agree with my tastes are like that! :lol:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

My god, though, the whole point is that I DON'T even agree with the positions taken by those who are being abused here. You're implying that I'm being a hypocrite in a way my entire post is against.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> All arguments against the music I like are ad hominem arguments. Mostly from haters, or course. I am thankful that none of the people who agree with my tastes are like that! :lol:


Mahlerian is disagreeing with the ad homenim arguments against people who don't like _Beethoven_, but Mahlerian likes Beethoven.

Please read what he wrote.

Again, please read what he wrote.

:lol:


----------



## KenOC

Oops, yes, I misread. I've deleted my post.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> In the technical, not popular, sense, it is an ad hominem argument. You are saying that for someone to judge the Eroica as superficial they must necessarily not get the piece. I disagree with saying the work is superficial, but I also don't believe that there are literally no cases in which someone could get the work and still, by their own personal standards, judge it as superficial.
> 
> All of the quotes I posted are ad hominem arguments.


I think you are wrong. It is, I maintain, impossible for anyone with the background to comprehend the Eroica to reasonably judge it superficial. Never in my life have I seen this happen, despite exposing hundreds of students to the work. If you disagree, pray, use your imagination and offer a hypothetical case of someone getting the Eroica and judging it superficial. You have accused me, personally, of making an unconscionable personal attack - not a technically ad hominem attack. Which is it? Do you stand by your ad hominem attack on me or not?


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> Of course, when someone says "go listen again, you'll get it" for Schoenberg, people strongly react negatively.


The issue raised isn't "reacting negatively." It's people being "attacked" and "abused" (see post #292). No one here has been abused. This thread is on to 20 pages. Are those quotes the worst we can come up with?

Maybe I shouldn't ask.


----------



## EdwardBast

SeptimalTritone said:


> Of course, when someone says "go listen again, you'll get it" for Schoenberg, people strongly react negatively.


But does anyone say it is an unconscionable personal attack?  And what would that have to do with anything? I don't follow the point you are trying to make.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> I think you are wrong. It is, I maintain, impossible for anyone with the background to comprehend the Eroica to reasonably judge it superficial. If you disagree, pray, use your imagination and offer a hypothetical case of someone getting the Eroica and judging it superficial.


Well, what about someone who requires a greater fluidity of rhythm and phrase length? Someone who wants the internal structures of a piece to remain completely below the surface of the music? Someone who thinks that all Western music prior to Debussy was incomplete in terms of harmonic possibilities and finds triadic/tonal music to be merely a play of a few basic harmonic types out of the myriad that are in fact available?

What about Glenn Gould, Igor Stravinsky, Claude Debussy, and the many others who did not look at Beethoven as a model to emulate?

Why are you certain that none of these hypothetical or actual people could possibly understand the Eroica?



EdwardBast said:


> You have accused me, personally, of making an unconscionable personal attack - not a technically ad hominem attack. Which is it? Do you stand by your ad hominem attack on me or not?


Ad hominem attacks are always uncalled for. They lower the level of discussion and prevent people from reaching any kind of understanding.

To say that someone is committing an ad hominem attack is not an ad hominem attack. If the person's actions *are* the issue at hand, a discussion of those actions is not beside the point.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> I for one wouldn't say "universality" (quite problematic a concept I think) is a criteria for greatness (if such a thing exists). He does speak to more than his "fellow aesthetes" or we wouldn't be listening to him today.


All these concepts are problematic. No one can say anything meaningful about art without using problematic concepts. Glorious, isn't it?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

EdwardBast said:


> But does anyone say it is an unconscionable personal attack?  And what would that have to do with anything? I don't follow the point you are trying to make.


To the first question, yes. I have, in the past and not too distant past, many many times, been accused of "pegging people for having wrong taste" while merely pointing out their factual wrongs, much less saying things like "go listen again, you'll get it", which I don't do anymore for fear of backlash.

To second question, why would "You might need to run out and buy yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven." be defended, but the equivalent statement for Schoenberg be treated as "blaming the listener", which has been thrown out tons and tons of times?

So my statements have to do with everything.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck said:


> If this is personal attack, you mods had better get out the mops and brooms and keep them at the ready for the next time someone accuses someone of lying because they claim there's no melody in Schoenberg.


No melody in Schoenberg is factually wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable to correct it.

But "You might need to run out and buy yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven" is well, a claim that I better go buy myself a heart if I don't like Beethoven i.e. I don't have a basic emotional sense if I don't like Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> Ad hominem attacks are always uncalled for. They lower the level of discussion and prevent people from reaching any kind of understanding.
> 
> To say that someone is committing an ad hominem attack is not an ad hominem attack. If the person's actions *are* the issue at hand, a discussion of those actions is not beside the point.


Accusing people of ad hominem attacks is a conversation ender. It can be used as a broad brush to not only diminish the substance of the positions of others, but also the way they express themselves. Practically all of those examples you gave would not be all that unusual in a debate. The truly ad hominem comments are ones where people are called stupid, ignorant, an idiot or somesuch. There has been nothing like that here.

In another thread, you accused me of spreading falsehoods. Yes, I took offense, but was that really ad hominem? I didn't really think so, but you apparently would. Ironic.


----------



## ArtMusic

I see the analogy with not liking Beethoven but considering one a classical music lover as somewhat of an enigma. It's one who proclaims to liking Italian cuisine but dislikes pasta or one who proclaims to liking Rock'n'Roll but dislikes Elvis Presley or one who proclaims to like jazz but dislikes Miles Davis or one who likes American muscle cars but dislikes the Mustang or one who likes atonal music but dislikes Schoenberg. It's a puzzling enigma.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> No melody in Schoenberg is factually wrong. Therefore, it is reasonable to correct it.
> 
> But "You might need to run out and buy yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven" is well, a claim that I better go buy myself a heart if I don't like Beethoven i.e. I don't have a basic emotional sense if I don't like Beethoven.


If I said to you, "Have a heart!," I doubt most people would take that as a claim that you don't have one. I suspect the person who said that about Beethoven simply yielded to sentiment and made an impetuous statement that he would moderate if asked to. Haven't we all reacted that way at some point to criticisms of things we love - especially when an incalculably huge artistic genius has been compared to a used car salesman?

We all need to relax here. But then we do live in a culture where you can sue your boss for telling you you look pretty this morning.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

ArtMusic said:


> I see the analogy with not liking Beethoven but considering one a classical music lover as somewhat of an enigma. It's one who proclaims to liking Italian cuisine but dislikes pasta or one who proclaims to liking Rock'n'Roll but dislikes Elvis Presley or one who proclaims to like jazz but dislikes Miles Davis or one who likes American muscle cars but dislikes the Mustang or one who likes atonal music but dislikes Schoenberg. It's a puzzling enigma.


Man, I love me some Beethoven, as many here well know, but it isn't _that_ puzzling. The world of classical music is incredibly diverse.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Woodduck said:


> *If that opening is a door, Beethoven is simultaneously shutting it on the past and opening it on the future. It isn't an invitation. It's a challenge.* The exultant bang of it never intimidated me (or Berlioz). Bernstein once pointed out that, depending on the tempo chosen, those two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in. *We aren't "allowed" to enter; we're already in - unless we're determined not to be.*


I gotta say, I don't find this to be even approaching unconscionable or an ad hominem. It sounds like something I would read in a Beethoven biography, or in a lecture on Beethoven's music, or in CD booklet for an Eroica recording. I quite agree with it, too.

It's explicitly about the music, too, right? Those "two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in."


----------



## tdc

ArtMusic said:


> I see the analogy with not liking Beethoven but considering one a classical music lover as somewhat of an enigma. It's one who proclaims to liking Italian cuisine but dislikes pasta or one who proclaims to liking Rock'n'Roll but dislikes Elvis Presley or one who proclaims to like jazz but dislikes Miles Davis or one who likes American muscle cars but dislikes the Mustang or one who likes atonal music but dislikes Schoenberg. It's a puzzling enigma.


I don't agree, and I think 'classical music' as a term is used to cover a much wider span of styles than the other categories you listed. What does Beethoven's music have to do with Gregorian chant? Medieval songs? Does Beethoven sound anything at all like Bach? What if somebody's favorite composer is Debussy, is Beethoven's music close enough stylistically to be considered the same thing?

Even if someone was _only_ interested in music of the Classical era itself and did not like Beethoven this wouldn't strike me as odd because his music is sufficiently different from that of his peers. In no way could Beethoven's music be taken as representative of classical music as a whole, and because he was a transitional figure his music could not even be seen as representative of any single era either.


----------



## Mahlerian

DiesIraeCX said:


> I gotta say, I don't find this to be even approaching unconscionable or an ad hominem. It sounds like something I would read in a Beethoven biography, or in a lecture on Beethoven's music, or in CD booklet for an Eroica recording. I quite agree with it, too.
> 
> It's explicitly about the music, too, right? Those "two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in."


You think that *everyone* who doesn't take to the Eroica is willfully not allowing themselves to like it?


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> I see the analogy with not liking Beethoven but considering one a classical music lover as somewhat of an enigma. It's one who proclaims to liking Italian cuisine but dislikes pasta or one who proclaims to liking Rock'n'Roll but dislikes Elvis Presley or one who proclaims to like jazz but dislikes Miles Davis or one who likes American muscle cars but dislikes the Mustang or one who likes atonal music but dislikes Schoenberg. It's a puzzling enigma.


I don't like atonal music, but then again I've never heard any. I do love Schoenberg though.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> Accusing people of ad hominem attacks is a conversation ender. It can be used as a broad brush to not only diminish the substance of the positions of others, but also the way they express themselves. Practically all of those examples you gave would not be all that unusual in a debate.


Logical fallacies are endemic to debates, and their ubiquity doesn't make them any less harmful.



DaveM said:


> The truly ad hominem comments are ones where people are called stupid, ignorant, an idiot or somesuch. There has been nothing like that here.


No, that's an insult. Insults can be used as an ad hominem, but an ad hominem is ANY kind of argument that changes the subject to the person presenting a position rather than the position itself.



DaveM said:


> In another thread, you accused me of spreading falsehoods. Yes, I took offense, but was that really ad hominem? I didn't really think so, but you apparently would. Ironic.


No, it is not an ad hominem. It is about the position; saying that Schoenberg has no melodies is false, therefore one who presents that position is spreading falsehoods. Saying that you were lying about something therefore this other thing which is unrelated is also untrue would be an ad hominem. Saying that what you are saying is false is not.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Mahlerian said:


> You think that *everyone* who doesn't take to the Eroica is willfully not allowing themselves to like it?


No. To begin, I didn't and wouldn't dare speak for everyone. I made no such claim or assertion. I am merely responding to how I read (interpreted) his post, with the musical analysis in tact. I interpreted it similarly to something that I myself have written about modern/contemporary music, that if you aren't willing to accept the music from the beginning, you've lost the "battle". If you go into Ligeti's music not ready to accept it on its _own_ terms, you're doing yourself a disservice. Same goes for Schoenberg, Beethoven, Palestrina, Wagner, or Feldman.


----------



## Mahlerian

DiesIraeCX said:


> No. To begin, I didn't and wouldn't dare speak for everyone. I made no such claim or assertion.


But Woodduck DID. That's the point. He said that if you don't feel you're "allowed in," then you are "determined not to be."


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> , it is not an ad hominem. It is about the position; saying that Schoenberg has no melodies is false, therefore one who presents that position is spreading falsehoods.


I never said that and you know it so what do you call that? Otherwise, show me the quote. The last time I challenged you on that, you presented me with something that everyone knew to be humor and even then it made no mention of Schoenberg. Your definition of ad hominem is conveniently very selective.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Mahlerian said:


> But Woodduck DID. That's the point. He said that if you don't feel you're "allowed in," then you are "determined not to be."


Let me first recall your response to my post, then respond to your post above.



Mahlerian said:


> You think that *everyone* who doesn't take to the Eroica is willfully not allowing themselves to like it?


That's just it, I _don't_ get that from his post, what I do get from his post is something similar to what's been said about Schoenberg's music: that some people who don't like Schoenberg's music are determined not to like it from the get-go. This is something I'm in agreement with, and not just with regards to Schoenberg, but to any perceived difficult music, be it Berg or Messiaen. It's something I've written before, that one should come to the music on its own terms and not expecting something it's not (i.e., don't go to Schoenberg expecting to finally cross that barrier thinking it will sound like Schumann or Chopin, you're setting yourself up for disappointment). Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but this is a sentiment with which you have agreed.

I'll repeat it. I found it to be like something I would read in a CD booklet in an Eroica recording or in a Beethoven biography, some musical analysis with a bit of mild rhetoric.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Mahlerian said:


> But Woodduck DID. That's the point. He said that if you don't feel you're "allowed in," then you are "determined not to be."


Exactly. It is possible to have no pre-existing "determination not be be allowed in", understand what's going in musically in the Eroica, and yet not feel "allowed in", not enjoying or feeling alienated from the musical space of the Eroica. This was the case for Chopin, Debussy, and Cage. Did they have pre-existing "determination not be be allowed in" causing them to feel "not allowed in"?

Of course not. They merely didn't feel "allowed in", but had no sort of "determination".



DiesIraeCX said:


> That's just it, I _don't_ get that from his post, what I do get from his post is something similar to what's been said about Schoenberg's music: that some people who don't like Schoenberg's music are determined not to like it from the get-go.


Of course, "some people" having determination to not like something and therefore prejudice is a possibility in anything. I do think that with Schoenberg, the real problem is not dislike (which I really think is fair and genuine for almost all) but statement of factual wrongs. All of these factual wrongs can be fixed through more careful listening, but I don't think dislike can always be "fixed" through more careful listening: if a lot of people don't like the largely non-tertian/diatonic aesthetic and fine Schoenberg horrifically ugly that's fine, and I think that that's genuine. I.e. my mom or a lot of my science/math friends will never like Schoenberg because they find the aesthetic horrifically ugly, but have no knowledge of it being 12-tone or atonal and therefore no prejudice. There's great merit in, while disliking a certain music, acknowledging the objective properties that it possesses.

Therefore, to all that think I believe that dislike of Schoenberg comes only from or even mostly from prejudice or pre-determination, read what I just wrote above. And also realize that one can not feel invited or allowed into Beethoven without having any sort of determination.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

SeptimalTritone said:


> Exactly. It is possible to have no pre-existing "determination not be be allowed in", understand what's going in musically in the Eroica, and yet not feel "allowed in", not enjoying or feeling alienated from the musical space of the Eroica. This was the case for Chopin, Debussy, and Cage. Did they have pre-existing "determination not be be allowed in" causing them to feel "not allowed in"?
> 
> Of course not. They merely didn't feel "allowed in", but had no sort of "determination".


SeptimalTritone, of course it's possible, just the same as it's possible to "have no pre-existing "determination not be be allowed in", understand what's going in musically in Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, and yet not feel "allowed in"". What I'm saying is that there are indeed some people who _are_ determined to not like a certain composer or an era of music, be it Schoenberg or Beethoven - classical or contemporary. I think the main point of contention here is the word "everyone" and "some".

Do you disagree, ST? Do you think there aren't any people who are more or less determined to not like modern and contemporary boogeymen like Schoenberg and company?


----------



## Xenakiboy

ArtMusic said:


> I see the analogy with not liking Beethoven but considering one a classical music lover as somewhat of an enigma. It's one who proclaims to liking Italian cuisine but dislikes pasta or one who proclaims to liking Rock'n'Roll but dislikes Elvis Presley or one who proclaims to like jazz but dislikes Miles Davis or one who likes American muscle cars but dislikes the Mustang or one who likes atonal music but dislikes Schoenberg. It's a puzzling enigma.


Are you trying to say that you have to like Elvis to like rock'n'roll and Miles Davis to like jazz?  that's a load of _nonsense_. You know that Miles and Elvis are just dipping your feet into the pool's of those genres right? you can like them or not but there are not requirements.

On the funny side imagine this conversation:

person 1: "I hear that you're quite the jazz fanatic! Who's your favorite musician?"
person 2: "I really like Miles Davis" 
person 1: "Yeah, who else do you like?"
person 1: "What do you mean?"
person 2: "you know there are other jazz musicians right??" 
Person 1: "What?? I thought it was just Miles...I'm mindblown!!"


----------



## Mahlerian

DiesIraeCX said:


> SeptimalTritone, of course it's possible, just the same as it's possible to "have no pre-existing "determination not be be allowed in", understand what's going in musically in Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, and yet not feel "allowed in"". What I'm saying is that there are indeed some people who _are_ determined to not like a certain composer or an era of music, be it Schoenberg or Beethoven - classical or contemporary. I think the main point of contention here is the word "everyone" and "some".


Logically, Woodduck's statement can only be an "All" statement. Otherwise it would be completely irrelevant to the conversation. He was not saying, as you seemed to imply, that if you do not let yourself in you will not enjoy the Eroica, which is obviously true, but rather that if you do not enjoy the Eroica you are not letting yourself in, which is a completely different statement, and one I believe is obviously false.

And no, I would never make such a statement about Schoenberg, and stand by my repudiation of the remark no matter the composer under discussion.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

DiesIraeCX said:


> Do you disagree, ST? Do you think there aren't any people who are more or less determined to not like modern and contemporary boogeymen like Schoenberg and company?


There could be some, but I don't think that's the most common issue. I edited my last post to answer that question. The usual thing is that people first don't like the aesthetic, almost always genuinely, which is fine... but then start creating factual wrongs based off of that, which is not fine. I don't think that pre-prejudice causes most dislike of Schoenberg: dislike (and fair dislike) of the dense, largely non-tertian/diatonic aesthetic comes first and then factual prejudice comes later.

This point my be a point of disagreement with Mahlerian: I don't think that atonality prejudice causes a large amount of dislike of Schoenberg because I often play Schoenberg "blindly" to friends and family who don't know anything about so-called atonality or serialism and they hate the aesthetic. Sometimes the people who hate the aesthetic come up with factual prejudice later on, especially on youtube comments, but really, I think most dislike of Schoenberg's aesthetic is fair (contrary to what some people on TalkClassical think about me, I don't "peg" people for having "wrong" taste: I am not that immature).


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> This point my be a point of disagreement with Mahlerian: I don't think that atonality prejudice causes a large amount of dislike of Schoenberg because I often play Schoenberg "blindly" to friends and family who don't know anything about so-called atonality or serialism and they hate the aesthetic. Sometimes the people who hate the aesthetic come up with factual prejudice later on, especially on youtube comments, but really, I think most dislike of Schoenberg's aesthetic is fair (contrary to what some people on TalkClassical think about me, I don't "peg" people for having "wrong" taste: I am not that immature).


Oh, I agree that prejudice isn't causing the negative initial reaction in most cases. It does help to perpetuate the absolutely false things people believe about him, though.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mahlerian said:


> Who from the modernist movement _would_ you consider on par with those three, if not Debussy?


No one is on par with them.


----------



## violadude

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> No one is on par with them.


I know this sentiment is cmmon in the Classical Music world, but it just strikes me as ridiculously hyperbolic.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

EdwardBast said:


> The issue is not whether Beethoven or Debussy was better at thematic development, but whether the issue has any relevance at all. I'd say it doesn't, as that kind of development was generally not all that interesting or meaningful in the styles Debussy cultivated. If one is listening to Debussy because one wants to hear more classical style development, one is misguided. And why on earth would Wagner be writing fugues? Once again, Bach was undoubtedly a better composer of fugues, but that has no relevance to evaluating Wagner's art. None I can see anyway.


I think you missed my point. I mentioned Bach being a better fugue writer than Wagner as an objective fact. I did not say that being a better fugue writer automatically makes one a better composer. Objective: Bach is better at fugues than Wagner. Subjective: fugues are a higher form and therefore greater music than opera.

And no, I'm not listening to Debussy for thematic development because I know I won't find the kind I'm used to in Beethoven or Brahms. But what I find in Debussy's music does not strike me as being as interesting or emotionally satisfying as that of Beethoven. I guess I don't value the things Debussy excelled at as much as others.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

violadude said:


> I know this sentiment is cmmon in the Classical Music world, but it just strikes me as ridiculously hyperbolic.


Well, I did not say no one comes close to them, just that no one is on par 

I would put Brahms, Mahler, Stravinksy and Schubert as being very close. I guess Stravinsky is the only one that remotely qualifies as being a modernist.


----------



## Woodduck

Originally posted by Woodduck:

*If that opening [the first two bars of the Eroica] is a door, Beethoven is simultaneously shutting it on the past and opening it on the future. It isn't an invitation. It's a challenge. The exultant bang of it never intimidated me (or Berlioz). Bernstein once pointed out that, depending on the tempo chosen, those two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in. We aren't "allowed" to enter; we're already in - unless we're determined not to be. *



DiesIraeCX said:


> I gotta say, I don't find this to be even approaching unconscionable or an ad hominem. It sounds like something I would read in a Beethoven biography, or in a lecture on Beethoven's music, or in CD booklet for an Eroica recording. I quite agree with it, too.
> 
> It's explicitly about the music, too, right? Those "two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in."


Thank you for being one person who thinks the more important thoughts in the post you quote are more important than the less important ones! But as to the less important one that has people's knickers in a twist...

Having explained the musical function of the two opening "gunshot" chords of the Eroica - that they are not a "door" one must first pass through before the piece gets under way - I thought it plain to see that anyone who doesn't realize from that opening gesture and the melody that follows it instantly that he is "already in" the piece must either have no sense of the music at all or must be ready to reject it on the basis of some prior assumption about the work or about Beethoven. The idea that two chords would by themselves discourage someone from listening further is, though not completely unthinkable, a bit bizarre.

That there do seem to be some prejudices afoot is pretty clear from some of the strange and disparaging descriptions of Beethoven's music which preceded my remarks, and to which I reacted. "Superficially smart," "hot air," "lack of substance," "sweet nothings," "cleverish," "car salesman"...

Had I had any sense that such comments were offered as thoughtful responses to the art of Beethoven, or, in the case of the _Eroica,_ represented actual perceptions arising from listening to the work beyond its first two bars, I wouldn't have bothered to say anything at all. Perhaps I've paid someone too great a compliment by assuming that they are even capable of hearing a brief opening gesture as if it were an intrinsic part of a larger whole. Maybe what I suspect to be resistance is indeed simple incomprehension. But I don't think so.

If my suggestion of listener resistance is to any degree unwarranted, I can only plead that the "criticisms" of Beethoven I was responding to are even less apt. Beethoven isn't around to be offended, but if he were I'm sure he would know exactly where to tell us to put our petty putdowns.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Originally posted by Woodduck:
> 
> If that opening [the first two bars of the _Eroica_] is a door, Beethoven is simultaneously shutting it on the past and opening it on the future. It isn't an invitation. It's a challenge. The exultant bang of it never intimidated me (or Berlioz). Bernstein once pointed out that, depending on the tempo chosen, those two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in. We aren't "allowed" to enter; we're already in - unless we're determined not to be.


Well, this does seem a fine sentiment and, as somebody noted, one that none of us would be surprised to read in the program notes to a recording. Did somebody call this an ad hominem attack? I can't remember clearly due to my advanced age and failing powers. But we do live in an age of bizarre claims, it seems.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> If that opening [the first two bars of the _Eroica_] is a door, Beethoven is simultaneously shutting it on the past and opening it on the future. It isn't an invitation. It's a challenge. The exultant bang of it never intimidated me (or Berlioz). Bernstein once pointed out that, depending on the tempo chosen, those two explosive chords could be heard as upbeats to what follows, propelling us forward, not inviting us in. We aren't "allowed" to enter; we're already in - unless we're determined not to be.


About precisely those opening two chords, here are two links that may be of interest:
1) 



 (note the pitch shifts!);
2) http://www.michaellewanski.com/blog/2014/12/29/on-the-eroica-symphonys-opening-chords


----------



## ArtMusic

Xenakiboy said:


> Are you trying to say that you have to like Elvis to like rock'n'roll and Miles Davis to like jazz?  that's a load of _nonsense_. You know that Miles and Elvis are just dipping your feet into the pool's of those genres right? you can like them or not but there are not requirements.
> 
> On the funny side imagine this conversation:
> 
> person 1: "I hear that you're quite the jazz fanatic! Who's your favorite musician?"
> person 2: "I really like Miles Davis"
> person 1: "Yeah, who else do you like?"
> person 1: "What do you mean?"
> person 2: "you know there are other jazz musicians right??"
> Person 1: "What?? I thought it was just Miles...I'm mindblown!!"


Yes, I am saying I personally find it puzzling when someone says they love a genre/type of music but does not enjoy the best example(s) of those genre/types. I did come across someone who likes Classical music (i.e. 18th century) but find Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart lackluster. I have since discovered she has only listened to a few pieces by Mozart and only a little more of 198th century music (mostly late Baroque and Haydn).


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Objective: Bach is better at fugues than Wagner.


In what way can this be described as 'objective fact'? This is still your opinion.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I did come across someone who likes Classical music (i.e. 18th century) but find Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart lackluster.


Surely that cannot be, as all classical music lovers must love all classical composers, else they are not classical music lovers??


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Surely that cannot be, as all classical music lovers must love all classical composers, else they are not classical music lovers??


I am a lover of prime rib, but not all prime rib is prepared to my taste or is of requisite quality.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I am a lover of prime rib, but not all prime rib is prepared to my taste or is of requisite quality.


So ?


----------



## Art Rock

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, I am saying I personally find it puzzling when someone says they love a genre/type of music but does not enjoy the best example(s) of those genre/types.


I think you are confusing "best" and "most popular". The latter of course never implying that everyone (not even the majority) should prefer it.


----------



## DoenitzDerBedrohung

As myopic as such a selectively condescending, dismissive attitude toward Beethoven and other such similar STURM UND DRANG , innovative composers is, there's a certain kind of obsessive-compulsive mindset that, incredibly, may be ecstatically transported by the order and metricality of Bach, Mendelsohn, Von Weber---or even Bernstein---but yet which is relatively unmoved, or even hostile, to what they consider too radical, unconventional, or emotionally undisciplined. That there are actually individuals who are professors of musicology who believe this is indeed unfortunate, especially for their students. That some of them actually imply this invective toward the bulk of Beethoven's ouvre, and expect to be taken seriously, strains all rational credulity.


----------



## Nereffid

Doenits Der Bedorhung said:


> As myopic as such a selectively condescending, dismissive attitude toward Beethoven and other such similar STURM UND DRANG , innovative composers is, there's a certain kind of obsessive-compulsive mindset that, incredibly, may be ecstatically transported by the order and metricality of Bach, Mendelsohn, Von Weber---or even Bernstein---but yet which is relatively unmoved, or even hostile, to what they consider too radical, unconventional, or emotionally undisciplined.


I believe the phenomenon you're describing there is "different people have different tastes". Nothing to get excited about, IMO.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Well, what about someone who requires a greater fluidity of rhythm and phrase length? Someone who wants the internal structures of a piece to remain completely below the surface of the music? Someone who thinks that all Western music prior to Debussy was incomplete in terms of harmonic possibilities and finds triadic/tonal music to be merely a play of a few basic harmonic types out of the myriad that are in fact available?


Hypothetical people who expected these things of a classical work would be stylistically incompetent and historically ignorant, which is exactly in line with what I argued: these would not be reasonable criticisms. And in any case none of them support a judgment of superficiality.



Mahlerian said:


> What about Glenn Gould, Igor Stravinsky, Claude Debussy, and the many others who did not look at Beethoven as a model to emulate?


What does this have to do with anything? Did any of them argue that the Eroica was a superficial work?



Mahlerian said:


> Why are you certain that none of these hypothetical or actual people could possibly understand the Eroica?


You think I am going to take credit for your ridiculous hypotheticals? Nice try! The hypothetical people you mention first apparently lack sufficient familiarity with the style to offer an intelligent opinion on the Eroica or any other Classical Era work. Nothing I have written suggests that the real people you mention or any other people living or dead could not understand the Eroica. I only opined that two people, those who made the unsupported assertions that the Eroica is a superficial work, did not currently understand the Eroica. I stand by this and await evidence to the contrary.



Mahlerian said:


> Ad hominem attacks are always uncalled for. They lower the level of discussion and prevent people from reaching any kind of understanding.
> 
> To say that someone is committing an ad hominem attack is not an ad hominem attack. If the person's actions *are* the issue at hand, a discussion of those actions is not beside the point.


Your ad hominem attack was *accusing me of making an unconscionable personal attack.* This, as I stated is ludicrous! Do you really hope to defend this completely over-the-top nonsense in reference to my relatively mild suggestion that another poster did not understand the Eroica? Unconscionable? Your efforts to evade responsibility for your words and accusations won't work. And if you make a closer examination of the thread above, you will see that I made efforts to counter and discourage personal attacks on those with whom I was disagreeing (see#141 and #183, for example). Your words, by contrast, have been inflammatory.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MacLeod said:


> In what way can this be described as 'objective fact'? This is still your opinion.


This is as far as objectivity will take you in art. Yes, it is an _opinion_ but nonetheless an opinion that _should_ be shared by anyone who analyzes Bach's and Wagner's music. We're not in the realm of science where we can have objective laws but if you challenge any _self-evident_ claim then you are left with a system in which I can claim that my putting together the sounds of my yawning and yodeling and calling it a better fugue than Bach's little G minor fugue is a _valid subjective opinion_.


----------



## EdwardBast

SeptimalTritone said:


> To the first question, yes. I have, in the past and not too distant past, many many times, been accused of "pegging people for having wrong taste" while merely pointing out their factual wrongs, much less saying things like "go listen again, you'll get it", which I don't do anymore for fear of backlash.


That does not sound like being accused of an unconscionable personal attack, however, which is an instance of strong moral censure, would you not agree? Nevertheless, I understand what you are saying and I too find those sort of responses to factual corrections silly and offensive.



SeptimalTritone said:


> To second question, why would "You might need to run out and buy yourself a heart if you don't like Beethoven." be defended, but the equivalent statement for Schoenberg be treated as "blaming the listener", which has been thrown out tons and tons of times?
> 
> So my statements have to do with everything.


Did you notice that I immediately responded to the "buy yourself a heart" statement, or another nearly identical one, by saying I disagreed with this sentiment and that there was nothing wrong with disliking Beethoven? So your statements have to do with everything - except my behavior, which is what the statement under discussion impugns.


----------



## amfortas

My "Why don't I like this thread?" list keeps growing by the post.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Your ad hominem attack was *accusing me of making an unconscionable personal attack.* This, as I stated is ludicrous! Do you really hope to defend this completely over-the-top nonsense in reference to my relatively mild suggestion that another poster did not understand the Eroica? Unconscionable? Your efforts to evade responsibility for your words and accusations won't work. And if you make a closer examination of the thread above, you will see that I made efforts to counter and discourage personal attacks on those with whom I was disagreeing (see#141 and #183, for example). Your words, by contrast, have been inflammatory.


Once again, that's not the meaning of ad hominem. Ad hominem substitutes discussion of a person for discussion of the point at issue. Saying that someone is making a personal attack, or lying, or anything else along those lines, is not an ad hominem unless it is used as a red herring to distract from the argument at hand.

Here, the argument at hand was in fact the civility of this discussion, so of course discussion of ad hominem remarks is relevant.

I don't feel your original remark was a mild suggestion at all, and I doubt anyone on the receiving end of it would either. Consider my words inflammatory if you must, but I am dissatisfied by the level of discussion on here.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Mahlerian said:


> All of the quotes I posted are ad hominem arguments.


Not to be mistaken for the _ad homonym_ argument where, instead of exchanging insults, people exchange like for like.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Once again, that's not the meaning of ad hominem. Ad hominem substitutes discussion of a person for discussion of the point at issue. Saying that someone is making a personal attack, or lying, or anything else along those lines, is not an ad hominem unless it is used as a red herring to distract from the argument at hand.
> 
> *Here, the argument at hand was in fact the civility of this discussion, so of course discussion of ad hominem remarks is relevant.*
> 
> I don't feel your original remark was a mild suggestion at all, and I doubt anyone on the receiving end of it would either. Consider my words inflammatory if you must, but I am dissatisfied by the level of discussion on here.


The problem is your characterization of my argument as ad hominem is demonstrably wrong. My argument, if you would bother to read it, in #129, #134, for example, is hundreds of words of analysis and historical context showing, among other things, the ways in which the first movement of the Eroica embodies ideas of deep significance and human import, as well as analysis of my opponents' position. After getting no pertinent response to the argument, particularly that pertaining to the Eroica, I made a statement that neither attacked any individual nor substituted for my detailed and substantive response to their position. *Your statement that I made an ad hominem argument is therefore false.* Moreover, your characterization is obviously wrong based on the definition you just wrote!!!: "Saying that someone is making a personal attack, or lying, or anything else along those lines, is not an ad hominem _unless it is used as a red herring to distract from the argument at hand_." Obviously I was not distracting from the issue at hand! *Your statement that I made an unconscionable personal attack is nonsense.* And if you think you can raise the level of discussion on Beethoven above what I (and others) have written in the noted posts above, do so.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> The problem is your characterization of my argument as ad hominem is demonstrably wrong. My argument, if you would bother to read it, in #129, #134, for example, is hundreds of words of analysis and historical context showing, among other things, the ways in which the first movement of the Eroica embodies ideas of deep significance and human import, as well as analysis of my opponents' position. After getting no pertinent response to the argument, particularly that pertaining to the Eroica, I made a statement that neither attacked any individual nor substituted for my detailed and substantive response to their position. *Your statement that I made an ad hominem argument is therefore false.* Moreover, your characterization is obviously wrong based on the definition you just wrote!!!: "Saying that someone is making a personal attack, or lying, or anything else along those lines, is not an ad hominem _unless it is used as a red herring to distract from the argument at hand_." Obviously I was not distracting from the issue at hand! *Your statement that I made an unconscionable personal attack is nonsense.* And if you think you can raise the level of discussion on Beethoven above what I (and others) have written in the noted posts above, do so.


I did read all of your posts, and moreover agree with your position that the Eroica is a substantive and deep work of significant import.

That said, the fact that you also argued the issue does not make the ad hominem remark that anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it either relevant or acceptable. A comment like that, even in the context of a fuller argument, is bound to draw attention and ire from the person it is aimed at.

Furthermore, your comment does not have anything to do with the remark you quoted from me, as it is not saying that the other poster is making a personal attack, lying, or anything similar. You simply claimed that they were wrong because they were deficient in their understanding.

I consider all use of logically fallacious arguments unconscionable. Discussions like this should be about dialogue and increased understanding.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> I did read all of your posts, and moreover agree with your position that the Eroica is a substantive and deep work of significant import.
> 
> That said, the fact that you also argued the issue does not make the ad hominem remark that anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it either relevant or acceptable. A comment like that, even in the context of a fuller argument, is bound to draw attention and ire from the person it is aimed at.
> 
> I consider all use of logically fallacious arguments unconscionable. Discussions like this should be about dialogue and increased understanding.


Oh, so now we are talking about _ad hominem remarks_, rather then arguments? If so, then your provision that a statement must distract from the issue at hand to be ad hominem does not apply, since that only applies to _ad hominem arguments_. So by this sense of the word, your statement that I made an unconscionable personal attack is quite clearly an ad hominem attack! And an incorrect one, given that I did not use a personal pronoun. And of course opining that anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it is perfectly acceptable, both under the ToS and anywhere else. In fact, I will state: Anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it. I might be wrong, but it is perfectly acceptable to say!


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, so now we are talking about _ad hominem remarks_, rather then arguments? If so, then your provision that a statement must distract from the issue at hand to be ad hominem does not apply, since that only applies to _ad hominem arguments_. So by this sense of the word, your statement that I made an unconscionable personal attack is quite clearly an ad hominem attack! And an incorrect one, given that I did not use a personal pronoun.


If you're talking to a Republican and say "Anyone who thinks tax increases are bad clearly has no understanding of economics," then the target of the remark is clear, despite the lack of a personal pronoun.

As I explained earlier, my saying that your remark was an ad hominem does not constitute an ad hominem because the subject at hand is, in fact, your post, and the pattern of personal remarks throughout this thread aimed at denigrating others on the basis of their opinions.



EdwardBast said:


> And of course opining that anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it is perfectly acceptable, both under the ToS and anywhere else. In fact, I will state: Anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it. I might be wrong, but it is perfectly acceptable to say!


The fact that the ToS allows something doesn't make it acceptable in rational discourse. That we are _allowed_ to say something that is unhelpful and offensive doesn't mean we _should_.


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> About precisely those opening two chords, here are two links that may be of interest:
> 1)
> 
> 
> 
> (note the pitch shifts!);
> 2) http://www.michaellewanski.com/blog/2014/12/29/on-the-eroica-symphonys-opening-chords


I tried to listen to that YouTube clip. I got 30 seconds into it and quit.

A conductor's way with those chords is pretty meaningless unless we hear his way of continuing after them, particularly as regards to the tempo relationships between the chords and the ensuing theme. If the basic tempo is close to Beethoven's metronome marking - rather fast - and the chords are sounded _in tempo_, they will be heard as part of a larger gestalt and understood in context to propel the music forward; the beginning of the theme which follows will be heard, in essence, as a third strike, the whole effect paralleling the three strikes we hear at the end of the movement. This approach seems to me to make the most sense of the music. The other way of treating the chords is to take a slower tempo than in the body of the movement and thus make them stand in isolation as rhetorical gestures meant to jolt us awake before the piece properly begins. The chords might be felt to convey some message such as "you are about to hear some powerful, heroic, important music, so pay attention." Conductors who slow down the opening motif of Beethoven's 5th seem to be after the same effect. How would Beethoven have wanted these things done? Who knows?

The author in your second link seems to enjoy hearing himself talk.


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> That said, the fact that you also argued the issue does not make the ad hominem remark that anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it either relevant or acceptable. A comment like that, even in the context of a fuller argument, is bound to draw attention and ire from the person it is aimed at.


This is just so wrong, but it explains to me why periodically certain threads are run off the rails, not necessarily because of bad behavior, but because of the over-sensitivity of one or more posters. Most people know true 'ad hominem' for what it is because it usually stands out as flagrantly personal. The Eroica comment referred to above is at most in the category of 'an annoyance'.

I re-read much of this thread. It started off on a fairly superficial level, but overall has ended up IMO giving some useful insight into how people think about a giant such as Beethoven up against composers who followed into the 20th century. Of course some people (including me) have gotten annoyed with others, but overall it's been an interesting exercise. If any of this is considered 'ad hominem', then what name is going to be applied when the real ****** hits the fan.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> This is just so wrong, but it explains to me why periodically certain threads are run off the rails, not necessarily because of bad behavior, but because of the over-sensitivity of one or more posters. Most people know true 'ad hominem' for what it is because it usually stands out as flagrantly personal. The Eroica comment referred to above is at most in the category of 'an annoyance'.


You're just redefining ad hominem to be ad hominem arguments that also happen to be insulting. In fact, I think a persistent low level of hostility such as one has found on this thread makes others feel wary of speaking up and disagreeing with the majority.

Logic should matter to all parties in a discussion. It helps to bolster our own arguments and gives us a way to examine others'.



DaveM said:


> I re-read much of this thread. It started off on a fairly superficial level, but overall has ended up IMO giving some useful insight into how people think about a giant such as Beethoven up against composers who followed into the 20th century. Of course some people (including me) have gotten annoyed with others, but overall it's been an interesting exercise. If any of this is considered 'ad hominem', then what name is going to be applied when the real ****** hits the fan.


Not all insults are ad hominem arguments. Many are just insults. There's no reason to think that degree has anything to do with it, especially as all ad hominem arguments are equally irrelevant (except in very special cases) if not equally offensive.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, so now we are talking about _ad hominem remarks_, rather then arguments? If so, then your provision that a statement must distract from the issue at hand to be ad hominem does not apply, since that only applies to _ad hominem arguments_. So by this sense of the word, your statement that I made an unconscionable personal attack is quite clearly an ad hominem attack! And an incorrect one, given that I did not use a personal pronoun. And of course opining that anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it is perfectly acceptable, both under the ToS and anywhere else. *In fact, I will state: Anyone who finds the Eroica superficial doesn't get it. I might be wrong, but it is perfectly acceptable to say!*


Indeed. "Getting the _Eroica_" - if the word "getting" has any meaning - _implies_ not finding it superficial.

Are there really people here whose egalitarian sensibilities have been offended by the suggestion that some people may not fully grasp the meaning of something? Heck, I don't claim to know what Xenakis is driving at, and you may publish that in the New York Times.


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> You're just redefining ad hominem to be ad hominem arguments that also happen to be insulting. In fact, I think a persistent low level of hostility such as one has found on this thread makes others feel wary of speaking up and disagreeing with the majority. Logic should matter to all parties in a discussion. It helps to bolster our own arguments and gives us a way to examine others'.


A 'persistent low level of hostility'? Or rather people expressing their passionate opinions. As for the subject of 'logic', well, that is a slippery slope particularly since logic demanded, but narrowly defined can rip the heart out of a discussion. Not to mention that not everybody thinks and expresses themselves from a purely logical point of view. And, logic can be prone to subjectivity.



> Not all insults are ad hominem arguments. Many are just insults. There's no reason to think that degree has anything to do with it, especially as all ad hominem arguments are equally irrelevant (except in very special cases) if not equally offensive.


On the surface, that sounds all very logical, but when you peer below the surface, it's hard to find the substance when applied to most of the posts in this thread.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Yes, I am saying I personally find it puzzling when someone says they love a genre/type of music but does not enjoy the best example(s) of those genre/types. I did come across someone who likes Classical music (i.e. 18th century) but find Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart lackluster. I have since discovered she has only listened to a few pieces by Mozart and only a little more of 198th century music (mostly late Baroque and Haydn).


This to me, in all seriousness, is a real insight to your perceiving and assessment of stuff (music, cars...). You seem simply to conflate "best" with "most popular" and take your cues from the mainstream norm.

It's not an enigma that I like jazz, but not Miles Davis. It's just that I listen to music and form my own independent opinion.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> A 'persistent low level of hostility'? Or rather people expressing their passionate opinions. As for the subject of 'logic', well, that is a slippery slope particularly since logic demanded, but narrowly defined can rip the heart out of a discussion. Not to mention that not everybody thinks and expresses themselves from a purely logical point of view. And, logic can be prone to subjectivity.


The perception of logic, especially as applied to ambiguous arguments (where it's not clear what someone is saying) can be subjective to a certain degree.

But logic itself, the question of which kinds of arguments are and are not sound and which are informal fallacies, is not subjective and does not vary at all from person to person. The fact that many do not argue from a logical point of view doesn't mean their arguments aren't subject to the same rules as everyone else's.

For example, you imply that people expressing their passionate opinions cannot be persistently hostile. This is untrue, and very clearly untrue when we think about political and religious debates, for example. In fact, it is when tempers and passions flare that we most often expect to see hostility arise.


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> Surely that cannot be, as all classical music lovers must love all classical composers, else they are not classical music lovers??


Is that what your opinion is?

My example was my friend dislikes Mozart but she thinks she likes Classical music (the 18the century Classicism). I refuted her opinion because I think she does not actually know Classical music well enough because she dislikes Mozart, and the fact that she actually listens to more of late Baroque and Haydn in particular. (Her listening history is actually quite short, so I would "diagnose" her case as having not enough of Classical music listening experience and am willing to be that she will soon appreciate Mozart more, truly).

So the bottom line, often I think there is a lot more than one's blanket statement that "I dislike composer X but I do like the period/genre to which X belonged to".


----------



## ArtMusic

dogen said:


> This to me, in all seriousness, is a real insight to your perceiving and assessment of stuff (music, cars...). You seem simply to conflate "best" with "most popular" and take your cues from the mainstream norm.
> 
> It's not an enigma that I like jazz, but not Miles Davis. It's just that I listen to music and form my own independent opinion.


That's fine. 

In my opinion, I simply give zero credibility to opinion that one "likes classical" music but "dislikes" the best of what classical music has to offer. It's an oxymoron.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

ArtMusic said:


> That's fine.
> 
> In my opinion, I simply give zero credibility to opinion that one "likes classical" music but "dislikes" the best of what classical music has to offer. It's an oxymoron.


ArtMusic, I don't like Bach and Wagner. I acknowledge that they are the best at what they did, of course. But I still don't get much enjoyment out of them.

I think, though, that I deserve more than zero credibility... I really do like classical music.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

SeptimalTritone said:


> ArtMusic, I don't like Bach and Wagner. I acknowledge that they are the best at what they did, of course. But I still don't get much enjoyment out of them.
> 
> I think, though, that I deserve more than zero credibility... I really do like classical music.


Wait, so you're saying you don't care for a couple composers who are considered among the very best, and you expect me to believe that you like classical music?! This is madness.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> That's fine.
> 
> In my opinion, I simply give zero credibility to opinion that one "likes classical" music but "dislikes" the best of what classical music has to offer. It's an oxymoron.


Maybe when you're older, you'll dare to have and express your own critical opinion.


----------



## Woodduck

ArtMusic said:


> That's fine.
> 
> In my opinion, I simply give zero credibility to opinion that one "likes classical" music but "dislikes" the best of what classical music has to offer. It's an oxymoron.


I don't exactly _dislike_ Mozart, but I find I rarely want to put on a CD from my substantial collection of his music - and it isn't because I find him "superficial" (as some apparently find Beethoven ), though he did of course write plenty of "occasion" music meant only to entertain. I do, however, actually dislike a lot of Shostakovich and Mahler, but, again, not because I find it bad music. The music simply irritates me. This is not a matter of judgment, but merely of taste and temperament. It would never even occur to me to think that someone who dislikes _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_, for me among of the summits of musical achievement, cannot truly love and appreciate music, or even opera. Mozart, Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler and Wagner are too individual to represent "classical music" as a whole. We aren't musical idiots for not liking all of them.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> That's fine.
> 
> In my opinion, I simply give zero credibility to opinion that one "likes classical" music but "dislikes" the best of what classical music has to offer. It's an oxymoron.


Logically, this means that if you were to hear music for the first time by a composer that was new to you (preferably a very dead one) you could literally express no opinion on the music unless or until you were able to establish what the received established opinion of the music was (so that you could then presumably concur with it).


----------



## SeptimalTritone

DiesIraeCX said:


> Wait, so you're saying you don't care for a couple composers who are considered among the very best, and you expect me to believe that you like classical music?! This is madness.


It's weird. I've really tried to like both of them.

For Wagner, I generally don't like the unhurried pace. Not the tempo or the length, but the unhurried pace. My own personal nervous energy prevents me from liking the both slow and stepwise harmonic pace. I also can't get into the emotional space of said slow harmonic pace, even through I know how much content there is in it.

With Feldman, although his music is long, his cells are short and quite quickly played through. And with say Mahler, the rate of harmonic pace is faster, even in Mahler's slow movements.

For Bach, I don't like the mono-texture and mono-mood of entire movements in the Baroque era.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> As I explained earlier, *my saying that your remark was an ad hominem* does not constitute an ad hominem because the subject at hand is, in fact, your post, and the pattern of personal remarks throughout this thread aimed at denigrating others on the basis of their opinions.
> 
> The fact that the ToS allows something doesn't make it acceptable in rational discourse. That we are _allowed_ to say something that is unhelpful and offensive doesn't mean we _should_.


You continue to evade. What I complained about was not your calling my remark ad hominem, even though it was not. It was saying my remark was an *unconscionable personal attack*. The primary definition of unconscionable includes: "not governed by conscience, unscrupulous," and then "unjust, extortionate." In case English is not your first language, the term carries weighty connotations of condemnation usually reserved for severe moral lapses and immoral, usually borderline criminal behavior. I repeat: Using that term for my statement is ridiculous and over-the-top. Using it in that way is necessarily an attack on a person's moral character. That is offensive. Or it would be if it weren't so damned funny.

Denigrating is also absurdly hyperbolic! The first definition includes: sully, defame. So let me apologize to all those I scurrilously sullied and defamed, whose names, well avatars really, I have blackened (etymologically primary definition) by suggesting they might be among those who did not yet get the Eroica. Oh, can you ever forgive me for slandering you so grievously! Clearly I have no conscience or sense of justice or I could never have uttered such thoroughly unacceptable and hurtful words. My shame knows no bounds. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> You continue to evade. What I complained about was not your calling my remark ad hominem, even though it was not. It was saying my remark was an *unconscionable personal attack*. The primary definition of unconscionable includes: "not governed by conscience, unscrupulous," and then "unjust, extortionate." In case English is not your first language, the term carries weighty connotations of condemnation usually reserved for severe moral lapses and immoral, usually borderline criminal behavior. I repeat: Using that term for my statement is ridiculous and over-the-top. Using it in that way is necessarily an attack on a person's moral character. That is offensive.


Since you were apparently quoting from Dictionary.com (or some source that uses the exact same wording), I'll point out that you skipped over the second definition of the word, "not in accordance with what is just or reasonable."

This was how I intended it.



EdwardBast said:


> Denigrating is also absurdly hyperbolic! The first definition includes: sully, defame. So let me apologize to all those I scurrilously sullied and defamed, whose names I have blackened (etymologically primary definition) by suggesting they were among those who did not yet get the Eroica. Oh, can you ever forgive me for slandering you so grievously! Clearly I have no conscience or sense of justice or I could never have uttered such thoroughly unacceptable and hurtful words. My shame knows no bounds. :lol:


Once again, you've selectively chosen your definition in an attempt to make me look hyperbolic. I note that Dictionary.com also includes "to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage" as the second definition of denigrate. This is, once again, how I intended the word.

Why stoop to ridicule? You're not doing anything to prove your point.


----------



## Dan Ante

I think I shall unsubscribe from this thread it is repetitious.


----------



## Woodduck

Dan Ante said:


> I think I shall unsubscribe from this thread it is repetitious.


You just skim the repetitious parts. It's like the nightly news. Occasionally someone says something you haven't heard before, and if you're lucky you're awake to hear it. But not to worry; you'll hear it again tomorrow. It's all much more stimulating than you think.


----------



## rdoerflinger

I agree that no one should tell someone else what he or she is required to like in music. I can only share my own experience.

Before college I had recordings of some of the more famous Beethoven pieces -- 5th and 9thu symnphonies, "Emperor" concerto, etc. To me they sounded brilliant but sometimes bombastic. (To be sure, Beethoven could do bombast without the brilliance when there was money in it -- Wellington's Victory, or his works to celebrate the fall of Napoleon which nobody listens to today.) Theni I went to college and attended a free concert of Beethoven string quartets, and heard opus 135. I was astonished. This is early 19th century music? It was so weird and modern, as if written by someone who had mastered all past music and wanted to toss off a new piece of genius unlike anything anyone had heard before. Since then I've had that experience with Beethoven again and again -- especially in the string quartets and piano sonatas. 

Someone wanting to appreciate Beethoven more might try listening to the lectures of Robert Greenberg on CD in the Great Courses series published by The Teaching Company. His style is engaging and his enthusiasm is infectious. In his series on the piano sonatas, for example, he lays out how Beethoven started out (in his opus 2) already having mastered the classical sonata style, and with each new piece experimented, explored, plumbed new kinds of emotional expression, even made musical form "context-dependent" (that is, he allowed the content of the music to break down the lines dividing sonata form, from rondo, from theme and variations, etc.). In his final sonatas, he reconciled the classical forms of Mozart and Haydn with the use of fugue, from his early musical education in J.S. Bach, and surpassed both past eras by the depth of emotion he could wring from the synthesis. In his final string quartets, as well, he laid out a new musical world that had not been conceived before and has not been repeated since. The slow movement of his Opus 132, for example -- his "song of thanksgiving on recovering from an illness," with its interludes titled "gathering new strength" -- used what was considered an outmoded mode of "church music" (the Lydian mode) to make music a spiritual experience. No composer has brought me more moments of sheer exaltation. No bad reflection on you if his music doesn't do this for you, but these are some of the reasons that some people will be loving Beethoven for centuries to come.


----------



## Woodduck

Lovely first post, rdoerflinger. Welcome to the forum.


----------



## tdc

rdoerflinger said:


> In his final sonatas, he reconciled the classical forms of Mozart and Haydn with the use of fugue, from his early musical education in J.S. Bach, and surpassed both past eras by the depth of emotion he could wring from the synthesis.


I agree it was a good first post, and interesting, but comments like this are what make me tempted to vocalise my dislike of Beethoven's aesthetic. Firstly, he clearly did not surpass past eras in his fugal writing or counterpoint. All of Beethoven's innovations to me seem like in a sense functioning as a distraction from the fact in all other areas he was a lesser composer than a Bach or Mozart (except in the areas he 'made up' ie - form).

To me there is more depth of emotion in Bach's Chaconne or the c#minor prelude/fugue from book I in the WTC than anything Beethoven composed, plus Bach could do it in a shorter time with so much more class, taste and restraint.

I can fully respect and appreciate the reasons Septimaltritone prefers Beethoven to Bach (multi-moods in a single movement). But comments suggesting Beethoven surpassed all previous eras in emotional depth are in my opinion incorrect _except in a superficial sense_ (this is not the same as saying Beethoven's music is completely superficial). I also think his impact on modern music is over-stated. It is certainly not bigger than Bach's or Wagner's. One could in fact argue the latter two had more impact on music of the 20th century as Wagner directly influenced Debussy, and Sonata form was out of style and the Baroque forms back in.


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> This is as far as objectivity will take you in art. Yes, it is an _opinion_ but nonetheless an opinion that _should_ be shared by anyone who analyzes Bach's and Wagner's music.


Shared opinions may reach a level of consistency that gives the appearance of objectivity...but they are still just opinions that can be opposed by a well-supported argument offering a contrary opinion.

As for what we _'should' _do when it comes to listening to music...from whom does this directive derive its authority?



ArtMusic said:


> Is that what your opinion is?


No.



tdc said:


> Firstly, he clearly did not surpass past eras in his fugal writing or counterpoint. All of Beethoven's innovations to me seem like in a sense functioning as a distraction from the fact in all other areas he was a lesser composer than a Bach or Mozart (except in the areas he 'made up' ie - form).


So unless your fugal writing and counterpoint are up to the standard of Bach's and Mozart's, no level of innovation could establish you as a "greater" composer than those two?

Doesn't that elevate two elements of form to an absurd level of importance?


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> All of Beethoven's innovations to me seem like in a sense functioning as a distraction from the fact in all other areas he was a lesser composer than a Bach or Mozart (except in the areas he 'made up' ie - form).


Let's place Beethoven's violin sonatas beside those of Mozart, his late quartets beside Mozart's late string quintets (generally considered the latter's finest chamber works for strings), his cello sonatas beside...well, moving on, his _Archduke Trio_ beside any chamber work by Mozart, his last seven symphonies beside Mozart's last four, his _Missa Solemnis_ beside Mozart's _Mass in C-Minor_.

Please now justify your statement that Beethoven was inferior to Mozart in all respects except form (and show why that is not a significant exception, if you insist that it is an exception). I'm interested in knowing what defects in these works his innovations are distracting you from.


----------



## KenOC

Enough discussion.


----------



## Guest

Moesart said:


> I have heard (and regretfully own) all 9 sypmhonies, all 6 piano concertos, all 16 string quartets (plus the Grosse fugue), all 32 piano sonatas. I can not get my self to like or appreciate it at all. Could I have some idea why he is considered generally to be the best? I really don't see it. and what else should I hear that I haven't?


Isn't it time to see through the nonsense that is this thread. Whoever Moesart is, s/he clearly has no interest in defending this absurd position or in engaging with the TC membership and all s/he has succeeded in doing (not for the first time in this forum, though not necessarily by him/her) is promote disharmony amongst the regular members.

We cannot answer the OP's question, so I would argue that this debate has run its course and is being disfigured by an ongoing battle of honour that need not be played out here.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I'm not even convinced Beethoven has better form than Mozart. They were both formally excellent, although Mozart's kind of formal excellence is often overlooked.

Mozart's hierarchy of binaries, that is, binaries of binaries of binares is like a fractal flower, where what goes on at a note by note basis reflects what goes on at a measure by measure basis, which reflects the phrase-by-phrase basis, the subsection-by-subsection basis, the section-by-section basis, the whole movement and movement-to-movement basis.

Mozart is something like this:










Of course, in that binary hierarchy, there's a relation between 4 and 6, and 5 and 7. There are webbings that connect that binary tree, and small scale and large scale rhythm and harmonic rhythm gives it shape. The grammar of the heirarchy is tonic and dominant oscillation, phrase structure, harmonic rhythm, textural shift, or textural reconciliation. While there is less motivic development in Mozart than Beethoven, the hierarchical organization is more chiseled and perfectly fractal, and in fact, more fractal because it doesn't lock itself as much into motivic development. Let me extract and edit a part of a pm I wrote to someone.

---

For example, take the Mozart Jupiter symphony, first movement. That's a canonical example. Measures 1 and 2 are octave unison on the tonic note, deep in the strings. Measures 3 and 4 are a higher chorale that end on a [neighboring] dominant seventh. Measures 5 and 6 respond to measures 1 and 2: they are octave unison on the dominant note, deep in the strings. Measures 7 and 8 are, as in measures 3 and 4, a higher chorale that end on a tonic, although weakly because the highest note is not C or E but G. Right away, we have a binary of binaries.

The fanfare afterwards is a tonic pedal that eventually oscillates between tonic and dominant, and then becomes a dominant pedal into half cadence. Brilliantly, at the end of the bridge section of the exposition we have a pedal on the dominant of the dominant with overwhelming intensity: it's so harmonically "high up there". That's also a binary.

Also salient is the oscillation of the main theme taaaaa- ta-ta-ta- taaaaa- ta-ta-ta- taaaaa and then the chorale response afterwards within different textural guises. At the beginning, like I said above, this theme is only played in octave unison, but later on it's played in counterpoint with the flutes playing lyrical parallel thirds. That's a binary. And then later on, at the onset (or halfway, depending on how you "count") of the exposition bridge section the main theme is played with its taaaaa strongly in full chord in the strings with full wind-brass support, leading into the chorale response being played with full clothing from the orchestra, and leading into that fanfare we heard in the beginning. All the disparate textures get unified, all the binaries get resolved... to an extent! Remember that at the same time we end up at the dominant of the dominant in order to get to the second theme group proper, which interestingly enough, has an interesting take on the chorale theme by being its rhythmical double or rhythmical halve.

Balanced phrasing is a binary. First theme group - bridge - second theme group - cadence/codetta, to the extent that that highly simplified version of sonata form exposition works, is a heirarchy of binaries, especially when rhythmically cut and regimented and sliced and diced as accurately as Mozart. Sonata form itself is a binary: the full cadence on the dominant gets resolved as the full cadence on the tonic. Beethoven's expansions and extensions of sonata form in development, tension, and harmony serve to create powerful music but they mar the elegance of the fractal of binaries.

---

I think Beethoven being "it", clear and simple, is wrong. There are things Mozart did better, even in form, or better yet, _especially_ in form, that for some, make Mozart more enjoyable. I personally, in the genre-by-genre, enjoy Mozart's quartets and quintets and piano trios and piano solo works and symphonies and concertos and Requiem over Beethoven quartets and piano trios and piano solo works and symphonies and concertos and Missa Solemnis. Even comparing each genre one by one, I unanimously like the Mozart more, even accounting for Beethoven's late quartets and piano works, and ninth symphony. And it's not just 'liking', but a picking up on things that Mozart did better, that is, his chiseling at all time and length scales, and liking those more than the things Beethoven did better (like stretching classical harmonic tension to greater ranges through exploration of mediants and other wider chromaticisms, and developing motives in more widely varied and disparate settings).


----------



## KenOC

SeptimalTritone said:


> ...I unanimously like the Mozart more, even accounting for Beethoven's late quartets and piano works, and ninth symphony.


That's a vote, sir, that you will always win.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> That's a vote, sir, that you will always win.


That's obviously not what I meant by the word "unanimously". Did you really think that's what I meant? I meant unanimously with respect to the genre-by-genre comparison, not unanimously amongst any group of people. Do you really think I'm that hopelessly arrogant and immature? That I only consider my own tastes, vote there, and declare it to be of any monolithic importance? Really?

The point of my post wasn't the better-ness of Mozart per se, but qualities he had that Beethoven didn't have, that for some, make the music therefore more enjoyable. And that for me, unanimously (amongst the genres, not unanimously among people). That's really freaking all.


----------



## DeepR

I bet the topic starter didn't expect his fairly innocent topic would turn out like this. He has probably fled the forums by now.


----------



## KenOC

SeptimalTritone said:


> That's obviously not what I meant by the word "unanimously". Did you really think that's what I meant?


Please, Sahib, I did not wish to offend.


----------



## ArtMusic

dogen said:


> Maybe when you're older, you'll dare to have and express your own critical opinion.


Thanks for being considerate, my opinion on this matter may be as topical as people who like classical music but yet dislike Beethoven!


----------



## ArtMusic

dogen said:


> Logically, this means that if you were to hear music for the first time by a composer that was new to you (preferably a very dead one) you could literally express no opinion on the music unless or until you were able to establish what the received established opinion of the music was (so that you could then presumably concur with it).


I'm not sure I follow your analogy in this context. My post refers to the best of what classical music has to offer - Beethoven and Mozart. It's the same on other endeavors - someone likes the impressionists but dislikes Van Gogh. That's hard to believe.


----------



## EdwardBast

rdoerflinger said:


> I agree that no one should tell someone else what he or she is required to like in music. I can only share my own experience.


But, of course, that was not what this thread was about. It was about whether or not Beethoven is a superficial composer, with emphasis on whether the Eroica is a superficially flashy piece but ultimately lacking in substance. You probably missed the original title before it was changed: Why does Beethoven Suck!


----------



## Nereffid

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not sure I follow your analogy in this context. My post refers to the best of what classical music has to offer - Beethoven and Mozart. It's the same on other endeavors - someone likes the impressionists but dislikes Van Gogh. That's hard to believe.


How many composers are included in "the best of what classical music has to offer"? How has it been determined that these composers, and not others, are the best?

If by "classical music" you mean what we now call Classical-Era music, then I'd say it would be _unlikely_ for someone to like that music but not like Mozart (Beethoven, not so unusual). Similarly with Van Gogh versus impressionism generally, I suppose. Unlikely, but not impossible. We're all different.

But if by "classical music" you mean it in its broader sense, then I find it no harder to believe someone who claims to like classical music but doesn't like Beethoven or Mozart, than it is to believe that someone who claims to like classical music but doesn't like 20th-century classical music.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not sure I follow your analogy in this context. My post refers to the best of what classical music has to offer - Beethoven and Mozart. It's the same on other endeavors - someone likes the impressionists but dislikes Van Gogh. That's hard to believe.


"Best" is not an equivalent word to "popular." The former is a subjective opinion, the latter can be objectified (eg number of CD sales). Your endless blind conflation of the two in the face of corrections by various posters is what I find hard to believe.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> How many composers are included in "the best of what classical music has to offer"? How has it been determined that these composers, and not others, are the best?
> 
> If by "classical music" you mean what we now call Classical-Era music, then I'd say it would be _unlikely_ for someone to like that music but not like Mozart (Beethoven, not so unusual). Similarly with Van Gogh versus impressionism generally, I suppose. Unlikely, but not impossible. We're all different.
> 
> But if by "classical music" you mean it in its broader sense, then I find it no harder to believe someone who claims to like classical music but doesn't like Beethoven or Mozart, than it is to believe that someone who claims to like classical music but doesn't like 20th-century classical music.


Just so you have an example (!) - my partner generally loves Impressionist art but hates Van Gogh.


----------



## Pugg

ArtMusic said:


> I'm not sure I follow your analogy in this context. My post refers to the best of what classical music has to offer - Beethoven and Mozart. It's the same on other endeavors - someone likes the impressionists but dislikes Van Gogh. That's hard to believe.


Amen to this. :tiphat:


----------



## rdoerflinger

Thanks, EdwardBast, but I was simply trying to respond to the original post by Moesart, who said he/she simply does not like Beethoven in general and asked what all the fuss is about regarding his music and why it's a sin not to like it. I was saying it ain't a sin but here is how I came to love the music. Trying to be constructive.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> I agree it was a good first post, and interesting, but comments like this are what make me tempted to vocalise my dislike of Beethoven's aesthetic. Firstly, he clearly did not surpass past eras in his fugal writing or counterpoint. All of Beethoven's innovations to me seem like in a sense functioning as a distraction from the fact in all other areas he was a lesser composer than a Bach or Mozart (except in the areas he 'made up' ie - form).


There is no real basis for comparison, as a clearer case of apples and grapes would be hard to imagine. It isn't just that Beethoven invented a large number of sui generis forms, entirely new experiments in design, although this alone puts him on a different continent than Bach and Mozart. It is that he invented the principles by which (1) form can be generated through the logical playing out of thematic oppositions and (2) unity on the grand scale can be forged through an entirely new kind of pyschological-dramatic unity. He performed all of the important initial experiments in the unification of multimovement cycles, experiments which every major composer of tonal music from his time through Shostakovich imitated or learned from. Moreover, Beethoven put into effect a seismic shift in musical aesthetics, one that both defined the Romantic Era and one that so pervasively transformed musical culture that we sometimes don't even realize that the world after Beethoven breathed an entirely new atmosphere. This is why you can write …



tdc said:


> To me there is more depth of emotion in Bach's Chaconne or the c#minor prelude/fugue from book I in the WTC than anything Beethoven composed, plus Bach could do it in a shorter time with so much more class, taste and restraint.


… without realizing that the whole notion of emotional depth you are invoking didn't exist in its modern form in Bach's time. You are listening to Baroque music with a sensibility pretty much invented by Beethoven! (Okay, that is hyperbole  - it was the whole philosophy of romanticism, but he was the one who made it real for the first time in music.) I imagine Bach would be quite bemused by your statement about the Chaconne, as he would likely have regarded it primarily as an essay in craft. Of course he would recognize that the work, because of its key and tempo, would be assigned to a certain category of affect. But the notion that he was _expressing_ deep emotion would have been an entirely foreign concept to him.



tdc said:


> I can fully respect and appreciate the reasons Septimaltritone prefers Beethoven to Bach (multi-moods in a single movement). But comments suggesting Beethoven surpassed all previous eras in emotional depth are in my opinion incorrect _except in a superficial sense_ (this is not the same as saying Beethoven's music is completely superficial). I also think his impact on modern music is over-stated. It is certainly not bigger than Bach's or Wagner's. One could in fact argue the latter two had more impact on music of the 20th century as Wagner directly influenced Debussy, and Sonata form was out of style and the Baroque forms back in.


I'm not sure what you mean by bigger influence. Bach's influence in Beethoven's time and thereafter was primarily a matter of technique; he was studied in the same way one would study Palestrina, that is, as an engineer studies calculus. Beethoven's influence, by contrast, was aesthetic and fundamental for nearly two centuries. He was imitated not for technique, but in the effort to achieve similar and still relevant aesthetic effects. It is also significant that Wagner felt it necessary to prove his lineage from Beethoven through the Ninth in justifying his new conception of musical drama.


----------



## Nereffid

dogen said:


> Just so you have an example (!) - my partner generally loves Impressionist art but hates Van Gogh.


Thinking a bit more about it, I suppose loosely speaking Van Gogh might be to Impressionism what Beethoven is to Classical-era music, so it's not especially unlikely that someone could like the general but not the specific.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Thinking a bit more about it, I suppose loosely speaking Van Gogh might be to Impressionism what Beethoven is to Classical-era music, so it's not especially unlikely that someone could like the general but not the specific.


Certainly. There's no real linkage when it comes to the preferences of an individual, assuming that they think for themself.


----------



## Art Rock

Just as an aside, which I cannot let slip: van Gogh's style is not impressionism, but post-impressionism. For impressionism, Monet is the name to use. 

So, liking impressionism and not van Gogh is not as strange as AM would have us believe.

Liking impressionism and not Monet would be far less common, although also there it comes down to a matter of personal taste and I'm sure that people like this exist.


----------



## tdc

@Macleod I don't think counterpoint is more important than other aspects of composition. I think composers work should be looked at from a variety of different angles. 

@Woodduck the word 'defects' is too strong a word to use here. But I think Mozart and Bach were better at the major areas of composition outside of form (and Septimal now has me re-thinking even that, but I need to re-read his post to get a better understanding). 

@Septimal and Ed - very interesting posts, thank you. 

I will come back and read some of these responses more closely later. I guess what gets me going is individuals claiming Beethoven has more 'emotional depth' than previous composers. I agree his music could span through more variety of emotion within a single movement, but I don't equate this with depth. I do think Beethoven's music is more extroverted and shows more expressivity on the surface, and I think this is for the most part why he is so often credited with having more emotional depth - for surface elements which obviously isn't true depth. I do think he does have some true depth to his music, but not more than Bach or Mozart. Whether or not musical depth was a concept really understood fully before Beethoven I don't think makes much difference, because I think Bach and Mozart were ahead of their time and what they needed to express about music - they did through music (not explaining to people that it had "depth", although I think they knew this).

The fact that Bach wrote the Chaconne so close to the death of his wife is strongly suggestive that he wasn't composing the work merely as an exercise.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> The fact that Bach wrote the Chaconne so close to the death of his wife is strongly suggestive that he wasn't composing the work merely as an exercise.


I never asserted he was composing it merely as an exercise, only that he probably conceived more as an essay in craft than as some sort of emotional outpouring. It is clearly a major aesthetic accomplishment. But I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the link between music and personal expression you are suggesting was in anyone's world view at the time.

Anyway, good discussion. I'll be back later. Time to climb another little mountain, as the weather out there doesn't suck today!


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> I guess what gets me going is individuals claiming Beethoven has more 'emotional depth' than previous composers. I agree his music could span through more variety of emotion within a single movement, but I don't equate this with depth. I do think Beethoven's music is more extroverted and shows more expressivity on the surface, and I think this is for the most part why he is so often credited with having more emotional depth - for surface elements which obviously isn't true depth.


Okay, one last note before I go: I think I understand about why the emotional depth thing (which I haven't pushed, by the way) bothers you. I too think the argument from depth is dubious, both in the form they are using - and as you are using it. I'll think about it as I hike and write it up later …


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

SeptimalTritone said:


> The point of my post wasn't the better-ness of Mozart per se, but qualities he had that Beethoven didn't have, that for some, make the music therefore more enjoyable.


Quite so. Personally, I get more of a kick out of the sheer inventiveness of Beethoven's motivic development than I do out of Mozart's elegant symmetries; but I can see why some might be attracted more by the latter. For me, Mozart and Beethoven are among the greatest artists who ever lived, and I treasure them both on their own terms.


----------



## mmsbls

The topic of this thread concerns Beethoven's music. Please let's refocus on the music itself and one's response to the music.


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> Just as an aside, which I cannot let slip: van Gogh's style is not impressionism, but post-impressionism. For impressionism, Monet is the name to use.
> 
> So, liking impressionism and not van Gogh is not as strange as AM would have us believe.
> 
> Liking impressionism and not Monet would be far less common, although also there it comes down to a matter of personal taste and I'm sure that people like this exist.


Damn you and your facts! :lol:

:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> But, of course, that was not what this thread was about. It was about whether or not Beethoven is a superficial composer, with emphasis on whether the Eroica is a superficially flashy piece but ultimately lacking in substance.


Well that may be what some contributors turned it into, but it wasn't what the OP claimed.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> Well that may be what some contributors turned it into, but it wasn't what the OP claimed.


You are right, of course. But given that the OP disappeared after the OP, and only two others stepped up to take the lead in the Beethoven-skeptical camp, I was acknowledging these two posters as the de facto owners of the position. Presumptuous on my part no doubt - sorry!


----------



## ArtMusic

dogen said:


> "Best" is not an equivalent word to "popular." The former is a subjective opinion, the latter can be objectified (eg number of CD sales). Your endless blind conflation of the two in the face of corrections by various posters is what I find hard to believe.





Nereffid said:


> How many composers are included in "the best of what classical music has to offer"? How has it been determined that these composers, and not others, are the best?
> 
> If by "classical music" you mean what we now call Classical-Era music, then I'd say it would be _unlikely_ for someone to like that music but not like Mozart (Beethoven, not so unusual). Similarly with Van Gogh versus impressionism generally, I suppose. Unlikely, but not impossible. We're all different.
> 
> But if by "classical music" you mean it in its broader sense, then I find it no harder to believe someone who claims to like classical music but doesn't like Beethoven or Mozart, than it is to believe that someone who claims to like classical music but doesn't like 20th-century classical music.


Replying to you both at once, Beethoven is universally regarded as the very best. I focus my discussion on Beethoven (and his grade quality of fellow composers in history). Hence I find it puzzling why one might dislike his music but likes classical music. That's all I'm saying. It's pretty simple.

At the other end of the example, I have mentioned by aunt listens pretty much only to Bizet's _Carmen_ (favorite arias, chorus) but she does not say she likes classical music. She simply says she likes the opera _Carmen_.


----------



## tdc

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven is universally regarded as the very best.


But this statement is wrong, so your conclusion is based on a false premise.


----------



## violadude

tdc said:


> But this statement is wrong, so your conclusion is based on a false premise.


Even if it were true, it would have nothing to do with any individual's particular taste.


----------



## poconoron

ArtMusic said:


> Replying to you both at once, Beethoven is universally regarded as the very best.


Not at all true............


----------



## KenOC

Yes, regrettably incomplete. Should have been, "Beethoven is universally regarded as the very best by people with correct opinions."


----------



## Nereffid

ArtMusic said:


> Replying to you both at once, Beethoven is universally regarded as the very best. I focus my discussion on Beethoven (and his grade quality of fellow composers in history). Hence I find it puzzling why one might dislike his music but likes classical music. That's all I'm saying. It's pretty simple.


I love how, 397 posts into a thread in which people argue that Beethoven is not the very best composer, you make a claim that he is "*universally regarded* as the very best".

:lol:

Anyone else remember Selwyn Froggitt and his "Carried unanimously"?


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I love how, 397 posts into a thread in which people argue that Beethoven is not the very best composer, you make a claim that he is "*universally regarded* as the very best".
> 
> :lol:
> 
> Anyone else remember Selwyn Froggitt and his "Carried unanimously"?


It's plain and simple. Stop fighting it, you'll feel better.


----------



## TxllxT

KenOC said:


> Yes, regrettably incomplete. Should have been, "Beethoven is universally regarded as *the very best* by people with correct opinions."


The very best - the very very best - the very very + this universally to be repeated _in infinitum_.  + very very best. Beethoven's haircut by the way is a classic in itself.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> @Macleod I don't think counterpoint is more important than other aspects of composition. I think composers work should be looked at from a variety of different angles.


Yet in comparing Beethoven to other composers, you made it quite clear that your first points of comparison (and surely therefore, the most significant) were fugal writing and counterpoint. I quote:



> I agree it was a good first post, and interesting, but comments like this are what make me tempted to vocalise my dislike of Beethoven's aesthetic. Firstly, he clearly did not surpass past eras in his fugal writing or counterpoint.


You go on to claim that



> there is more depth of emotion in Bach's Chaconne or the c#minor prelude/fugue from book I in the WTC than anything Beethoven composed


So depth of emotion might be considered your next most important criteria, even though you can surely offer nothing to establish that "depth" is measurable except in your personal response to the music.

Then you conclude,



> plus Bach could do it in a shorter time with so much more class, taste and restraint


I'm not sure how speedy working can become a criteria that is intrinsic to the music, though I'm sure publishers appreciate swift production as well as quality.

"Ah, just listen to that Toccata - you can hear in the notes how quickly they were put together!"

As for "class"...what do you mean by it?

Let me be clear. I have no problem with either Bach or Beethoven, or your preference for one over the other. What I have a problem with is the elevation of the personal response to the universal. "If I think Bach is classy, he must be so - you can either hear it, or you can't" (and woe betide anyone who can't: that way inferiority lies.)


----------



## KenOC

TxllxT said:


> Beethoven's haircut by the way is a classic in itself.


Beethoven had a haircut?


----------



## TxllxT




----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Beethoven had a haircut?


Come to think of it, we have no idea what Bach's hair looked like.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> Come to think of it, we have no idea what Bach's hair looked like.


Sure we do!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

KenOC said:


> Sure we do!


Wait, Bach wasn't a shirt tucker? I can't listen to his music anymore!


----------



## tdc

MacLeod said:


> Yet in comparing Beethoven to other composers, you made it quite clear that your first points of comparison (and surely therefore, the most significant) were fugal writing and counterpoint. I quote:
> You go on to claim that
> So depth of emotion might be considered your next most important criteria, even though you can surely offer nothing to establish that "depth" is measurable except in your personal response to the music.
> Then you conclude,
> I'm not sure how speedy working can become a criteria that is intrinsic to the music, though I'm sure publishers appreciate swift production as well as quality.
> "Ah, just listen to that Toccata - you can hear in the notes how quickly they were put together!"
> As for "class"...what do you mean by it?
> Let me be clear. I have no problem with either Bach or Beethoven, or your preference for one over the other. What I have a problem with is the elevation of the personal response to the universal. "If I think Bach is classy, he must be so - you can either hear it, or you can't" (and woe betide anyone who can't: that way inferiority lies.)


I was responding to this quote a couple of pages back (post 365):



> In his final sonatas, he (Beethoven) reconciled the classical forms of Mozart and Haydn *with the use of fugue*, from his early musical education in J.S. Bach, and surpassed both past eras by the depth of emotion he could wring from the synthesis.


That is why I brought up the fugue and counterpoint, not because I think it is more important in establishing depth of emotion, but because it is one area where it seems clear to me that Beethoven did not surpass the old masters.

I continued to share my *subjective* views of why I prefer the way the emotional content was delivered in Bach, and my personal reactions, this is where the word 'classy' came in. Not suggesting they were in anyway objective measures.

You have misinterpreted my point about 'less time'. I was not referring to the speed of composing, but the _length_ of the composition. In other words I generally prefer music that is delivered in a more concise and to the point way. Again this is a matter of preference, not objectivity.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> I continued to share my *subjective* views of why I prefer the way the emotional content was delivered in Bach, and my personal reactions, this is where the word 'classy' came in. Not suggesting they were in anyway objective measures.


Splendid news. Let others who claim things to be 'universal' follow your example.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> I continued to share my *subjective* views of why I prefer the way the emotional content was delivered in Bach, and my personal reactions, this is where the word 'classy' came in. Not suggesting they were in anyway objective measures.


Mode of delivery depends on what is being delivered. There is very little overlap between the content Beethoven and Bach were delivering, so the comparison is a category error - "apples and oranges." Beethoven created whole categories of expression that were inconceivable to anyone composing in the 18th century, so, of course the means for delivering this content are going to be worlds apart. Listen to a minute or two of the Sonata Op. 57/i starting at 4:15 and tell us what a classy way to express this emotion might be:






This music expresses being crushed under a murderous weight and borders on the psychotic, to the point of self-annihilation, a state with which Beethoven had some familiarity. Nor could anyone in the 18th century have written the Largo e mesto of Op. 10 #3 - other than Beethoven, of course, who did write it in the 18th century! Expressively, it is a study in depression and disillusionment just as disturbing today as it was when it was written. Saying you want something classier in these contexts can only mean you don't think music should express content of these kinds. I doubt there is a classy way to do it. We can't know if Bach or Mozart could have delivered such content in a classier way because they never tried and there is no reason to think it would ever have occurred to them to try.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MacLeod said:


> Splendid news. Let others who claim things to be 'universal' follow your example.


Universal fact: The Art of Fugue has better contrapuntal writing than any Justin Bieber song.


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Universal fact: The Art of Fugue has better contrapuntal writing than any Justin Bieber song.


Universal fact: a bee is a better collector of pollen than a tuning fork.

But so what? Some comparisons are not worth making. The 'things' I was referring to in my post were to those matters relating to the comparison tdc had been making.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> Mode of delivery depends on what is being delivered. There is very little overlap between the content Beethoven and Bach were delivering, so the comparison is a category error - "apples and oranges." Beethoven created whole categories of expression that were inconceivable to anyone composing in the 18th century, so, of course the means for delivering this content are going to be worlds apart. Listen to a minute or two of the Sonata Op. 57/i starting at 4:15 and tell us what a classy way to express this emotion might be:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This music expresses being crushed under a murderous weight and borders on the psychotic, to the point of self-annihilation, a state with which Beethoven had some familiarity. Nor could anyone in the 18th century have written the Largo e mesto of Op. 10 #3 - other than Beethoven, of course, who did write it in the 18th century! Expressively, it is a study in depression and disillusionment just as disturbing today as it was when it was written. Saying you want something classier in these contexts can only mean you don't think music should express content of these kinds. I doubt there is a classy way to do it. We can't know if Bach or Mozart could have delivered such content in a classier way because they never tried and there is no reason to think it would ever have occurred to them to try.


I think it is hard to put musical concepts in very specific terms. I think in the Bach works I've mentioned and in Mozart's Requiem we find classy ways of expressing very dark things.

I don't have a problem with dark things expressed in music. I really enjoy Schnittke's Concerto for Piano and Strings, Prokofiev's 2nd Symphony etc. I think the problem for me is Beethoven did not seem to know how to express these things effectively in subtle ways. Maybe he _was_ subtle in some ways and brilliant and just simply didn't organize the notes the way I like. To my ears he wasn't able to properly harness dissonance so relied too much on volume and adding 'flashy' passages, more notes etc. It doesn't even sound that disturbing to me. It sounds like someone can't properly speak the language of disturbing music so is playing Haydn in a manic and schizophrenic way.


----------



## Bulldog

tdc:

After 28 pages, don't you think it's about time you forget about Beethoven and move on to composers you enjoy?


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> I think it is hard to put musical concepts in very specific terms. I think in the Bach works I've mentioned and in Mozart's Requiem we find classy ways of expressing very dark things.
> 
> I don't have a problem with dark things expressed in music. I really enjoy Schnittke's Concerto for Piano and Strings, Prokofiev's 2nd Symphony etc. I think the problem for me is Beethoven did not seem to know how to express these things effectively in subtle ways. Maybe he _was_ subtle in some ways and brilliant and just simply didn't organize the notes the way I like. To my ears he wasn't able to properly harness dissonance so relied too much on volume and adding 'flashy' passages, more notes etc. It doesn't even sound that disturbing to me. It sounds like someone can't properly speak the language of disturbing music so is playing Haydn in a manic and schizophrenic way.


The primary difference between Op. 57 and anything for piano written by any of his predecessors is that Beethoven makes unprecedented levels of expressive intensity absolutely inevitable by using a coherent psychological drama to organize the work. This isn't about language spoken on a measure to measure level. If you are hearing it as manic Haydn, you are simply not hearing what makes this an entirely different animal. Like Prokofiev and Schnittke, the Beethoven is just in a different category from music of the High Classical. I suspect you are missing this because you are distracted by superficial parallels in language. Anyway, I will sign off from this thread because there are only so many ways to say this and I probably exhausted them a couple of days ago!  Even if Beethoven lacks class, you sir, certainly do not.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I think it is hard to put musical concepts in very specific terms. I think in the Bach works I've mentioned and in Mozart's Requiem we find *classy ways of expressing very dark things.
> *
> I don't have a problem with dark things expressed in music. I really enjoy Schnittke's Concerto for Piano and Strings, Prokofiev's 2nd Symphony etc. I think the problem for me is *Beethoven did not seem to know how to express these things effectively in subtle ways.* Maybe he _was_ subtle in some ways and brilliant and just simply didn't organize the notes the way I like. To my ears *he wasn't able to properly harness dissonance* so relied too much on volume and adding 'flashy' passages, more notes etc. It doesn't even sound that disturbing to me. *It sounds like someone can't properly speak the language of disturbing music* so is playing Haydn in a manic and schizophrenic way.


You are using concepts here in a way I simply do not recognize as meaningful.

What, in musical terms, is a "classy" way of expressing something? What things are "very dark"? How does one express them "classily"? What things, specifically, do you suppose Beethoven was trying to express, but doing so ineffectively? What does it mean to "harness dissonance," much less "properly"? What is "the language of disturbing music," and how should it properly be spoken?

My main observation would be that the problem with talking about the "way music expresses things" - classily or whatever - is that the _way_ music expresses something is inseparable from the _thing_ it expresses. Language can say the same thing in different ways; we have alternative words - synonyms - and different grammatical constructions which don't necessarily affect our meaning. But change a few notes in a Beethoven sonata and you get either a poorly constructed piece or a different piece, which expresses something different from the original. If you don't like the "way" music expresses something, then I have to think you just don't like whatever it's expressing. It isn't as if Beethoven, Schnittke and Prokofiev were all handed some specific idea of a "dark thing," maybe some emotional disorder like manic-depression, and asked to produce a work expressing it. Each composer had his own personal world of feeling which found its way into his respective style, and there is no meaningful or valuable - actually, no possible - comparison to be made of their relative success in expressing themselves "properly." We have to assume that each composer said what he meant to say, and simply take his effort on its own terms as being musically coherent or not. Coherence with _our_ conceptions of "what he meant to say" is not a valid criterion for judging a work of music, unless the composer himself has declared his intentions elsewhere, as in a program, or in the text of a song or opera he is setting.

As for Beethoven's inability to harness dissonance, I'm quite sure that he could have harnessed any sort of harmony he found necessary for the making of any piece of music. I would be most curious to see instances where his harness failed to keep his harmony in line.


----------



## ArtMusic

KenOC said:


> Beethoven had a haircut?


Beethoven looks like Beethoven because of his awesome hair!


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> The primary difference between Op. 57 and anything for piano written by any of his predecessors is that Beethoven makes unprecedented levels of expressive intensity absolutely inevitable by using a coherent psychological drama to organize the work. This isn't about language spoken on a measure to measure level. If you are hearing it as manic Haydn, you are simply not hearing what makes this an entirely different animal. Like Prokofiev and Schnittke, the Beethoven is just in a different category from music of the High Classical. I suspect you are missing this because you are distracted by superficial parallels in language.


Just to continue the thought: I am always surprised when someone 'hears' Beethoven in a way that 'isn't subtle' or that "relies too much on volume and 'flashy' passages". To me, Beethoven was head and shoulders above every other composer in writing music that expressed virtually every emotion at every level delivered in almost every classical format available.

(And these are only a few examples.)

You want 'sturm and drang': 5th Symphony, Piano Concerto #5 movt 1

You want romantic candlelight music: Sonata #14 Moonlight movt 1

You want heart-wrenching quiet beauty: Violin Concerto movt 2, Piano Concerto #5 movt 2, Archduke Trio Andante movt 3, Piano Sonata #8 (Pathetique), movt 2 Adagio

You want music that reaches into the very depth of your soul: Piano Sonata #29 op109 (Hammerklavier) movt 3 Adagio, Piano Sonata #32, op111, movt 2 (Arietta)

You want music where you feel one with nature: Symphony #6 (Pastoral)

You want dissonance, fugue and music that anticipates what is to come 100 years later: Grosse Fugue.

You want music that challenges the brain and appeals to your inner perfectionist: all the string quartets.

You want something that covers all the bases: Symphony #9


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I could imagine someone finding, say, the octave unison running up scales on the Neapolitan or later the supertonic in the second theme group in the serioso quartet really off putting. I.e. "Beethoven couldn't harness dissonance" or "Beethoven was unsubtle". It's really jarring. Of course, that jarring is motivated by other Neapolitan action that came before in the first theme group and therefore makes sense, but I can still see it being off-putting to some.

I also know someone who felt that Beethoven was bullying him into appreciating the music, and after hearing that dominant pedal again at the beginning of the Appassionata recapitulation, I could sympathize with that sentiment. I even felt that kind of feeling where your pants are too tight and it slightly clenches your... um... you know what and it makes you feel sad. Not that I don't like the Appassionata, but I could totally see someone being put off, especially if they aren't into Beethoven's kind of heavily tension-based grammar.

Not that I agree with Beethoven not having harmonic abilities and handling dissonance, but that's presumably the kind of thing tdc is talking about. Tdc needs to realize that these elements are a necessary part of the grammar of Beethoven that make him so great: the extremely "far up" tensional hierarchy. But I can see why these elements would be off-putting. And one is totally "allowed" to find them off-putting.

Still, tdc makes a point, although perhaps lacks the theoretical vocabulary to make the point. I love you tdc!


----------



## KenOC

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven looks like Beethoven because of his awesome hair!


Yep. Here's a contemporary photograph.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Just to continue the thought: I am always surprised when someone 'hears' Beethoven in a way that 'isn't subtle' or that "relies too much on volume and 'flashy' passages". To me, Beethoven was head and shoulders above every other composer in writing music that expressed virtually every emotion at every level delivered in almost every classical format available.
> 
> (And these are only a few examples.)
> 
> You want 'sturm and drang': 5th Symphony, Piano Concerto #5 movt 1
> 
> You want romantic candlelight music: Sonata #14 Moonlight movt 1
> 
> You want heart-wrenching quiet beauty: Violin Concerto movt 2, Piano Concerto #5 movt 2, Archduke Trio Andante movt 3, Piano Sonata #8 (Pathetique), movt 2 Adagio
> 
> You want music that reaches into the very depth of your soul: Piano Sonata #29 op109 (Hammerklavier) movt 3 Adagio, Piano Sonata #32, op111, movt 2 (Arietta)
> 
> You want music where you feel one with nature: Symphony #6 (Pastoral)
> 
> You want dissonance, fugue and music that anticipates what is to come 100 years later: Grosse Fugue.
> 
> You want music that challenges the brain and appeals to your inner perfectionist: all the string quartets.
> 
> You want something that covers all the bases: Symphony #9


Your examples are representative and I can't argue with them. I will argue, though, with the idea that Beethoven wrote music that "expressed virtually every emotion at every level." No composer can do that. I would settle for the slightly more moderate statement that no composer's work exhibits a wider expressive range. In that respect I'd suggest Wagner as his closest competitor, with the proviso that "expression" must always be considered within the limitations of period and style.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Your examples are representative and I can't argue with them. I will argue, though, with the idea that Beethoven wrote music that "expressed virtually every emotion at every level." No composer can do that...


Well, let's just say that when I think about Beethoven, I can't help but think in terms of superlatives.


----------



## EdwardBast

SeptimalTritone said:


> I also know someone who felt that Beethoven was bullying him into appreciating the music, and after hearing that dominant pedal again at the beginning of the Appassionata recapitulation, I could sympathize with that sentiment. I even felt that kind of feeling where your pants are too tight and it slightly clenches your... um... you know what and it makes you feel sad. Not that I don't like the Appassionata, but I could totally see someone being put off, especially if they aren't into Beethoven's kind of heavily tension-based grammar.


Okay, I said I was leaving. Then the lights came on and the party started again.

It is interesting what you say about the bullying. Put me in mind of what the guy upthread with the palindromic screen name was saying about finding the opening chords of the Eroica rude. These two listeners have something in common: their aural perspective with respect to the musical experience: The music is something external being pushed at them, something done _to them_. When I listen to Beethoven I internalize it and in my imagination adopt it as my voice. My mind is pounding out those opening chords. It becomes something I am doing to the world. With the Appassionata, on the other hand, feeling like that music is coming from my brain is frightening. That dominant pedal and the whole end of the development really is remarkable. No relief or resolution for over two minutes, till the recap of the second theme. And even then the insane pounding cuts off its every breath after a single measure.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone else has thoughts on the listener's perspective listening to Beethoven. Is it something coming at you or something welling out of you? Does the question even make sense?


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> Anyway, I wonder if anyone else has thoughts on the listener's perspective listening to Beethoven. Is it something coming at you or something welling out of you? Does the question even make sense?


That's an interesting way of thinking about the music. I hear music differently from you and others, such as my daughter, who hear both the aesthetic sense and the music theory. I just have my aesthetic sense. But the thought of some music coming at me and other music welling out of me certainly resonates with me. For me the difference usually stems from not having any sense of the musical "language".

When I first heard the Grosse Fuge, it sounded foreign and unpleasant. The music was coming at me, and I could make no sense of it. After repeated listening the music now most definitely wells up from within me and bursts out. The Berg Violin Concerto was rather similar. At first it was bizarre and other worldly. Once I "got it", the reverse was true. Perhaps I now anticipate the music, and in some sense, feel like I am creating it in my mind.

I suspect you might have had something slightly different in mind when you suggested that perspective, but maybe there's some similarity.


----------



## DaveM

Re: EdwardBast above: The question makes sense to me. Beethoven is speaking to me. I feel like I know what he's trying to say or what he was feeling at the time. It's a profound soul-to-soul communication. The music is coming in and emotion is coming out. At it's best, it's a purging of all the flotsam and jetsam that life throws at you. Well, you asked..


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> That's an interesting way of thinking about the music. I hear music differently from you and others, such as my daughter, who hear both the aesthetic sense and the music theory. I just have my aesthetic sense. But the thought of some music coming at me and other music welling out of me certainly resonates with me. For me the difference usually stems from not having any sense of the musical "language".
> 
> When I first heard the Grosse Fuge, it sounded foreign and unpleasant. The music was coming at me, and I could make no sense of it. After repeated listening the music now most definitely wells up from within me and bursts out. The Berg Violin Concerto was rather similar. At first it was bizarre and other worldly. Once I "got it", the reverse was true. Perhaps I now anticipate the music, and in some sense, feel like I am creating it in my mind.
> 
> I suspect you might have had something slightly different in mind when you suggested that perspective, but maybe there's some similarity.


This would be more or less my response. But I would add that it's reasonable to suppose that people differ in their ability or willingness to "become" the objects of their experience, to give themselves up to music and thus be able to feel that it's part of them rather than "coming at" them. This may or may not be relevant to this case.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Is it something coming at you or something welling out of you?


Not just Beethoven, of course. But it doesn't only depend on whether I've internalised it, but whether I'm in the mood for it. I need the right music to express - allow to well out - my feelings at the time.


----------



## Nereffid

DaveM said:


> Just to continue the thought: I am always surprised when someone 'hears' Beethoven in a way that 'isn't subtle' or that "relies too much on volume and 'flashy' passages". To me, Beethoven was head and shoulders above every other composer in writing music that expressed virtually every emotion at every level delivered in almost every classical format available.


My own approach to what's said in the last sentence is that Beethoven wrote music "in which the willing listener may identify virtually every emotion".

For instance, the phrases "heart-wrenching quiet beauty", "music that reaches into the very depth of your soul", "music where you feel one with nature", and "music that challenges the brain and appeals to your inner perfectionist" could also be applied to the 1st movement of the _Moonlight_ sonata - and IMO are all far better descriptions of it than "romantic candlelight music".

My point being that with _any_ music there's no single "right answer" as to what's being expressed, even after taking the composer's intentions into account. True, some music - like Beethoven's - strongly resonates in a particular way with many people, but that doesn't mean that the music itself is expressing something, rather it's the listeners who are identifying something in it. And this requires willingness on the part of the listener to hear something there in the first place.
We've all got particular composers or pieces of music - or genres, or entire centuries' worth of music - that we just don't "get", that we don't hear the thing that many others love about it. To dislike Beethoven isn't to be wrong, it's simply to be at one end of an admittedly rather wide bell curve.


----------



## Guest

Quote "Beethoven's last quartets were written by a deaf man and should only be listened to by a deaf man".
--Sir Thomas Beecham


----------



## Woodduck

Traverso said:


> Quote "Beethoven's last quartets were written by a deaf man and should only be listened to by a deaf man".
> --Sir Thomas Beecham


Master of the deflating putdown. Not even Stravinsky could top him.

Beecham on Beethoven's 7th: "It's like a lot of yaks jumping around."


----------



## isorhythm

Beecham was a run-of-the-mill upper class Philistine who should have stayed in the family laxative business.


----------



## SixFootScowl

isorhythm said:


> Beecham was a run-of-the-mill upper class Philistine who should have stayed in the family laxative business.


After hearing his butchering of Messiah, I avoid any album with Beecham.


----------



## Woodduck

Florestan said:


> After hearing his butchering of Messiah, I avoid any album with Beecham.


Awwww! Why be a purist? I think Beecham's _Messiah_ is a _blast!_ And I'm a lover of Baroque-style performances. There are many transcriptions of _Messiah_, including one by Mozart, and they have to be taken on their own terms. Beecham's technicolor approach is outrageous, and his soloists - Jennifer Vyvyan, Monica Sinclair, Jon Vickers, and Giorgio Tozzi - outclass most of the "early music specialists" on the "authentic" versions.

Reorchestrations and "modernizations" of old music got a bad rep in the late 1900s, but earlier generations liked them. I think they're harmless and can be fun. After all, the originals are still there for us to enjoy.

Of course we all have our own tolerances for messing around with masterpieces.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Woodduck said:


> Awwww! Why be a purist? I think Beecham's _Messiah_ is a _blast!_ And I'm a lover of Baroque-style performances. There are many transcriptions of _Messiah_, including one by Mozart, and they have to be taken on their own terms. Beecham's technicolor approach is outrageous, and his soloists - Jennifer Vyvyan, Monica Sinclair, Jon Vickers, and Giorgio Tozzi - outclass most of the "early music specialists" on the "authentic" versions.
> 
> Reorchestrations and "modernizations" of old music got a bad rep in the late 1900s, but earlier generations liked them. I think they're harmless and can be fun. After all, the originals are still there for us to enjoy.
> 
> Of course we all have our own tolerances for messing around with masterpieces.


But with Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition I have a fistfull of different orchestrations and settings to various instruments from brass to accordion and even a concerto version.


----------



## ArtMusic

Beethoven reportedly was much impressed by Handel's Messiah.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Awwww! Why be a purist? I think Beecham's _Messiah_ is a _blast!_ And I'm a lover of Baroque-style performances. There are many transcriptions of _Messiah_, including one by Mozart, and they have to be taken on their own terms. Beecham's technicolor approach is outrageous, and his soloists - Jennifer Vyvyan, Monica Sinclair, Jon Vickers, and Giorgio Tozzi - outclass most of the "early music specialists" on the "authentic" versions.
> 
> Reorchestrations and "modernizations" of old music got a bad rep in the late 1900s, but earlier generations liked them. I think they're harmless and can be fun. After all, the originals are still there for us to enjoy.
> 
> Of course we all have our own tolerances for messing around with masterpieces.


Yes it is a blast, quite literally - just hear the Hallelujah Chorus! But also irresistible in its way. Let's face it, Handel was no 'purist' himself. He arranged his music for the forces he had available, including large ones. Why it is so ridiculous to harp on about purism in these composers. Besides Beecham has four great soloists - who could resist Vickers singing 'Thou shalt break them!' I have Pinnock - a superb version and my preferred choice. But I also have the Beecham which I play when I'm in the mood. It is also useful for getting rid of unwanted visitors if they are HIP inclined! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Traverso said:


> Quote "Beethoven's last quartets were written by a deaf man and should only be listened to by a deaf man".
> --Sir Thomas Beecham


Beecham's often silly off the cuff remarks are amusing should not be taken too seriously. He could be a somewhat childish person who liked to shock people with his ribald and cutting humour and his put-downs. At heart he was a serious and knowledgeable musician as John Culshaw once found out when talking to him about the prospect of recordings for Decca. Sadly nothing came of it. See Culshaw's book 'Putting the Record Straight'


----------



## TxllxT

Sir Thomas Beecham & Sibelius, well that's HIP indeed.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Woodduck said:


> Awwww! Why be a purist? I think Beecham's _Messiah_ is a _blast!_


Weird thing is, before he made THAT recording, he made two others that were HIP before HIP (1927, 1947).











I think the 1953 record was penance. "Sorry, I didn't mean to kill the Victorian era, I take it all back!"


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Woodduck said:


> Master of the deflating putdown.


Nah, that was Shaw. ON Beecham.

https://books.google.com/books?id=B...When+I+entered,+Sir+Thomas+Beecham+struck+up"

https://books.google.com/books?id=B...him+as+if+he+were+one+of+the+second+violins."

https://books.google.com/books?id=B...t+him+accidentally+into+contact+with+Mozart."


----------



## worov

> Quote "Beethoven's last quartets were written by a deaf man and should only be listened to by a deaf man".
> --Sir Thomas Beecham


So was Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. And yet Beecham conducted it !


----------



## PsychoBunny

Beethoven wasn't “better” than everyone else, he was incredibly unique. It's rare that an individual can be traumatized to the extent he was and not be beaten down to irrelevance by it. The fire inside him couldn't be extinguished by the trials fate threw in his way, nor smothered by the people who failed to be what he needed them to be in order to find some happiness in this world.

It’s likely that experientially, Beethoven actually understood almost none of Schiller's 'Ode to Joy' when he first read it. This is part of the reason it took him so many years to set it to music. There was however, one stanza he understood perfectly - it might as well have been written about him personally - the stanza that would eventually become the 9th Symphony's oft-reviled tenor solo:

Gladly, like the suns, God sent plying their courses 
through the splendor of the infinite firmament.
Thus, my brothers, you should run your race,
like a hero going to conquest.

"Wie Ein Held"...."Like a Hero" There’s a lot more going on in the Tenor Solo than meets the eye: I’ve never known anyone to understand all of it until it’s explained to them and even then, many don’t get it. In the interest of brevity and staying on subject I’ll skip all that and just say that what Beethoven encapsulates in the Tenor Solo is what people are hearing throughout his music that makes him the “greatest” composer in the eyes of so many.

(Note, however, he’s not the “most brilliant” composer. Objectively, that would be Bach. In fact, if Bach isn’t the demigod of music, the Earth has never suffered the footfall of a demigod.)

The power of the Tenor Solo lies in its honesty. It’s completely hypocrisy-free. Beethoven lived that stanza of Shiller’s Ode. Even when fate delivered the worst it could do to someone who survived on the music he created and heard: rendering him deaf – he refused to go down. He kept moving forward, like a hero, until Fate gave up and cheated, like it always does, and tagged-in its ringer to end its lost-cause fight with Beethoven….Death.

It’s Beethoven’s irrepressible soul, his blazing through the terrifying void of existence and setting so much of his music on fire – that leads people to call him the “greatest” composer. It’s a force-multiplier that no other composer was, or has been, able to bring to their work.

You simply aren’t hearing it or, you don’t care. And that doesn’t cast your understanding of music in a bad light, or make you a musically illiterate person, in the least. People who criticize you for not agreeing to their estimation of Beethoven are either being jerks or are, themselves, ignorant of what music is and how it works. And that’s their problem, not yours.

All you should have to say is, “Beethoven doesn’t speak to me” and people who understand music will leave it at that because there’s nothing to argue there.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Welcome PsychoBunny! Fascinating post. Not to discount the rest, but I especially like the opening and closing sentences. Really sums it up in a nutshell.



> Beethoven wasn't "better" than everyone else, he was incredibly unique.
> ...
> All you should have to say is, "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" and people who understand music will leave it at that because there's nothing to argue there.


----------



## Woodduck

PsychoBunny said:


> People who criticize you for not agreeing to their estimation of Beethoven are either being jerks or are, themselves, ignorant of what music is and how it works. And that's their problem, not yours.
> 
> All you should have to say is, "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" and people who understand music will leave it at that because there's nothing to argue there.


If all Beethoven's detractors here were to say was, in fact, "Beethoven doesn't speak to me," no one would argue with them or criticize them.

It's when people call his music superficially clever or compare him to a car salesman that some - who are far from ignorant of what music is or how it works, and actually speak from their understanding of those things - are inclined to question and counter such judgments. I would be careful about calling anyone engaged in this lively conversation a jerk.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> If all Beethoven's detractors here were to say was, in fact, "Beethoven doesn't speak to me," no one would argue with them or criticize them.


Well, Beethoven certainly doesn't speak to me. Given his current circumstances, that's hardly surprising.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Well, Beethoven certainly doesn't speak to me. Given his current circumstances, that's hardly surprising.


As promised, I won't argue with you or criticize you. But you needn't be afraid of disturbing Beethoven if you do want to talk to him. He's finished decomposing.


----------



## Guest

PsychoBunny said:


> It's rare that an individual can be traumatized to the extent he was and not be beaten down to irrelevance by it. The fire inside him couldn't be extinguished by the trials fate threw in his way,


Yeah, but if he hadn't insisted on spending all his time composing, perhaps fate would have dealt him a different hand.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Yeah, but if he hadn't insisted on spending all his time composing, perhaps fate would have dealt him a different hand.


 If Beethoven hadn't spent all his time composing, he might have gotten very hungry. I don't think they had food stamps then.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "being fit and healthy is not my style".


----------



## Woodduck

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "being fit and healthy is not my style".


"Why is a raven like a writing desk?" - Lewis Carroll, _Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_


----------



## PsychoBunny

Oh. You're right. I was a bit careless with my wording there. Conceptually, I meant that sentence to be as broad as the last sentence but I wrote it in such a way that it could be applied to specifics. And anything can be argued on its merits.

Other than that, de gustibus non est disputandum.


----------



## tdc

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "being fit and healthy is not my style".


More like:

Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "being pompous and bloated is not my style."


----------



## Woodduck

Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me."


----------



## SixFootScowl

Woodduck said:


> Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me."


Now why didn't I think of that? It seems so obvious now.


----------



## KenOC

Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying, “I’m a racist Nazi with a stunted psychopathic personality and bad hygiene.” Or at least, to quote an obscure British vocal ensemble, “I got nasty habits, I take tea at three. And the meat I eat for dinner must be hung up for a week.”


----------



## PsychoBunny

That's confusing. Composing isn't a trade. People who can sit down with stave paper and a pencil and write an orchestra work don't have the luxury of walking away from it. Sometimes it's quiet and you're unaware of it but you know something's going to set it off. For me it's motion but I knew a composer some years ago for whom the trigger was usually specific shades of certain colors. Along the lines of the majority of people with absolute pitch.

I had the opportunity, at a work Christmas party once, to discuss it with a rather competent psychiatrist married to one of my co-workers. That was - for the first couple minutes - one of the most awkward conversations I've ever had. He got what I was saying, though and - shooting from the hip - thought what I was describing was probably a combination of disorders like autism and schizophrenia or synesthesia and post traumatic stress.

Whatever it is, it’s usually in the driver’s seat although, I’ve gained some control over it as I’ve grown older. I still don’t watch TV because of it and somedays, all the noise pollution of ambient music makes me want to kick kittens.

But, I've heard a couple lifetimes of unique, sometimes awesome music and "Walkman's are for n00bs."


----------



## Woodduck

PsychoBunny said:


> That's confusing. Composing isn't a trade. People who can sit down with stave paper and a pencil and write an orchestra work don't have the luxury of walking away from it. Sometimes it's quiet and you're unaware of it but you know something's going to set it off. For me it's motion but I knew a composer some years ago for whom the trigger was usually specific shades of certain colors. Along the lines of the majority of people with absolute pitch.
> 
> I had the opportunity, at a work Christmas party once, to discuss it with a rather competent psychiatrist married to one of my co-workers. That was - for the first couple minutes - one of the most awkward conversations I've ever had. He got what I was saying, though and - shooting from the hip - thought what I was describing was probably a combination of disorders like autism and schizophrenia or synesthesia and post traumatic stress.
> 
> Whatever it is, it's usually in the driver's seat although, I've gained some control over it as I've grown older. I still don't watch TV because of it and somedays, all the noise pollution of ambient music makes me want to kick kittens.
> 
> But, I've heard a couple lifetimes of unique, sometimes awesome music and "Walkman's are for n00bs."


You're a composer, then?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> More like:
> 
> Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "being pompous and bloated is not my style."





Woodduck said:


> Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me."


Thank you, Wooduck, for clarifying a statement that ought to be self-explanatory, but for some reason isn't.

tdc, maybe stick to commenting on composers you do enjoy, because otherwise you end up making posts like the one quoted above, which is unfortunate. Try to rise above your dislike of Beethoven. There are great composers who I don't care for, but wouldn't dare make such a laughable statement. I'm mostly lukewarm about Mozart, but I realize he simply just doesn't speak to me. That's it, I move on. No need to project my personal biases and tastes onto a composer's music as if it were anything even approaching objective.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DiesIraeCX said:


> Thank you, Wooduck, for clarifying a statement that ought to be self-explanatory, but for some reason isn't.
> 
> tdc, maybe stick to commenting on composers you do enjoy, because otherwise you end up making posts like the one quoted above, which is unfortunate. Try to rise above your dislike of Beethoven. There are great composers who I don't care for, but wouldn't dare make such a laughable statement. I'm mostly lukewarm about Mozart, but I realize he simply just doesn't speak to me. That's it, I move on. No need to project my personal biases and tastes onto a composer's music as if it were anything even approaching objective.


Amen! Let's (TC folks in general) try not to run down any composers. <potentially offensive statement removed>


----------



## GreenMamba

Florestan said:


> Amen! Let's (TC folks in general) try not to run down any composers (with the possible exception of Cage--sorry, couldn't help myself. :lol.


The "couldn't help myself" jokes/slams have started an awful lot of fights here.


----------



## tdc

DiesIraeCX said:


> Thank you, Wooduck, for clarifying a statement that ought to be self-explanatory, but for some reason isn't.
> 
> tdc, maybe stick to commenting on composers you do enjoy, because otherwise you end up making posts like the one quoted above, which is unfortunate. Try to rise above your dislike of Beethoven. There are great composers who I don't care for, but wouldn't dare make such a laughable statement. I'm mostly lukewarm about Mozart, but I realize he simply just doesn't speak to me. That's it, I move on. No need to project my personal biases and tastes onto a composer's music as if it were anything even approaching objective.


I'm working on it, but lets face it, according to the rules of TC I can make these kinds of posts as much as I want, but I don't actually want to. If people responded the way psychobunny did in post 445 then we can come to mutual understanding and respect. In the list of quotes you made you conveniently left out the one in post 452 that I was responding to, this post is actually a mild insult at anyone who doesn't enjoy Beethoven suggesting they lack good sense. The less posts I see like that, the less likely I am to share my subjective views.


----------



## PsychoBunny

Yes. Although I stopped scoring at 17 - the second time I was expelled from a music school I'd been attending. My composition instructor was a good and pleasant person who I respected as an individual, but not a composer. That person was a student of a student of John Cage and so, was suffering from scholastic hereditary incompetence.

My view of experimental music is very similar to Peter Woit's view of String Theory: it's an interesting idea that has zero supporting evidence so why is science devoting so many resources to String Theory and ignoring many other just-as-viable competing theories?

It seems like there are many more people who want to be composers than there is talent that can be distributed amongst them so, schools are dumping out composers who can't write music and instead are wasting the time and energy of instrumentalists who wanted to make a living playing music in a professional orchestra….not make semi-organized noise in a loose association of depressed people who long for the days when their instruments were treated like instruments by actual composers - as opposed to the present where they're being taken for granted by hyper-narcissistic brand-makers who are being completely disrespectful of their hard work and passions. And disrespectful of the audiences' time and money.

But, that's just my opinion and I'm sorry to be wordy. I have autism and never really know when to stop writing or talking about something I'm interested in. I have 30 years of pent up thoughts about the subject of music and easily wander off the path of specific questions.

Since I was 17, I have notated one piece: a Hymn and Chorale I gave my brother as a graduation gift when he left Cal Arts with a degree in voice. But I have sketched a lot of music. When I want to hear something unimpeded by having to devote the brain power needed to hear the orchestra in my head, I record an improvised sketch of it using a sequencer. I start with a polyphonic instrument improvisation….piano, harp, the "birdcage played with a tuning fork", etc. and while playing that I work out most of the rest of the parts in the back of my head. If I like how the first track went, I'll go back and record all the parts.

I delete most of these sketches but will keep the ones that have a special memory attached to them or solved a particular problem I was working on - like 'what's the issue with 5/4 that has left all but a few composers baffled by its execution?'

In any event, it ends up sounding hollow….like seeing a ghost of a person. But I know what it supposed to sound like. I put one on youtube - non-published - now and again for my brother and friends who are interested.

This one has a number of views because someone forwarded the link. It's the scherzo from what would have been my 4th symphony. 




This, I gave to a woman early in our relationship to describe how I felt around her. She understood it.






Again, sorry about being long-winded….and now that I think about it, your question was probably more along the lines of being non-rhetorical.


----------



## KenOC

PsychoBunny said:


> That's confusing. Composing isn't a trade. People who can sit down with stave paper and a pencil and write an orchestra work don't have the luxury of walking away from it.


Some do. Berwald, who was a very good composer but couldn't make a living at it, commented that "music makes a thin soup." He managed a glass factory for a while and then set up a successful business making prosthetic limbs. I suspect there are many more cases.


----------



## PsychoBunny

I'm sorry I didn't make myself more clear, I intended the pencil and stave paper qualifier to mean those and nothing else. No instrument as an intermediary. And I'm not being dismissive of composers who do have to use instruments.... Except for one. 

There's a dividing line between these two groups. It's similar to a concert pianist I knew who could sight read anything. That's not unheard of amongst such musicians however, he could also transpose that sight reading to any key he was asked to play it in. Which is fairly rare. He was not inherently better than any of the other concert pianists, his brain was just working differently than the rest of ours were. 

What was truly insane about this guy was he knocked on my practice room door one night and wanted to know what I was playing. I explained I was working on 4 part fugue improvisations. 3 is no problem. 4 I screw up every time: to this day. He couldn't wrap his mind around the concept. Literally. I spent 15 minutes trying to teach him how to improvise a 4 note melody and failed. I doubt he ever gained that skill.


----------



## ArtMusic

KenOC said:


> Some do. Berwald, who was a very good composer but couldn't make a living at it, commented that "music makes a thin soup." He managed a glass factory for a while and then set up a successful business making prosthetic limbs. I suspect there are many more cases.


But I think if Berwald dedicated his mind to music, he would have done better, like Beethoven did. Art requires holistic dedication. That's why Beethoven (and others) were great.


----------



## micro

Of course I consider Beethoven as one of the greatest, and it seems he shifted the course of music towards a darker and a more serious area that was followed by almost every composer since 1820s. But I also think that *many* of his works are extremely overrated, if they weren't written by him, they would have been forgotten a long ago. For example his quartets and especially his late ones (namely the gross fugue) are extremely boring and I still can't understand what they are so appreciated. His violin concerto is just good (maybe very good) but I can't understand why it is considered a masterpiece. Look at Berwald's violin concerto which was written in 1820 and a few recognizes, and you can easily see a forgotten masterpiece. I also listened to several symphonies at the early 1800s and I can find similarly good music to his no. 5 and 6.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

micro said:


> Of course I consider Beethoven as one of the greatest, and it seems he shifted the course of music towards a darker and a more serious area that was followed by almost every composer since 1820s. But I also think that *many* of his works are extremely overrated, if they weren't written by him, they would have been forgotten a long ago. For example his quartets and especially his late ones (namely the gross fugue) are extremely boring and I still can't understand what they are so appreciated. His violin concerto is just good (maybe very good) but I can't understand why it is considered a masterpiece. Look at Berwald's violin concerto which was written in 1820 and a few recognizes, and you can easily see a forgotten masterpiece. I also listened to several symphonies at the early 1800s and I can find similarly good music to his no. 5 and 6.


I cannot disagree with you more  His late string quartets are some of the best music ever written. The Grosse (not gross ) Fugue takes a bit of time (well, quite a bit of time actually) to appreciate so don't give up; keep listening. Also, there is quite a bit of Beethoven's music that has been "forgotten". His official Opus number some 130 but probably only one-third of these are regularly performed. You also mention his violin concerto as an overrated piece. It is my favorite violin concerto and IMO the best one.

Not sure why there is this tendency for people to say that some acknowledged masterpieces are overrated when they can simply say they don't understand them.


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Not sure why there is this tendency for people to say that some acknowledged masterpieces are overrated when they can simply say they don't understand them.


I don't know. Why did you badmouth Debussy earlier in this thread? Why do people dispute the status of Pierrot lunaire or Moses und Aron or Mahler's Sixth or Bruckner's Fifth or the Brandenburg Concertos or Monteverdi's Orfeo or...


----------



## micro

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I cannot disagree with you more  His late string quartets are some of the best music ever written. The Grosse (not gross ) Fugue takes a bit of time (well, quite a bit of time actually) to appreciate so don't give up; keep listening. Also, there is quite a bit of Beethoven's music that has been "forgotten". His official Opus number some 130 but probably only one-third of these are regularly performed. You also mention his violin concerto as an overrated piece. It is my favorite violin concerto and IMO the best one.
> 
> Not sure why there is this tendency for people to say that some acknowledged masterpieces are overrated when they can simply say they don't understand them.


Yeah, maybe you're right. But, many masterpieces were deemed so because they were appreciated people of many intellectual levels. I don't think one should listen a hundred times to a work so he can recognize the beauty in it. Most of my favorites were recognized from the first time I listened.

Again, I don't think Beethoven himself is overrated; on the contrary he can easily be seen as the most influential composer in history. But many of his works, I think, are popular and considered masterpieces just because he wrote them not because of their own beauty.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mahlerian said:


> I don't know. Why did you badmouth Debussy earlier in this thread? Why do people dispute the status of Pierrot lunaire or Moses und Aron or Mahler's Sixth or Bruckner's Fifth or the Brandenburg Concertos or Monteverdi's Orfeo or...


Huh? How did I badmouth Debussy? If I remember correctly, I only disputed the claim someone made that he is greater than Beethoven. If I said something else, I don't remember now


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

micro said:


> Yeah, maybe you're right. But, many masterpieces were deemed so because they were appreciated people of many intellectual levels. I don't think one should listen a hundred times to a work so he can recognize the beauty in it. Most of my favorites were recognized from the first time I listened.
> 
> Again, I don't think Beethoven himself is overrated; on the contrary he can easily be seen as the most influential composer in history. But many of his works, I think, are popular and considered masterpieces just because he wrote them not because of their own beauty.


Well, if your examples are his late string quartets and violin concerto, you're going to get a lot of people disagreeing with you.

What other pieces do you think are considered masterpieces only because written by Beethoven?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

micro said:


> But I also think that *many* of [Beethoven's] works are extremely overrated, if they weren't written by him, they would have been forgotten a long ago.
> 
> *For example his quartets and especially his late ones* (namely the gross fugue) *are extremely boring* and I still can't understand what they are so appreciated.


What do you make of, say, the piano sonatas, piano chamber music, or the Missa Solemnis?


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Huh? How did I badmouth Debussy? If I remember correctly, I only disputed the claim someone made that he is greater than Beethoven. If I said something else, I don't remember now


You said that they couldn't possibly be serious and dismissed even the idea that they're both on a similar level of greatness.


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> You said that they couldn't possibly be serious and dismissed even the idea that they're both on a similar level of greatness.


That's not badmouthing Debussy. There are only a bare handful of composers that could be said to be on a similar level of greatness as Beethoven and, I'm sorry, Debussy isn't one of them. That puts Debussy (perhaps) with many excellent composers who occupy the 2nd tier.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> That's not badmouthing Debussy. There are only a bare handful of composers that could be said to be on a similar level of greatness as Beethoven and, I'm sorry, Debussy isn't one of them. That puts Debussy (perhaps) with many excellent composers who occupy the 2nd tier.


Why not?

I'm getting tired of people putting Beethoven, Mozart and Bach on a pedestal.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Chronochromie said:


> Why not?
> 
> I'm getting tired of people putting Beethoven, Mozart and Bach on a pedestal.


I find it hard to understand that myself, they're certainly famous composers, but they're not untouchable gods :lol:


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> Why not?
> 
> I'm getting tired of people putting Beethoven, Mozart and Bach on a pedestal.


It's a bummer isn't it.


----------



## Xenakiboy

DaveM said:


> That's not badmouthing Debussy. There are only a bare handful of composers that could be said to be on a similar level of greatness as Beethoven and, I'm sorry, Debussy isn't one of them. That puts Debussy (perhaps) with many excellent composers who occupy the 2nd tier.


Where Does this kind of opinion come from? I'm curious.
Is it from an emotional attachments to his music, the fact he's famous or the amount of music he wrote?

If it's emotional, I honestly get far more of an emotional response or enjoyment from Debussy or Webern than I do the average Beethoven piece.
If it's it's because he's a famous composer, I think there's a level of idiocy to letting popularity decide value.
If it's the amount of music he composed, why not consider Bach or Haydn (as examples before Beethoven) better? 

It puzzles me because I personally consider him just to be another composer who has a few great pieces, nothing much else. :tiphat:


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> It's a bummer isn't it.


It's just annoying. Doesn't do much to show critical thinking either. Oooohhhh


----------



## DaveM

Xenakiboy said:


> ...I personally consider him just to be another composer who has a few great pieces, nothing much else. :tiphat:


Ludwig Van Beethoven, a composer of a few great pieces, nothing much else. I can safely say that I've never heard him described that way.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mahlerian said:


> You said that they couldn't possibly be serious and dismissed even the idea that they're both on a similar level of greatness.


Saying Debussy isn't as good as Beethoven is badmouthing Debussy? Is saying an artist isn't as good as another badmouthing? Then we've been badmouthing almost everyone forever 

I see DaveM agrees with me.


----------



## Woodduck

micro said:


> Yeah, maybe you're right. But, many masterpieces were deemed so because they were appreciated people of many intellectual levels. I don't think one should listen a hundred times to a work so he can recognize the beauty in it. Most of my favorites were recognized from the first time I listened.


Believe it or not, there are many people who do not have to listen to Beethoven's music a hundred times to recognize its excellence. I heard his late quartets for the first time at age 17 and was immediately convinced that they were some of the greatest music ever composed - an opinion which 50 more years of listening and studying have only reinforced. If you check, you'll find that to be a rather common opinion among people who have more than a smidgeon of musical knowledge and experience. That doesn't make it true, of course, and it doesn't necessitate your ever liking the music, but it might give you pause.


----------



## Xenakiboy

DaveM said:


> Ludwig Van Beethoven, a composer of a few great pieces, nothing much else. I can safely say that I've never heard him described that way.


Welcome to reality then, respectively.
I really like the Grosso, late quartets, piano trios, some of the piano Sonatas and the 7th Symphony. Everything else, I think just feels like popularity hype.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven was a slacker. Like, where's that cello concerto? Right, he "forgot" to write one! Now what kind of composer is that? Even Elgar could write a cello concerto!


----------



## Chronochromie

Beethoven is one of my favorites in fact, but I don't think he should be put above every other composer.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Would it be slander to also state that the greatest music ever written, probably hasn't even been written yet??
We only have the past to judge by, it doesn't make sense that the resources that we have in 2016 that someone can't use that to their advantage.


----------



## Xenakiboy

I see taking Devils advocate (to some degree) can gain me some friends? :devil:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Xenakiboy said:


> Welcome to reality then, respectively.
> I really like the Grosso, late quartets, piano trios, some of the piano Sonatas and the 7th Symphony. Everything else, I think just feels like popularity hype.


Interesting. So by that definition the Eroica, just to give one of many possible examples, is just a popularity hype?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chronochromie said:


> Beethoven is one of my favorites in fact, but I don't think he should be put above every other composer.


He isn't but he's above almost every other composer.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was a slacker. Like, where's that cello concerto? Right, he "forgot" to write one! Now what kind of composer is that? Even Elgar could write a cello concerto!


Well, he did do the Triple just to prove he could have done a Cello Concerto if he'd wanted to. But, you're right, he was a slacker: No concerto for flute & harp, no double violin concerto (or double/triple piano concerto for that matter), no 4-horn concerto and just one opera. Come to think of it: one opera with 4 overtures. Why not just do the one overture and use the time to write one of the aforementioned missing works?


----------



## Xenakiboy

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Interesting. So by that definition the Eroica, just to give one of many possible examples, is just a popularity hype?


To play Devils advocate again, would it be sacrilege to say that it was?_ It's not a bad Symphony in my opinion, I understand it's influence but doesn't strike me as one of the greatest symphonies I've heard or something I want to listen to often_.

I just realised I stumbled onto a really flaming, heated debate here. I need some ice! :devil:


----------



## Woodduck

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Saying Debussy isn't as good as Beethoven is badmouthing Debussy? Is saying an artist isn't as good as another badmouthing? Then we've been badmouthing almost everyone forever
> 
> I see DaveM agrees with me.


How elitist!

In our enlightened times we must keep our value judgments to ourselves as guilty secrets. Saying that something is better than something else is certain to make someone think that you are looking down on them (carefully avoiding here the sexist "him"), and so the First Modern Rule of Conduct is: say nothing which makes anyone feel bad about themselves (carefully avoiding here the sexist "himself"). Since someone is bound to feel bad about themselves no matter what opinion we hold, the best thing to say about music is "I like the way it sounds." That way if the other person doesn't like the way it sounds, they can secretly think you are an idiot, and if they reciprocally say nothing to make you feel bad about yourself, we will all feel good about ourselves and be happy all the time.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Chronochromie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> He isn't but he's above almost every other composer.


Well, on my personal ranking he is.

I still don't think that he or any other composer is objectively the greatest and no one can come close.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> Well, on my personal ranking he is.


Careful, that sounds like a pedestal.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Careful, that sounds like a pedestal.


A personal clearly subjective one, and I don't go around dismissing other people who think differently.


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> A personal clearly subjective one, and I don't go around dismissing other people who think differently.


I would hardly insult somebody for disliking Beethoven, nor even suggest (aloud) that they merit bescumberment.


----------



## Mahlerian

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Saying Debussy isn't as good as Beethoven is badmouthing Debussy? Is saying an artist isn't as good as another badmouthing? Then we've been badmouthing almost everyone forever
> 
> I see DaveM agrees with me.


But that's not what I said at all. You didn't say Debussy isn't as good as Beethoven, you said that no one who says that he's better can be taken seriously. That's very different. It's the disdain for others, not the preference for Beethoven, that's the problem.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> That's not badmouthing Debussy. There are only a bare handful of composers that could be said to be on a similar level of greatness as Beethoven and, I'm sorry, Debussy isn't one of them. That puts Debussy (perhaps) with many excellent composers who occupy the 2nd tier.


Debussy, Schoenberg, and Stravinsky are all on the first tier. So are composers from before 1700. Common practice is not the only tradition that matters here.


----------



## tdc

Well in my personal ranking, Beethoven (while very good) is not in the same tier of composition as Debussy or even Ravel. In my view Beethoven did not seem to know how to use harmony to make music strikingly beautiful or beautiful in an exotic way. On the odd occasion when he did get more harmonically adventurous (like in the Grosse Fuge or Hammerklavier) we have music that while complex and structurally interesting, is not what I would call beautiful. 

Essentially the bulk of Beethoven's output has many of the elements of the Romantic era I do not like, without those awesome and colorful harmonies typical of the Romantic era. (Or typical of Bach and early 20th century music).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Mahlerian said:


> But that's not what I said at all. You didn't say Debussy isn't as good as Beethoven, you said that no one who says that he's better can be taken seriously. That's very different. It's the disdain for others, not the preference for Beethoven, that's the problem.


Yes, I did say that too and I still believe it. Debussy better than Beethoven! That's a good one.


----------



## Balthazar

[Deleted]⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮⁮


----------



## DaveM

Mahlerian said:


> Debussy, Schoenberg, and Stravinsky are all on the first tier. So are composers from before 1700. Common practice is not the only tradition that matters here.


Oh I get it, the new normal: The minority rules.


----------



## Mahlerian

DaveM said:


> Oh I get it, the new normal: The minority rules.


Minority? What are you talking about?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Believe it or not, there are many people who do not have to listen to Beethoven's music a hundred times to recognize its excellence. I heard his late quartets for the first time at age 17 and was immediately convinced that they were some of the greatest music ever composed - an opinion which 50 more years of listening and studying have only reinforced. If you check, you'll find that to be a rather common opinion among people who have more than a smidgeon of musical knowledge and experience. That doesn't make it true, of course, and it doesn't necessitate your ever liking the music, but it might give you pause.


The string quartets of Beethoven are the least popular pieces of Beethoven.I am just a Lucky person who can realy enjoy these pieces . If you don't love these string quartets you only love half of Beethoven.


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> The string quartets of Beethoven are the least popular pieces of Beethoven.I am just a Lucky person who can really enjoy these pieces . If you don't love these string quartets you only love half of Beethoven.


Amen to this ..........:tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Well in my personal ranking, Beethoven (while very good) is not in the same tier of composition as Debussy or even Ravel. In my view Beethoven did not seem to know how to use harmony to make music strikingly beautiful or beautiful in an exotic way. On the odd occasion when he did get more harmonically adventurous (like in the Grosse Fuge or Hammerklavier) we have music that while complex and structurally interesting, is not what I would call beautiful.


I think Josquin and Bach were good composers but not first tier because they failed to master sonata form.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> I think Josquin and Bach were good composers but not first tier because they failed to master sonata form.


Well Ed I respect you, but this is a topic I feel strongly about. Bach mastered Sonata form, (the old style), he used it in the WTC. I prefer the old style to Beethoven's method any way (which I think in itself was put to better use by composers after him).

I just don't buy Beethoven's concocted drama. It sounds to me as though he makes up straw men for musical arguments (with a lot of loud bashing and repetition - now _that_ tactic is cheap) and then proceeds to beat them up.

He was a great composer, important, influential and _unique_. But if you try and measure Beethoven against the other greats using any other area of composition other than Sonata form, he doesn't really stand up so well. That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior.

Beethoven has this Romantic image - people want to put his music on a pedestal. He is like the Rocky Balboa of composers. But lets focus on the music. It gets tiring when people prop up his music so much. Its false. Kudos to micro for calling it like he sees it.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Kudos to micro for calling it like he sees it.


With the emphasis on 'he'. Kudos to others for acknowledging that we don't all see it that way - you're entitled to your view of LvB and to insist that he's overrated if you wish, but disparaging references to 'fanboyism' is a trifle over-the-top


----------



## Guest

When Beethoven died the Viennese people felt a great loss,a great man was gone,a man who touches deeply the hearts of men.There is no need to defend Beethoven,he speaks to you in all his thoughts ,glory and dispair.Many people did not like it because there was something there in the musis wich forced them to listen instead of babbling during the recitals.
I realy love Beethoven but that is very clear I think.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> Well Ed I respect you, but this is a topic I feel strongly about. Bach mastered Sonata form, (the old style), he used it in the WTC. I prefer the old style to Beethoven's method any way (which I think in itself was put to better use by composers after him).
> 
> I just don't buy Beethoven's concocted drama. It sounds to me as though he makes up straw men for musical arguments (with a lot of loud bashing and repetition - now _that_ tactic is cheap) and then proceeds to beat them up.
> 
> He was a great composer, important, influential and _unique_. But if you try and measure Beethoven against the other greats using any other area of composition other than Sonata form, he doesn't really stand up so well. That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior.
> 
> Beethoven has this Romantic image - people want to put his music on a pedestal. He is like the Rocky Balboa of composers. But lets focus on the music. It gets tiring when people prop up his music so much. Its false. Kudos to micro for calling it like he sees it.


How is it false, tdc? You're doing that thing again where you conflate your subjective opinion with objectivity. Bach's music is also put on a pedestal, so is Mozart's, and Brahms', etc. How is it "false" to prop up his music so much? His music, along with the other masters' music (such as the previously mentioned and the later masters) should be propped up. For instance, I think _Le Sacre du Printemps_ is one of the towering achievements in music (of the 20th century, or of any period). Same for Wagner's _Tristan_ or _Parsifal_, same for Debussy's _Pelleas_ or _Etudes_ or _Prelude_, Ravel's _Gaspard_, Schoenberg's _Pierrot_, Messiaen's _Eclairs_. But of course it's not false to claim that; you wouldn't claim it's false because your tastes adhere more to Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, etc. rather than Beethoven. That's completely fine, but the problem is that one is "false" and the others are not. Why? Because you don't like Beethoven.

Furthermore, this widespread pandemic of "Beethoven fanboyism" and of people "talking of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters" is a fabrication, it's over the top. Someone earlier said that nobody who says that Debussy is better than Beethoven can be taken seriously. I, of course, don't adhere to this statement at all. It's easy to get mixed up in the semantics here. First, I don't agree with that statement. Second, it's fine if someone thinks Debussy isn't in the same tier as Beethoven (like Woodduck, for example). I _do_ think Debussy is in that tier. What should be understood is that those two statements are not synonymous:

"Anybody who says that Debussy is better than Beethoven can't be taken seriously." *=/=* "Debussy isn't in the same tier as Beethoven."

The only "fanboyism" (to be clear, I can't stand that term) was from those couple posters a little while back who didn't think Beethoven deserved to be on the same CD as Mozart, or that Mozart was objectively the greatest because he mastered opera or something like that. And even that was an isolated thing that isn't prevalent on this forum, nor is the Beethoven "fanboyism". To be honest, there is no composer more revered than Bach on this forum, and it's not even close. Bach is the one who is propped up above all, but I'm guessing that that's not "false" because you adore Bach, right?

Also, if you think that Beethoven's string quartets, symphonies, piano sonatas, and chamber music are merely straw men for musical arguments, nothing more than lots of loud bashing and repetition, and other cheap tactics which he then proceeds to beat up. I have nothing to say other than to repeat your argument nearly verbatim, since it's self-defeating. Schubert's final wish was to hear Beethoven's opus 131 before he died, Wagner called op 131 some of the most profound expression found in music, but to tdc, well that's just concocted drama, bashing noises, repetition, cheap tactics, and beatings. If only Schubert and Wagner knew they were tricked and duped.

*PS. I'm pretty sure EdwardBast's post was firmly tongue in cheek.*


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Well Ed I respect you, but this is a topic I feel strongly about. Bach mastered Sonata form, (the old style), he used it in the WTC. I prefer the old style to Beethoven's method any way (which I think in itself was put to better use by composers after him).
> 
> I just don't buy Beethoven's concocted drama. It sounds to me as though he makes up straw men for musical arguments (with a lot of loud bashing and repetition - now _that_ tactic is cheap) and then proceeds to beat them up.
> 
> He was a great composer, important, influential and _unique_. But if you try and measure Beethoven against the other greats using any other area of composition other than Sonata form, he doesn't really stand up so well. *That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior.*
> 
> Beethoven has this Romantic image - people want to put his music on a pedestal. He is like the Rocky Balboa of composers. But lets focus on the music. It gets tiring when people prop up his music so much. Its false. Kudos to micro for calling it like he sees it.


Yes, we really must get after Woodduck for such hooliganism! Very sad.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, we really must get after Woodduck for such hooliganism! Very sad.


Very funny,no one offended I hope? :lol:


----------



## Lenny

I undestand this. While I consider Beethoven one of the immortals, I have the same feeling over Mozart. Completely irrational, but I don't understand what is so great about his music. But I'll keep on trying..


----------



## EdwardBast

Traverso said:


> Very funny,no one offended I hope? :lol:


Oh, I suspect Woodduck knows where I am coming from.


----------



## SimonDekkerLinnros

Lenny said:


> I undestand this. While I consider Beethoven one of the immortals, I have the same feeling over Mozart. Completely irrational, but I don't understand what is so great about his music. But I'll keep on trying..


I used to adore Mozart's piano sonatas but after playing and listening to Beethoven's I now think Mozart's are still good but a bit boring. I just love Beethoven's temperament.


----------



## SixFootScowl

tdc said:


> Beethoven ... is like the Rocky Balboa of composers.


This is one of the things that makes Beethoven's music so attractive to me. He had intense struggle, a boxing match perhaps, with the music until he got exactly the result he wanted. This struggle comes through in the music and makes it more intense and more interesting than some composer whose music is merely beautiful and simply flow out of him like wine out of a cask.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, I suspect Woodduck knows where I am coming from.


Of course he does.


----------



## Woodduck

Those who complain that Beethoven is idolized are living in the past. Beethoven was idolized by the Romantic era, for obvious reasons, beginning in his own lifetime. His idolaters included such musical nonentities as Berlioz, Schubert, Brahms, and Wagner.

It is now 2016. Beethoven's world is long gone. The Romantic era is past. We've been through Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Boulez, Feldman, Cage, and Glass. What are we into now? Spectralism, the New Complexity, Neo-Neoism...?

Beethoven has survived idolization and all the rest of it, virtually untouched by fashion. He stands on his merits, they have been discussed over and over for two centuries, no one who's really interested can fail to have an idea of them, and all the while his music, as much as that of any other composer, is played, listened to, and loved.

"But Lady Gaga is popular too..." 

The following has been said about me: _"That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior."_

"That kind of behavior"... Well, if there is anything on this thread which I would characterize as "behavior," it's the author of the above comment insisting, repeatedly, that his inability to enjoy a composer's work qualifies him to understand it and pronounce upon its merits, and to characterize those who defend those (widely recognized) merits as "fanboys."

For the record: I have never claimed that Beethoven is "on a tier far above later masters." I have said that the general consensus that he is one of the very greatest of composers is correct.

My sincerest apologies to fans of Ravel and Lady Gaga.


----------



## znapschatz

Traverso said:


> Quote "Beethoven's last quartets were written by a deaf man and should only be listened to by a deaf man".
> --Sir Thomas Beecham





Woodduck said:


> Master of the deflating putdown. Not even Stravinsky could top him.
> 
> Beecham on Beethoven's 7th: "It's like a lot of yaks jumping around."





isorhythm said:


> Beecham was a run-of-the-mill upper class Philistine who should have stayed in the family laxative business.





Florestan said:


> After hearing his butchering of Messiah, I avoid any album with Beecham.


Although not qualified at the time to have judged his qualities as a conductor, I recall that Beecham, who once called me an idiot, was constantly burnishing his reputation for irascibility. When arriving in Cleveland where he was to be the orchestra's guest conductor, he was interviewed by a reporter for the Plain Dealer, who quoted him as saying of an Elgar piece on the program: "It is a minor and frivolous work. Cleveland audiences should love it."


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Woodduck said:


> Those who complain that Beethoven is idolized are living in the past. Beethoven was idolized by the Romantic era, for obvious reasons, beginning in his own lifetime. His idolaters included such musical nonentities as Berlioz, Schubert, Brahms, and Wagner.
> 
> It is now 2016. Beethoven's world is long gone. The Romantic era is past. We've been through Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Boulez, Feldman, Cage, and Glass. What are we into now? Spectralism, the New Complexity, Neo-Neoism...?
> 
> Beethoven has survived idolization and all the rest of it, virtually untouched by fashion. He stands on his merits, they have been discussed over and over for two centuries, no one who's really interested can fail to have an idea of them, and all the while his music, as much as that of any other composer, is played, listened to, and loved.
> 
> "But Lady Gaga is popular too..."
> 
> The following has been said about me: _"That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior."_
> 
> "That kind of behavior"... Well, if there is anything on this thread which I would characterize as "behavior," it's the author of the above comment insisting, repeatedly, that his inability to enjoy a composer's work qualifies him to understand it and pronounce upon its merits, and to characterize those who defend those (widely recognized) merits as "fanboys."
> 
> For the record: I have never claimed that Beethoven is "on a tier far above later masters." I have said that the general consensus that he is one of the very greatest of composers is correct.
> 
> My sincerest apologies to fans of Ravel and Lady Gaga.


My favorite post in this thread.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Those who complain that Beethoven is idolized are living in the past. Beethoven was idolized by the Romantic era, for obvious reasons, beginning in his own lifetime. His idolaters included such musical nonentities as Berlioz, Schubert, Brahms, and Wagner.
> 
> It is now 2016. Beethoven's world is long gone. The Romantic era is past. We've been through Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Boulez, Feldman, Cage, and Glass. What are we into now? Spectralism, the New Complexity, Neo-Neoism...?
> 
> Beethoven has survived idolization and all the rest of it, virtually untouched by fashion. He stands on his merits, they have been discussed over and over for two centuries, no one who's really interested can fail to have an idea of them, and all the while his music, as much as that of any other composer, is played, listened to, and loved.
> 
> "But Lady Gaga is popular too..."
> 
> The following has been said about me: _"That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior."_
> 
> "That kind of behavior"... Well, if there is anything on this thread which I would characterize as "behavior," it's the author of the above comment insisting, repeatedly, that his inability to enjoy a composer's work qualifies him to understand it and pronounce upon its merits, and to characterize those who defend those (widely recognized) merits as "fanboys."
> 
> For the record: I have never claimed that Beethoven is "on a tier far above later masters." I have said that the general consensus that he is one of the very greatest of composers is correct.
> 
> My sincerest apologies to fans of Ravel and Lady Gaga.


My favorite post also.


----------



## DavidA

tdc said:


> Well Ed I respect you, but this is a topic I feel strongly about. Bach mastered Sonata form, (the old style), he used it in the WTC. I prefer the old style to Beethoven's method any way (which I think in itself was put to better use by composers after him).
> 
> *I just don't buy Beethoven's concocted drama*. It sounds to me as though he makes up straw men for musical arguments (with a lot of loud bashing and repetition - now _that_ tactic is cheap) and then proceeds to beat them up.
> 
> He was a great composer, important, influential and _unique_. But if you try and measure Beethoven against the other greats using any other area of composition other than Sonata form, he doesn't really stand up so well. That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior.
> 
> Beethoven has this Romantic image - people want to put his music on a pedestal. He is like the Rocky Balboa of composers. But lets focus on the music. It gets tiring when people prop up his music so much. Its false. Kudos to micro for calling it like he sees it.


In case you hadn't realised, ALL drama in music is concocted - it is called 'composing'!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Woodduck said:


> "That kind of behavior"... Well, if there is anything on this thread which I would characterize as "behavior," it's the author of the above comment insisting, repeatedly, that his inability to enjoy a composer's work qualifies him to understand it and pronounce upon its merits, and to characterize those who defend those (widely recognized) merits as "fanboys."


Because it bears repeating. Thank you.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> In case you hadn't realised, ALL drama in music is concocted - it is called 'composing'!


If you left out inspiration it is not composing but arranging,the sum is more than the parts.


----------



## KenOC

A famous Beechamism: He was asked, "Have you heard any Stockhausen?" He replied, "No, but I believe I have stepped in some."


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> Those who complain that Beethoven is idolized are living in the past.


More like, those who idolize him are.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> A famous Beechamism: He was asked, "Have you heard any Stockhausen?" He replied, "No, but I believe I have stepped in some."


Another: "If I were a dictator I should make it compulsory for every member of the population between the ages of four and eighty to listen to Mozart for at least a quarter of an hour daily for the coming five years."

He was keener on Wolfie than Lud, of course, although his performances of Beethoven were often marvellous. I have a miraculous 6th he recorded in 1952.


----------



## Blancrocher

DavidA said:


> Another: "If I were a dictator I should make it compulsory for every member of the population between the ages of four and eighty to listen to Mozart for at least a quarter of an hour daily for the coming five years."


Sounds good to me too, but watch out--knowing his sense of humor, he probably means he wants to torment us all with Leopold's compositions.


----------



## pmkspp

Often we love/hate an artist partly because of what we think of him/her not (just) because of his creations and this way we may love somebody with all his weakness or refuse him in spite of his greatness. But if we may find a little piece that is near to us we can start to explore. Try to eliminate from your thinking all authority and think of him as a fallible human being. Listen to the last two movements of the 31st sonata (really one movement) where he suddenly abandons the fugue cause pain overwhelms him and you can hear him sobbing alone in the middle of the night (just before the clock strike 10). Try some lesser known piece of him, e.g the last movements of 6th and 22nd sonatas. Not that famous but com'on, they are great.


----------



## PsychoBunny

Music is a language. Where speech is the voice of the mind, music is the voice of the body. (Of course, we combine the two of them in various was to strengthen both but the premise remains.)

Using sound, composers encapsulate generalized body states as directions, musicians transmit them and your brain determines whether or not the message is decipherable and if so, decides whether or not to tell the body to follow the instructions. I’m sure you’ve had instances where your brain was unwilling to pass on instructions that are very contrary to your mood at the moment. 

It’s actually a trope in visual media: a character is very upset about something – a death or argument – and upon getting in their car and turning on the power, the stereo comes blazing, full bore with some completely inappropriate music – given the character’s current emotional situation – they were listening to the last time they drove the vehicle. They’ll immediately turn off the stereo. I’ve done this more than once…..lol

I say all this because I have the same problem with Mozart. Although, I recognize his genius, I can’t engage with his music. I literally can only remember one melody of his – which is absurd, considering my background.

I think there’s something about the way he wrote that my brain refuses to recognize as the language of music, and pass on to the body. I’ve long suspected it’s his almost non-existent counterpoint. I’m a fool for counterpoint.

I have this same problem with Hayden.


----------



## DaveM

I would say that music is the voice of the mind: It is an expression of emotions, feelings, thoughts, worries, fears, happiness, sadness, love and so on, all of which emanate from the supra-tentorial, ie. higher brain, region. Our bodies only function at the will of and in response to the higher and lower areas of our brains.

Of course, our bodies have to produce the music that others can hear, but without any instruments we can 'hear' music in our minds.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

tdc said:


> In my view Beethoven did not seem to know how to use harmony to make music strikingly beautiful


Fine - that's your view. OK, now what do your hearing and soul tell you? 

Heck, Beethoven could use harmony to make mere _rhythms_ beautiful.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Fine - that's your view. OK, now what do your hearing and soul tell you?
> 
> Heck, Beethoven could use harmony to make mere _rhythms_ beautiful.


Indeed, the 2nd movement of the 7th being a famous example.


----------



## Xenakiboy

KenOC said:


> A famous Beechamism: He was asked, "Have you heard any Stockhausen?" He replied, "No, but I believe I have stepped in some."


He would have given up music completely, moved country and became a nun if he ever heard Stockhausen (time travel someone?) :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Psychobunny:_ "Music is the voice of the body."_

DaveM: _"Music is the voice of the mind."_

How about: Music is the art that unites body and mind.


----------



## EdwardBast

PsychoBunny said:


> Music is a language. Where speech is the voice of the mind, music is the voice of the body. (Of course, we combine the two of them in various was to strengthen both but the premise remains.)
> 
> Using sound, composers encapsulate generalized body states as directions, musicians transmit them and your brain determines whether or not the message is decipherable and if so, decides whether or not to tell the body to follow the instructions. I'm sure you've had instances where your brain was unwilling to pass on instructions that are very contrary to your mood at the moment.
> 
> It's actually a trope in visual media: a character is very upset about something - a death or argument - and upon getting in their car and turning on the power, the stereo comes blazing, full bore with some completely inappropriate music - given the character's current emotional situation - they were listening to the last time they drove the vehicle. They'll immediately turn off the stereo. I've done this more than once…..lol
> 
> I say all this because I have the same problem with Mozart. Although, I recognize his genius, I can't engage with his music. I literally can only remember one melody of his - which is absurd, considering my background.
> 
> I think there's something about the way he wrote that my brain refuses to recognize as the language of music, and pass on to the body. I've long suspected it's his almost *non-existent counterpoint*. I'm a fool for counterpoint.
> 
> *I have this same problem with Hayden.*


Haydn wrote fugues and complex counterpoint in numerous works. So did Mozart.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

EdwardBast said:


> Haydn wrote fugues and complex counterpoint in numerous works. So did Mozart.


So did Beethoven, albeit not in such profusion. If not full-on fugues, there are many works of his where fleeting _fugato_ passages are used, alongside other techniques, to advance the musical argument. That's Beethoven in a nutshell for me - so much of what he wrote was all about _progression_, organic growth, and pushing the boundaries of artistic expression.


----------



## EdwardBast

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> So did Beethoven, albeit not in such profusion. If not full-on fugues, there are many works of his where fleeting _fugato_ passages are used, alongside other techniques, to advance the musical argument. That's Beethoven in a nutshell for me - so much of what he wrote was all about _progression_, organic growth, and pushing the boundaries of artistic expression.


Yes, of course Beethoven too. I cited Haydn and Mozart because the post I was responding too specifically characterized their music as devoid of counterpoint.


----------



## PsychoBunny

You'll forgive me but I said "almost". Compared to their output, it was rare, by my definition - which is probably wrong. For instance, I don't include ostinatos as counterpoint, which can be incorrect I believe. But, as I said, I'm a fool for it.


----------



## PsychoBunny

I was using "mind" in the sense of the intellect.....the consciousness. Everything else is the body. And this is where music starts. Otherwise, we wouldn't understand music without words.

And we wouldn't hear it from other animals.


----------



## Guest

PsychoBunny said:


> It's actually a trope in visual media: a character is very upset about something - a death or argument - and upon getting in their car and turning on the power, the stereo comes blazing, full bore with some completely inappropriate music - given the character's current emotional situation - they were listening to the last time they drove the vehicle. They'll immediately turn off the stereo. I've done this more than once…..lol


Yes, this is easily recognisable from personal experience (and visual media merely reflects that, though sometimes for heightened dramatic effect.



PsychoBunny said:


> Music is a language. Where speech is the voice of the mind, music is the voice of the body. (Of course, we combine the two of them in various was to strengthen both but the premise remains.)





PsychoBunny said:


> I was using "mind" in the sense of the intellect.....the consciousness. Everything else is the body. And this is where music starts. Otherwise, we wouldn't understand music without words.
> 
> And we wouldn't hear it from other animals.


You'd need to elaborate further to explain your separation. Why is music not the 'voice of the consciousness'?


----------



## Varick

Vasks said:


> It does not matter that the OP doesn't "get" Beethoven, *now*. But unless he/she is really old, one day he/she will.


Ahh, so far the only post on this thread (so far, I've only started page 6) that kind of asks an important question: How old is the OPer? When I was in college, I did not care for Verdi's Requiem. It is now one of my favorite pieces of music of all time.

For almost 20 years, I couldn't stand Gin. Every year in the beginning of summer, I would try a gin and tonic (wondering why it was so popular during the summer season) and thought it was awful after the first sip. Almost 20 consecutive years later, I once again tried it and suddenly, "Wow, this is absolutely delicious." I've been a gin fan ever since.

Our tastes change throughout the years, and that goes for almost every aspect of our life.



Ukko said:


> The 'crypticism' is not deliberate, but a way of making an end run around my ignorance of the correct terminology. *Music may be considered to have three... modes of existence; on the paper, in the air, and in the mind. In a way, the mind has to translate the music as it receives it.* Those hooks & loops are part of the job. If the mind can't get them done, you won't like Beethoven.


A brilliant synopsis of the "materialism" (if you will) of music and how we ingest it.



tdc said:


> This mirrors to some extent my experience with both composers as well. I've never really connected the two though, because they are so different. In my mind Stravinsky's strengths are more vertical, and Beethoven's horizontal, but both seem to lack something internal (in my subjective listening experience). Yet I can also sense there is some genius in both.
> 
> Sometimes I read people on this site claiming they have a hard time appreciating Bach because something about the music seems too religious or uptight. (Bach is my favorite composer) But I have a similar problem with Beethoven, the very tone of his musical statements seems 'off' to me.
> 
> I recently listened to Beethoven's 5th and I thought 'boy this would be really exhilarating if I could let myself go into the atmosphere of this music' but somehow I can't fully enter into it, because I am not able to believe Beethoven. His musical arguments come across to me as those of a gifted car salesman - well crafted perhaps but ultimately there is just too much hot air in there.


What's the matter tdc? "Too many notes?"

V


----------



## Razumovskymas

You probably don't like Beethoven because his thematic material isn't really that strong. Most of his melodies are not really that beautiful. What he does with it is the genius I think.


----------



## DaveM

Razumovskymas said:


> You probably don't like Beethoven because his thematic material isn't really that strong. Most of his melodies are not really that beautiful. What he does with it is the genius I think.


On the contrary, even after all these years of listening to Beethoven, I am amazed by the number of incredibly beautiful melodies he created. Thematic material was, at the very least, a strong point.


----------



## Mahlerite555

If you listen to these crackers you'd be forgiven for thinking Ligeti is the monarch of human musical achievement.


----------



## Pugg

DaveM said:


> On the contrary, even after all these years of listening to Beethoven, I am amazed by the number of incredibly beautiful melodies he created. Thematic material was, at the very least, a strong point.


A simple amen will do for mow.


----------



## MarkW

Why is this thread still going? The OP was obviously a troll. Never came back. Claimed to have done something that no one else in his boat would ever have (listened to all symphonies, sonatas, quartets -- and managed to mention how many of each as if he had just looked it up on Wikipedia). And we took the bait?


----------



## Woodduck

MarkW said:


> Why is this thread still going? The OP was obviously a troll. Never came back. Claimed to have done something that no one else in his boat would ever have (listened to all symphonies, sonatas, quartets -- and managed to mention how many of each as if he had just looked it up on Wikipedia). And we took the bait?


Sometimes the means justify the end.


----------



## tdc

Varick said:


> What's the matter tdc? "Too many notes?"
> 
> V


Too many notes is part of the problem I have with Beethoven, but more specifically I think he uses too many notes that don't contribute to creating beautiful textures.

Contrary to how it might seem in this thread I actually like Beethoven and consider him a good and important composer, I just think his reputation has been very over-blown and that he was only exceptional in a very narrow range of things from a compositional standpoint.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

tdc said:


> Too many notes is part of the problem I have with Beethoven, but more specifically I think he uses too many notes that *don't contribute to creating beautiful textures*.
> 
> Contrary to how it might seem in this thread I actually like Beethoven and consider him a good and important composer, I just think his reputation has been very over-blown and that he was only exceptional in a very narrow range of things from a compositional standpoint.


 Music is so much more than just textures, though.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I don't count notes or much else, just listen and enjoy--that is the key.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> Too many notes is part of the problem I have with Beethoven, but more specifically I think he uses too many notes that don't contribute to creating beautiful textures.
> 
> Contrary to how it might seem in this thread I actually like Beethoven and consider him a good and important composer, I just think his reputation has been very over-blown and that he was only exceptional in a very narrow range of things from a compositional standpoint.


I have the same problem with Mozart, his music just isn't as textured as Brahms and other romantic composers, not as chromatic as Chopin. I just think his reputation has been very over-blown and that they were only exceptional in a very narrow range of things.

Also, Bach doesn't do [insert X-aspect of music here] as well as [insert composer who does X-aspect of music well], therefore I just think Bach's reputation has been very over-blown and that he was only exceptional in a very narrow range of things.

These statements don't really make sense to me, for obvious reasons. I get that you enjoy texture, that's fine, but what does that have to do with Beethoven's quality as a composer?



Woodduck said:


> Saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me" is like saying "Beethoven doesn't speak to me."





Woodduck said:


> You are using concepts here in a way I simply do not recognize as meaningful.
> 
> What, in musical terms, is a "classy" way of expressing something? What things are "very dark"? How does one express them "classily"? What things, specifically, do you suppose Beethoven was trying to express, but doing so ineffectively? What does it mean to "harness dissonance," much less "properly"? What is "the language of disturbing music," and how should it properly be spoken?
> 
> My main observation would be that the problem with talking about the "way music expresses things" - classily or whatever - is that the _way_ music expresses something is inseparable from the _thing_ it expresses. Language can say the same thing in different ways; we have alternative words - synonyms - and different grammatical constructions which don't necessarily affect our meaning. But change a few notes in a Beethoven sonata and you get either a poorly constructed piece or a different piece, which expresses something different from the original. If you don't like the "way" music expresses something, then I have to think you just don't like whatever it's expressing. It isn't as if Beethoven, Schnittke and Prokofiev were all handed some specific idea of a "dark thing," maybe some emotional disorder like manic-depression, and asked to produce a work expressing it. Each composer had his own personal world of feeling which found its way into his respective style, and there is no meaningful or valuable - actually, no possible - comparison to be made of their relative success in expressing themselves "properly." We have to assume that each composer said what he meant to say, and simply take his effort on its own terms as being musically coherent or not. Coherence with _our_ conceptions of "what he meant to say" is not a valid criterion for judging a work of music, unless the composer himself has declared his intentions elsewhere, as in a program, or in the text of a song or opera he is setting.
> 
> As for Beethoven's inability to harness dissonance, I'm quite sure that he could have harnessed any sort of harmony he found necessary for the making of any piece of music. I would be most curious to see instances where his harness failed to keep his harmony in line.


----------



## Razumovskymas

DaveM said:


> On the contrary, even after all these years of listening to Beethoven, I am amazed by the number of incredibly beautiful melodies he created. Thematic material was, at the very least, a strong point.


I'll put it differently. His melodies don't get stuck in my mind as easily as let's say a melody of a Schubert sonata. As opposed to the Beethoven sonatas, the Schubert sonata's had an immediate appeal to me, they sounded good from the 1st listening but once I heard them 3 or 4 times, the melody got stuck in my head like an annoying pop-song. The Beethoven sonata's didn't have that immediate appeal to me, I had to listen to them like 6,7 or 8 times until the beauty revealed itself. Beethoven's melodies never get annoying (apart from "ode to joy). Because of Beethoven's structures, the sonata as a whole get's in my mind as opposed to only one particular (what I call "strong") melody. Of course it's just a matter of what you call a "strong" melody.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

tdc said:


> he was only exceptional in a very narrow range of things from a compositional standpoint.


Beethoven produced exceptional works in a number of genres: string quartets, string trios, violin sonatas, piano sonatas, concertos and symphonies. It goes further than that: just about every quartet, trio, sonata, concerto and symphony he composed are among the greatest ever written in those genres. Even the "lesser" works, like piano sonatas 19, 20 and 22, are absolute gems and never dull.

To have been able to produce so many acknowledged masterpieces in such a wide variety of genres makes Beethoven practically unique in the annals of music; only Mozart comes close in my book, and that's saying something


----------



## tdc

DiesIraeCX said:


> I have the same problem with Mozart, his music just isn't as textured as Brahms and other romantic composers, not as chromatic as Chopin. I just think his reputation has been very over-blown and that they were only exceptional in a very narrow range of things.
> 
> Also, Bach doesn't do [insert X-aspect of music here] as well as [insert composer who does X-aspect of music well], therefore I just think Bach's reputation has been very over-blown and that he was only exceptional in a very narrow range of things.
> 
> These statements don't really make sense to me, for obvious reasons. I get that you enjoy texture, that's fine, but what does that have to do with Beethoven's quality as a composer?


Well, we are pretty much just going to go over the same ground as we have before here. As I've said before I tend to agree with Bernstein's view that Beethoven was mediocre at melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration. (I also agree with Bernstein that despite this he composed some excellent music), but I would argue that Beethoven was not as well rounded as a Bach or Mozart. You disagree. Fair enough, I respect your opinion.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> Well, we are pretty much just going to go over the same ground as we have before here. As I've said before I tend to agree with Bernstein's view that Beethoven was mediocre at melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration. (I also agree with Bernstein that despite this he composed some excellent music),


Bernstein said a lot of things about Beethoven:






And there's this:
http://www.thecultureclub.net/2006/10/20/bernstein-on-beethoven/

Doesn't sound to me like Bernstein, in the end, thought Beethoven was mediocre about anything.



> ... but I would argue that Beethoven was not as well rounded as a Bach or Mozart. You disagree. Fair enough, I respect your opinion.


And I suppose also the opinion of the millions upon millions over a couple of centuries that also disagree with you.


----------



## tdc

DaveM said:


> And I suppose also the opinion of the millions upon millions over a couple of centuries that also disagree with you.


Sounds like an appeal to popularity to me. I could point to a lot of other music scholars and professional musicians that have had some problems with Beethoven's music over the years as well. Similar ideas have been brought up by other posters in this thread too (somebody else mentioning his shortcomings with melody just a couple pages back). It is not like Bernstein was the first or the last to point these things out (it is especially interesting coming from him though, that he could admit these things while being a great fan of his music.)

What tends to happen on this forum are the comments that essentially are like "Beethoven was bad at melody? Nuh uh he was _great_ at melody, his music was over flowing with great melodies. " This is quickly followed by a by a bunch of "likes" given by the other Beethoven fans.

Why the need to put him on such a pedestal? He was a great composer, but over all not any greater than many others. This fact should not impact your enjoyment of his music at all.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> Sounds like an appeal to popularity to me.


Vox populi, vox dei. In the long run, that's just the way it is.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Vox populi, vox dei.


It's great to finally see you just come out and say it.


----------



## Woodduck

Do people put Beethoven - or Bach, or Mozart, or Wagner - on a pedestal? What can that mean, except that people are overwhelmed by their work, and feel that as creative geniuses they have to sit at or near the top of the heap? It's just extremely hard to find words to express this without sounding excessive to those who don't feel the same (of whom there are always some, no matter how great the music).

Another question: why is popularity to be discounted, even disparaged? I doubt that most of us think that how much music is liked, and by how many people, is the sole criterion of its artistic value. But isn't it rather meaningful to distinguish between music which is popular with millions of fourteen-year-olds for nine months and music which has remained popular with classical musicians, scholars, composers, critics, and a broad concert-going, record-buying public for two hundred years? Might not this at least get us thinking thoughts such as "How is this possible? What's in this music that speaks to so many people, and so many kinds of people, all the way through centuries of radical changes in our society, and across societies which have little in common with ours yet have people who clearly understand and love what they're hearing?"


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> It's great to finally see you just come out and say it.


 Believe I've said it before, many times. It's really kind of obvious. If music has enduring popularity, it enters the canon. If not, it sinks into the unfathomed depths. Do you disagree?


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Believe I've said it before, many times. It's really kind of obvious.


Sure, if you say so.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Similar ideas have been brought up by other posters in this thread too (somebody else mentioning his shortcomings with melody just a couple pages back). It is not like Bernstein was the first or the last to point these things out (it is especially interesting coming from him though, that he could admit these things while being a great fan of his music.)
> 
> What tends to happen on this forum are the comments that essentially are like "Beethoven was bad at melody? Nuh uh he was _great_ at melody, his music was over flowing with great melodies. "


I have no problem at all with Beethoven's melodies. But then, what's so important about melody? It's his particular combination of _all _the musical elements that appeals, in contrast with Tchaikovsky, allegedly the composer of some of the best melodies ever, who doesn't appeal to anything like the same extent. That's because of _his _particular combination of all the musical elements.

To me, Beethoven is great - but Tchaikovsky isn't. I don't need my opinion validated by Bernstein or vox populi because it's my ears and my enjoyment that matter. I don't understand why some seek to have their personal response converted into objective fact.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> But isn't it rather meaningful to distinguish between music which is popular with millions of fourteen-year-olds for nine months and music which has remained popular with classical musicians, scholars, composers, critics, and a broad concert-going, record-buying public for two hundred years?


It rather depends what meaning you're trying to extract. Isn't is also meaningful that I still enjoy now, the music I enjoyed when I was 5 - both classical and pop? I really only need to worry about my lifetime (not the last 200 years), unless I decide to write a thesis about who is the greater, The Beatles or Bach, or which is the greater, classical or pop.


----------



## KenOC

Bernstein did this routine... "Beethoven was lousy at melody" "Beethoven was lousy at orchestration" etc. etc. on and on. He was trying to make a point, but in fact his arguments in each case were weak, very weak.

Beethoven's genius was that his "melodies", orchestration, rhythms, and so forth were the exact right ones for what he was trying to achieve, and did achieve. And that, Bernstein would and did agree with.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> Sounds like an appeal to popularity to me. I could point to a lot of other music scholars and professional musicians that have had some problems with Beethoven's music over the years as well. Similar ideas have been brought up by other posters in this thread too (somebody else mentioning his shortcomings with melody just a couple pages back). It is not like Bernstein was the first or the last to point these things out (it is especially interesting coming from him though, that he could admit these things while being a great fan of his music.)
> 
> What tends to happen on this forum are the comments that essentially are like "Beethoven was bad at melody? Nuh uh he was _great_ at melody, his music was over flowing with great melodies. " This is quickly followed by a by a bunch of "likes" given by the other Beethoven fans.
> 
> Why the need to put him on such a pedestal? He was a great composer, but over all not any greater than many others. This fact should not impact your enjoyment of his music at all.


Regardless of the attempt to make it sound like this is a close call, the exception doesn't prove the rule. Oh, and thanks, I'll be sure to not let this impact my enjoyment of LVB's music.


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Believe I've said it before, many times. It's really kind of obvious. If music has enduring popularity, it enters the canon. If not, it sinks into the unfathomed depths. Do you disagree?


Sleepy thoughts warning: I think the influence wielded by the sometimes-hated critics, theorists and composers of old, who made efforts for some of the now-highly acclaimed composers to be recognized ahead of other composers who may have today been "the popular ones" shouldn't be underestimated in shaping the tastes of the public in the long run. I don't think all of the big names had it in their destiny to become "the big names", even if (forgotten) eventually they would have been rediscovered and become appreciated, but not to the level of the already "big name" composers. Sure, you could say "well but the big names are those popular now, the public would have rejected them otherwise so it doesn't matter", but I don't think people are so free from outside influence to really be able to pick and choose what they like.

But aside from the "Big 3" and some others I'm not sure of who/what exactly is in this "canon". Rameau, Scriabin, Ligeti, as random examples. Or are some of their pieces are in, others not? Not totally clear to me.

It's late here and I should go to sleep so IDK if I made sense.


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> I think the influence wielded by the sometimes-hated critics, theorists and composers of old, who made efforts for some of the now-highly acclaimed composers to be recognized ahead of other composers who may have today been "the popular ones" shouldn't be underestimated in shaping the tastes of the public in the long run.


Well, Glenn Gould wrote that "Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip." So there may be something in what you say!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Well, Glenn Gould wrote that "Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip." So there may be something in what you say!


Glenn Gould was right in the sense that 'reputation' means 'what people say about...' But since that goes for all composers, it's not a particularly remarkable comment!


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Bernstein did this routine... "Beethoven was lousy at melody" "Beethoven was lousy at orchestration" etc. etc. on and on. He was trying to make a point, but in fact his arguments in each case were weak, very weak.
> 
> *Beethoven's genius was that his "melodies", orchestration, rhythms, and so forth were the exact right ones for what he was trying to achieve, and did achieve.* And that, Bernstein would and did agree with.


All Bernstein's amusing hyperbole really means is that the separate elements of Beethoven's music - melody, harmony, counterpoint - are not there for their own sake and are not designed to live separate lives in our minds or distract us from his larger point. The fact that they nonetheless often do strike us powerfully, despite having been designed for their usefulness in a larger structure, is testament to his ability to come up with ideas not just compositionally useful but inherently strong and memorable.

Every composer, in every work, has to decide where his emphasis will lie: what the balance will be between the various elements of his composition. Emphasizing one thing always means subordinating something else, and what gets emphasized or subordinated depends on what the intended effect and meaning of the whole is. Non-artists may not appreciate the extent to which the various elements of a work can actually conflict with, distract from, and undermine one another. Going outside of music for a moment, just try to imagine some of the classic ink paintings of the Sung Dynasty rendered in color; the subtle balances of design and the quiet poetry of mood - the power of the implicit rather than the overt - would be vulgarized and destroyed (the ancient Chinese painters said that if painting in black ink is mastered all colors are contained within it). Many of the greatest photographers have chosen to work in black-and-white for similar reasons, obtaining compositions of great strength which color would only weaken. Should we criticize these artists for being "weak" in the element of color - a close equivalent to orchestration in music?

Would Beethoven's music be improved if we dressed it in the orchestral colors of Berlioz or Strauss? Or would we feel those colors as distracting from, even destroying, its meaning? Is the scoring of his Pastoral Symphony not colorful enough - indeed, not ideally balanced with its other elements in pursuit of its end effect? Is there anything deficient in that effect? Does it need still more tone painting, as in Wagner or Debussy? Or consider harmony: I seem to recall reading that Beethoven was wary of the new infatuation with chromatic harmony as represented by Weber and Spohr. He no doubt realized that such harmony had great implications for how music would be structured, how its time scale would have to be extended to fully accommodate the suspensions and ambiguities chromaticism would introduce. He also must have seen that chromaticism as used by those composers could be, as orchestration could be, essentially "coloristic," useful for creating specific moods (Weber was an opera composer) but in the context of his own concern for formal clarity and power of limited value to him.

That Beethoven didn't choose to indulge in picturesque effects, whether orchestral or harmonic, for their own sake is not a weakness but a strength. The power of an artist's vision depends as much on what he chooses not to include as on what he does.


----------



## Ingélou

^^^ What a very thoughtful & interesting post. :tiphat: Thank you! 
(I was reading it while also thinking about literature. Bravo.  )


----------



## Guest

Can you imagine Beethoven as a rococo composer ?


----------



## Nereffid

tdc said:


> He was a great composer, but over all not any greater than many others. This fact should not impact your enjoyment of his music at all.


But surely a lesson to be learned from this and other threads is that as far as many people are concerned, he _was_ greater than pretty much every other composer? Simply asserting that he wasn't won't get you anywhere (just as it doesn't get people anywhere with you when they say he was).


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Would Beethoven's music be improved if we dressed it in the orchestral colors of Berlioz or Strauss? Or would we feel those colors as distracting from, even destroying, its meaning? Is the scoring of his Pastoral Symphony not colorful enough - indeed, not ideally balanced with its other elements in pursuit of its end effect? Is there anything deficient in that effect? Does it need still more tone painting, as in Wagner or Debussy?
> 
> ...That Beethoven didn't choose to indulge in picturesque effects, whether orchestral or harmonic, for their own sake is not a weakness but a strength. The power of an artist's vision depends as much on what he chooses not to include as on what he does.


Very well put regarding something that was also on my mind. Beethoven was able to wear many hats, more than arguably any other composer (except perhaps Mozart). Those who believe that Beethoven is weak in thematic material or melody or that he '_uses too many notes that don't contribute to creating beautiful textures'_ should examine the The Pastoral Symphony (#6) more closely.

The Pastoral was not a fluke. There is no knowing exactly what had to be going on in Beethoven's life or mind to determine what type of music he would compose at any particular time, but there is overwhelming evidence that he could create music that was more picturesque and melodic, less picturesque/melodic and more rhythmic, less textural or more textural or whatever combination he wished.

For instance, compare Symphony #5 with #6 (Pastoral), movement one of Sonata #14 (Moonlight) with movements 2 and 3, Piano Concerto #4 compared with all the others, movement one of Concerto #5 with movement 2, the Quartet op130 Cavatina with Gross Fugue. And on and on.

(Also, you were correct in pointing out that Bernstein's comments have to be taken in context.)


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> The Pastoral was not a fluke. There is no knowing exactly what had to be going on in Beethoven's life or mind to determine what type of music he would compose at any particular time, but there is overwhelming evidence that he could create music that was more picturesque and melodic, less picturesque/melodic and more rhythmic, less textural or more textural or whatever combination he wished.
> 
> For instance, compare Symphony #5 with #6 (Pastoral), movement one of Sonata #14 (Moonlight) with movements 2 and 3, Piano Concerto #4 compared with all the others, movement one of Concerto #5 with movement 2, the Quartet op130 Cavatina with Gross Fugue. And on and on.


The diversity of invention really is staggering. A friend of mine, who had been giving himself a music history course by listening to composers more or less in chronological order, said that when he tried this with Beethoven's piano sonatas he felt disoriented, with sonata after sonata completely unpredictable based on the ones that came before. The sonatas do show the most extreme tendency to experiment among the genres in which Beethoven worked; the piano was his instrument and functioned as a laboratory for discovering new chemical reactions.

Anyone who thinks he doesn't like Beethoven should try my friend's progression through the sonatas.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> The diversity of invention really is staggering. A friend of mine, who had been giving himself a music history course by listening to composers more or less in chronological order, said that when he tried this with Beethoven's piano sonatas he felt disoriented, with sonata after sonata completely unpredictable based on the ones that came before. The sonatas do show the most extreme tendency to experiment among the genres in which Beethoven worked; the piano was his instrument and functioned as a laboratory for discovering new chemical reactions.
> 
> Anyone who thinks he doesn't like Beethoven should try my friend's progression through the sonatas.


With all the missionary zeal of the world showing how inventive, staggering experimental & discovering new chemical reactions the music of Beethoven is, I still just notice a certain kind of dragging _déjà vu_ while listening to his compositions, that I don't encounter while listening to say, Berlioz or Schubert.


----------



## KenOC

It's looking more and more like we need a poll. :devil:


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> With all the missionary zeal of the world showing how inventive, staggering experimental & discovering new chemical reactions the music of Beethoven is, I still just notice a certain kind of dragging _déjà vu_ while listening to his compositions, that I don't encounter while listening to say, Berlioz or Schubert.


Duplicate post .....


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> With all the missionary zeal of the world showing how inventive, staggering experimental & discovering new chemical reactions the music of Beethoven is, I still just notice a certain kind of dragging _déjà vu_ while listening to his compositions, that I don't encounter while listening to say, Berlioz or Schubert.


Ah, but exactly _what_ kind of dragging deja vu? A peculiarly Beethovenian kind? Is this German deja vu, which is organic, as opposed to French deja vu, which is ornamental?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> It's looking more and more like we need a poll. :devil:


No, Ken, no really, it isn't looking like-

Eurgh! Too late.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Ah, but exactly _what_ kind of dragging deja vu? A peculiarly Beethovenian kind? Is this German deja vu, which is organic, as opposed to French deja vu, which is ornamental?


Exactly the Beethovenian kind that is proclaimed to be full of novelties, inventions, revolutionary breakthroughs etc. etc. : Potemkin façades.


----------



## DaveM

TxllxT said:


> Exactly the Beethovenian kind that is proclaimed to be full of novelties, inventions, revolutionary breakthroughs etc. etc. : Potemkin façades.


Well, now you've just made a right turn from how Beethoven's music strikes you personally (which we are all entitled to) to a broad statement that is unsupported by evidence and which conflicts with virtually everything that is known about Beethoven's music. The Potemic facade analogy borders on silliness.

People have every right to dislike or even hate his music; rewriting classical music history is another matter.


----------



## TxllxT

DaveM said:


> Well, now you've just made a right turn from how Beethoven's music strikes you personally (which we are all entitled to) to a broad statement that is unsupported by evidence and which conflicts with virtually everything that is known about Beethoven's music. The Potemic facade analogy borders on silliness.
> 
> People have every right to dislike or even hate his music; rewriting classical music history is another matter.


I've no intention to rewrite music history. Beethoven is for me: music history.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Well, now you've just made a right turn from how Beethoven's music strikes you personally (which we are all entitled to) to a broad statement that is unsupported by evidence and which conflicts with virtually everything that is known about Beethoven's music. The Potemic facade analogy borders on silliness.
> 
> People have every right to dislike or even hate his music; rewriting classical music history is another matter.


Calling the wealth of invention in Beethoven "Potemkin facades" doesn't border on silliness. It's beyond silliness. It represents either gross ignorance and musical insensitivity or a deliberate attempt to annoy people.

An equivalent remark about Boulez would arouse howls of protest, complaints of persecution, and calls for censorship (just drop into Area 51 for a sample). Let's see how many objections there are when the object of contempt is Beethoven (and the world that admires him).


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> Calling the wealth of invention in Beethoven "Potemkin facades" doesn't border on silliness. It's beyond silliness. It represents either gross ignorance and musical insensitivity or a deliberate attempt to annoy people.
> 
> An equivalent remark about Boulez would arouse howls of protest, complaints of persecution, and calls for censorship (just drop into Area 51 for a sample). Let's see how many objections there are when the object of contempt is Beethoven (and the world that admires him).


As shown in past threads which I won't link here, many more people object when such remarks are made about Beethoven/Mozart/Bach.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> As shown in past threads which I won't link here, many more people object when such remarks are made about Beethoven/Mozart/Bach.


I hope you're right.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Calling the wealth of invention in Beethoven "Potemkin facades" doesn't border on silliness. It's beyond silliness. It represents either gross ignorance and musical insensitivity or a deliberate attempt to annoy people.


"Potemkin facades"? The meaning of this passes me by, so it's intent is diminished (I have to go and look it up, so any heat it generates among the cognoscenti who recognise it instantly isn't generated in me).

The 'intent' of people who debate in a particular way may seem transparent to others, opaque to some. I acknowledge that I do sometimes post with argumentative intent, but that doesn't mean that every time someone accuses me of pedantry or provocation they are right. Discerning intent in others can be a challenge, and it's risky to declare the purpose divined in another's words. Besides, a deliberate attempt to annoy people doesn't just come with a selection of words. It also comes from withholding them, which can be just as provocative. In the debates about the greatness of this or that composer, it can be just as infuriating to come across what _might be perceived _as blind allegiance to reputation (and refusal to countenance any criticism, or requests for justification) as to come across what _might be perceived _as 'iconoclasm'. The OP's intent in this thread - even if it seems abundantly clear to those who called him/her on it - cannot be assumed to be malign, nor that of those who joust their way through a parry and thrust over Beethoven's alleged genius.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> "Potemkin facades"? The meaning of this passes me by, so it's intent is diminished (I have to go and look it up, so any heat it generates among the cognoscenti who recognise it instantly isn't generated in me).
> 
> The 'intent' of people who debate in a particular way may seem transparent to others, opaque to some. I acknowledge that I do sometimes post with argumentative intent, but that doesn't mean that every time someone accuses me of pedantry or provocation they are right. Discerning intent in others can be a challenge, and it's risky to declare the purpose divined in another's words. Besides, a deliberate attempt to annoy people doesn't just come with a selection of words. It also comes from the withholding them, which can be just as provocative. In the debates about the greatness of this or that composer, it can be just as infuriating to come across what _might be perceived _as blind allegiance to reputation (and refusal to countenance any criticism, or requests for justification) as to come across what _might be perceived _as 'iconoclasm'. The OP's intent in this thread - even if it seems abundantly clear to those who called him/her on it - cannot be assumed to be malign, nor that of those who joust their way through a parry and thrust over Beehoven's alleged genius.


You are in danger of becoming a defensive one-trick pony with variations on the theme of 'blind allegiance to reputation'. And why the need to reference or defend an OP that has been totally MIA?

Virtually nobody here is rising up with indignation to defend Beethoven's reputation. What is being addressed is the ridiculous attempt to change something that is already written in stone and in the history books.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Calling the wealth of invention in Beethoven "Potemkin facades" doesn't border on silliness. It's beyond silliness. It represents either gross ignorance and musical insensitivity or a deliberate attempt to annoy people.
> 
> An equivalent remark about Boulez would arouse howls of protest, complaints of persecution, and calls for censorship (just drop into Area 51 for a sample). Let's see how many objections there are when the object of contempt is Beethoven (and the world that admires him).


No contempt intended. For me Beethoven is passé, for others he's like grandfather Lenin: eternally alive.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> You are in danger of becoming *a defensive one-trick pony* with variations on the theme of 'blind allegiance to reputation'.


Am I? Perhaps you didn't understand the point of my post, or perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'defensive one-trick pony'.



DaveM said:


> And why the need to reference or defend an OP that has been totally MIA?


AFAIK, "OP" means Opening Post, not Opening Poster. The fact that moesart did not return to the discussion obviously didn't prevent 40 pages of debate responding less to the title - why s/he doesn't like Beethoven - and more to the question posed in the OP - _"Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise."_

That OP needed no defence but does need occasional reference to remind us of the point of the thread.


----------



## DaveM

MacLeod said:


> AFAIK, "OP" means Opening Post, not Opening Poster.


Since you chose to mention it, this from Wikipedia:
_A thread is defined by a title, an additional description that may summarize the intended discussion, and an opening or original post (common abbreviation *OP, which can also mean original poster*), which opens whatever dialogue or makes whatever announcement the poster wished._


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> MacLeod said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK, "OP" means Opening Post, not Opening Poster.
> 
> Since you chose to mention it, this from Wikipedia:
> _A thread is defined by a title, an additional description that may summarize the intended discussion, and *an opening or original post (common abbreviation *_*OP*, which can also mean original poster_), which opens whatever dialogue or makes whatever announcement the poster wished._
Click to expand...


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> "Potemkin facades"? The meaning of this passes me by, so it's intent is diminished (I have to go and look it up, so any heat it generates among the cognoscenti who recognise it instantly isn't generated in me).
> 
> The 'intent' of people who debate in a particular way may seem transparent to others, opaque to some. I acknowledge that I do sometimes post with argumentative intent, but that doesn't mean that every time someone accuses me of pedantry or provocation they are right. Discerning intent in others can be a challenge, and it's risky to declare the purpose divined in another's words. Besides, a deliberate attempt to annoy people doesn't just come with a selection of words. It also comes from withholding them, which can be just as provocative. In the debates about the greatness of this or that composer, it can be just as infuriating to come across what _might be perceived _as blind allegiance to reputation (and refusal to countenance any criticism, or requests for justification) as to come across what _might be perceived _as 'iconoclasm'. The OP's intent in this thread - even if it seems abundantly clear to those who called him/her on it - cannot be assumed to be malign, nor that of those who joust their way through a parry and thrust over *Beethoven's alleged genius.*


Beethoven's "alleged" genius...

Sigh.

There is nothing simple that can't be made complicated, nothing clear that can't be muddled, nothing obvious that can't be obfuscated, nothing that accords with common sense and common understanding that can't be questioned and qualified and argued until we're all glassy-eyed and torpid.

Around the high school lunch table it was a great game to say things like "You can't prove you exist." Fifty years later I find people speaking with apparent seriousness of one of the greatest composers of all time as an "alleged genius" and his work as a "facade."

Provocation to thought is salutary. Provocation to laughter is needed. Mere provocation is t****ing. The case in question shows neither seriousness nor humor. The only other option is stupidity - and I neither believe that nor would accuse anyone of it.

Now I'm quite sure that someone can talk this to death as well. The time would much better be spent listening and trying to understand why that which is true has been, is, and will continue to be "alleged" to be true.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven's "alleged" genius...
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> There is nothing simple that can't be made complicated, nothing clear that can't be muddled, nothing obvious that can't be obfuscated, nothing that accords with common sense and common understanding that can't be questioned and qualified and argued until we're all glassy-eyed and torpid.
> 
> Around the high school lunch table it was a great game to say things like "You can't prove you exist." Fifty years later I find people speaking with apparent seriousness of one of the greatest composers of all time as an "alleged genius" and his work as a "facade."
> 
> Provocation to thought is salutary. Provocation to laughter is needed. Mere provocation is t****ing. The case in question shows neither seriousness nor humor. The only other option is stupidity - and I neither believe that nor would accuse anyone of it.
> 
> Now I'm quite sure that someone can talk this to death as well. The time would much better be spent listening and trying to understand why that which is true has been, is, and will continue to be "alleged" to be true.


Now, why would you select two words and seem to make them stand for something that they don't? They don't (in that post at any rate) stand for my personal opinion about Beethoven. I was not casting doubt at that point on his 'genius' (though anyone who has followed my contributions to discussions about 'genius' knows that I dislike the general use of the term, not just its application to LvB, no matter how great I think he is). In that post, they simply stood for the nature of the discussion which contests that LvB is not even great, never mind a genius.

I note that you choose to recall those days of argumentative immaturity and suggest stupidity, yet step back from accusing anyone of it. I'm reminded of the barrister who knowingly says something that the judge will rule out of order, but too late, the jury have heard it.

Your 'sigh' (and the rest of your innuendo) helps to underline the point I was making that, regardless of whether Beethoven was a genius or not, the debate about it suffers on both sides from frustrating and annoying words that may not be designed to frustrate and annoy, but may be perceived as such - and that may be as bad.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Now, why would you select two words and seem to make them stand for something that they don't? They don't (in that post at any rate) stand for my personal opinion about Beethoven. I was not casting doubt at that point on his 'genius' (though anyone who has followed my contributions to discussions about 'genius' knows that I dislike the general use of the term, not just its application to LvB, no matter how great I think he is. In that post, they simply stood for the nature of the discussion which contests that LvB is not even great, never mind a genius.
> 
> I note that you choose to recall those days of argumentative immaturity and suggest stupidity, yet step back from accusing anyone of it. I'm reminded of the barrister who knowingly says something that the judge will rule out of order, but too late, the jury have heard it.
> 
> Your 'sigh' (and the rest of your innuendo) helps to underline the point I was making that, regardless of whether Beethoven was a genius or not, the debate about it suffers on both sides from frustrating and annoying words that may not be designed to frustrate and annoy, but may be perceived as such - and that may be as bad.


Assailed by silly remarks on one hand and overthinking of same on the other, it can be hard to know, or remember, what anyone stands for. But recalling a conversation to common knowledge and common wisdom, which was my purpose, seems never a bad idea. I made no innuendo, but only a consideration of why people might sacrifice those things; comparing that consideration of the possibilities to an attorney sneaking illegitimate suggestions to a jury is ridiculous. I have no need to be sneaky, so if anyone is in doubt about whether I'm accusing them of stupidity, I'll be happy to clarify.


----------



## James Mann

Wagner and Brahms interest me more than Beethoven, but this is just an old lads opinion


----------



## hpowders

I don't like Beethoven because his music is no longer fresh to me as I've been seriously involved with it for over 60 years now.

Not Beethoven's fault.


----------



## SixFootScowl

hpowders said:


> I don't like Beethoven because his music is no longer fresh to me as I've been seriously involved with it for over 60 years now.
> 
> Not Beethoven's fault.


Time to move on to Mahler!


----------



## hpowders

Florestan said:


> Time to move on to Mahler!


Hey Ludwig. It's not you. It's me!!!


----------



## Razumovskymas

hpowders said:


> I don't like Beethoven because his music is no longer fresh to me as I've been seriously involved with it for over 60 years now.
> 
> Not Beethoven's fault.


And since when his genius started to fade for you? Just so I know how many years I still have to go before I start finding him a bit boring.


----------



## pcnog11

Moesart said:


> I have heard (and regretfully own) all 9 sypmhonies, all 6 piano concertos, all 16 string quartets (plus the Grosse fugue), all 32 piano sonatas. I can not get my self to like or appreciate it at all. Could I have some idea why he is considered generally to be the best? I really don't see it. and what else should I hear that I haven't?


Did Beethoven write 5 piano concertos? Forgive my ignorance, where did the last one come from?


----------



## hpowders

OP: why don't I like ketchup on hot dogs?

Personal preference. No crime.


----------



## Rhinotop

I see it and don't believe the title of this post!!!


----------



## DaveM

This thread had been put to bed. Would have been best to leave it that way.


----------



## regenmusic

I think a lot of people don't like Beethoven simply because they are jealous of his hair. No more, no less. Music has nothing to do with it.


----------



## brianvds

regenmusic said:


> I think a lot of people don't like Beethoven simply because they are jealous of his hair. No more, no less. Music has nothing to do with it.


He was a founder member and eventual patron saint of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Musicians, which was the forerunner to the current, similar club for scientists:

http://www.improbable.com/hair/


----------



## hpowders

pcnog11 said:


> Did Beethoven write 5 piano concertos? Forgive my ignorance, where did the last one come from?


His head.


----------



## Nate Miller

maybe you just don't know him like we do? :lol:


----------



## Pugg

DaveM said:


> This thread had been put to bed. Would have been best to leave it that way.


Bit harsh isn't it?


----------



## hpowders

regenmusic said:


> *I think a lot of people don't like Beethoven* simply because they are jealous of his hair. No more, no less. Music has nothing to do with it.


I believe this is a fallacious assumption. Some classical music lovers may not like Beethoven and even I must take an occasional rest from his music due to over-exposure. Hey Beethoven, it's me, not YOU!!!

However, Beethoven and classical music are practically synonymous.

Beethoven has some serious street cred. in the classical music lovers' community.


----------



## Blancrocher

I dislike Beethoven because he never seems to make a mistake--except Wellington's Victory, which is incidentally pretty much the only work by him that I ever mention on the forum.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> I dislike Beethoven because he never seems to make a mistake--except Wellington's Victory, which is incidentally pretty much the only work by him that I ever mention on the forum.[/QUOTE
> 
> Yeah. Beethoven was slumming for some easy coin.


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> Blancrocher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike Beethoven because he never seems to make a mistake--except Wellington's Victory, which is incidentally pretty much the only work by him that I ever mention on the forum.[/QUOTE
> 
> Yeah. Beethoven was slumming for some easy coin.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. In that sense, Wellington's Victory wasn't a mistake. It served its intended purpose very well.
Click to expand...


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> hpowders said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true. In that sense, *Wellington's Victory wasn't a mistake.* It served its intended purpose very well.
> 
> 
> 
> I was considering writing the same thing but you beat me to it. Reminds me of the game show "Beat the Clock".
> 
> Beethoven knew EXACTLY what he was doing. Definitely not a mistake. He saw the chance to make some easy money and he did so.
> 
> Cold and calculating.
Click to expand...


----------



## SixFootScowl

Beethoven had better hair than Mozart, Haydn, Bach, et. al.


----------



## Pugg

Florestan said:


> Beethoven had better hair than Mozart, Haydn, Bach, et. al.


So right, who cares about the hair anyway.


----------



## Woodduck

Florestan said:


> Beethoven had better hair than Mozart, Haydn, Bach, et. al.


Yes, but he couldn't take it off and send it to the cleaners.


----------



## Bettina

Pugg said:


> So right, who cares about the hair anyway.


Well, I must admit that I care about the hair. Sometimes I like to look at pictures of Beethoven while listening to his music. His wild hair enhances the experience.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven's hair.


----------



## Pugg

Bettina said:


> Well, I must admit that I care about the hair. Sometimes I like to look at pictures of Beethoven while listening to his music. His wild hair enhances the experience.


I do understand that but its not going to affect the point if you like the music or not I presume.


----------



## scott777

DaveM said:


> An anthill is not a Mt Everest to an ant. The ant goes in and out of the top of the anthill at will.
> 
> Anyway back to Debussy, other than one mediocre (okay arguably) opera and quartet, take away the preludes and nocturnes and what else is there? Yes, I understand his influence on contemporary music that was to come, but his output in amount, variety, quality and influence absolutely pales in comparison to that of Beethoven. Clair de Lune: meh


It's very true Debussy didn't compose much, but the quality and originality are extra-ordinary. I think La Mer is one of the greatest pieces of the 20th Century.


----------



## scott777

I’m not an expert on music theory and may not have the right words to explain, but Beethoven has continued to be a source of inspiration and I often hear new things in the familiar pieces. I noticed how much syncopation (if that’s the right word) there is in the 1st movement of symphony 3, in a similar way to The Rite of Spring; such as having a 1-2-3-4 time, but suddenly a 1-2-3 followed by a 1-2-3-4-5, creating a disorienting effect and intensifying the drama. You have to listen carefully to notice such things. Beethoven knew what he was doing though, even though many conductors at the time thought he made mistakes in his scores and actually changed it to apparently fix it, but completely missed the point.


----------



## Gouldanian

Moesart said:


> Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


The greatest composer is Bach... followed by Mozart. And even these two are not necessarily loved by everyone. Some people are more on the Modernism side, others on Romanticism and others Baroque. Many are fans of all these beautiful eras... It depends on your personal taste and experience with life, history, relationships and music. Musical taste is very subjective and non debatable IMO.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Florestan said:


> Beethoven had better hair than Mozart, Haydn, Bach, et. al.


at least he didn't have a wig!


----------



## Gouldanian

Florestan said:


> Beethoven had better hair than Mozart, Haydn, Bach, et. al.


But his was filthy... Apparently he wouldn't shower...


----------



## keymasher

Gouldanian said:


> But his was filthy... Apparently he wouldn't shower...


Paradoxically, while it's reported that his apartment and clothes were in pretty disgusting shape, he was apparently a very ritualistic bather. For your amusement, here's an excerpt from _The Beethoven Companion_ included from the linked website below.

"It was not uncommon for {Beethoven's] friends to replace his old clothes with new ones overnight. Beethoven would apparently dress the next day completely unaware of the exchange. Paradoxically he had an almost obsessional attitude towards washing. This ritual would be the cue for him to sing (or howl) at the top of his voice, much to the amusement of his servants or passers-by who were in a position to overlook his apartment. Whether this denoted a particular concern for his personal hygeine, or was essential to his thought process, is open to question. What is certain is that the overflow from the buckets of water he emptied over himself often leaked through the floor, causing Beethoven to be unpopular with landlords."

http://toddtarantino.com/hum/beethovenhimself.html


----------



## hpowders

While I guess it is human nature to delve into every aspect of Beethoven's social habits and life, I block that all out when I listen to that awesome music.

Heck, I would live on the street and bathe once a year, if I could be assured of writing music as deeply profound as his!


----------



## Pugg

Gouldanian said:


> But his was filthy... Apparently he wouldn't shower...


Rumours, rumours, no evidence.


----------



## Lenny

I'm a very simple guy, so I think simply: Beethoven is one the greatest, because most experts and CM enthusiasts think he is. Not much more can be said about the subject.


----------



## hpowders

I don't relate well to Beethoven at all. I'm not a heroic, aggressive person.

I relate much better to the mystery, nostalgia, sadness and loneliness of Brahms' compositions.


----------



## cellodin

Personally I've never been a huge fan of Beethoven myself, but I always thought of him being amazing more from a historical pov. He was one of the pioneers of the Romantic Era. He (and some others, Bruch being an example) helped the transition between classical and romantic. Whether that type of music pleases your ear is of course subjective, but that's why he's a big deal (at least in my opinion)


----------



## hpowders

Beethoven was a giant, no doubt about it....I like some things....the 32 Piano Sonatas, the 4th and 6th Symphonies, the Op. 18 string quartets, the Diabelli Variations, the 4th Piano Concerto, the Violin Concerto, Fidelio, Missa Solemnis.....
....nothing much....


----------



## Paul T McGraw

Wow, 43 pages in this thread. I really like Beethoven. But I can see why someone might find it hard to relate to him. Mozart was a greater master of melody, and probably more facile with CPE harmony. Composers like Wagner, Strauss and Tchaikovsky were even more over the top emotional. 

Beethoven was the end of the classical era, and the beginning of the romantic era. My mind goes blank when I try to think about what music would have been like without him. I have listened to all of his music so many hundreds of times, and some pieces thousands of times, but I would not call him my favorite composer, although he was my favorite for a very long time. I think the focus on dominant to tonic based harmony has grown a bit stale for me.


----------



## shangoyal

There have been 635 replies to this question thus far - there must be a great number of reasons not to like Beethoven.

I am happy I don't know any of them.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Paul T McGraw said:


> Wow, 43 pages in this thread. I really like Beethoven. But I can see why someone might find it hard to relate to him. Mozart was a greater master of melody, and probably more facile with CPE harmony. Composers like Wagner, Strauss and Tchaikovsky were even more over the top emotional.
> 
> Beethoven was the end of the classical era, and the beginning of the romantic era. My mind goes blank when I try to think about what music would have been like without him. I have listened to all of his music so many hundreds of times, and some pieces thousands of times, but I would not call him my favorite composer, although he was my favorite for a very long time. I think the focus on dominant to tonic based harmony has grown a bit stale for me.


No page stating that a person who hated the music of John Cage could last this long. The pro John Cage fans would go crazy and cause the page to be locked and if they had it their way the person who hated John Cage's music would be banned.


----------



## Chronochromie

Johnnie Burgess said:


> No page stating that a person who hated the music of John Cage could last this long. The pro John Cage fans would go crazy and cause the page to be locked and if they had it their way the person who hated John Cage's music would be banned.


I don't care if someone hates a composer I like unless they're a**holes about it. I think most members would share my view. And we've had/have a few a**holes on the forum, but most are alright, and a fair number don't share my opinion on several composers. You're making it seem like it's an issue of Modern/Contemporary Classical fans, yet we've had some vicious "Mozart/Beethoven sucks" threads that were no different in their terrible outcomes. Overall if that happens less often it's because most everyone on the forum likes those composers, while not everyone likes Cage/Schoenberg/Boogeyman No. 3, so everyone gangs up on the OP.


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> There have been 635 replies to this question thus far - there must be a great number of reasons not to like Beethoven.
> 
> *I am happy I don't know any of them.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Then you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## shangoyal

I haven't, and such was my intention.


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> I haven't, and such was my intention.


Just place the entire thread on "ignore". 

Where have you been? Missed your posts!!! :tiphat:


----------



## shangoyal

I might start a thread of my own called: "Why don't I like Xenakis as much as I like Vivaldi?"


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

shangoyal said:


> I might start a thread of my own called: "Why don't I like Xenakis as much as I like Vivaldi?"


Some of the pro modern crown will go crazy and flame that thread in an attempt to get it locked.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Johnnie Burgess said:


> No page stating that a person who hated the music of John Cage could last this long. The pro John Cage fans would go crazy and cause the page to be locked and if they had it their way the person who hated John Cage's music would be banned.


How about a poll: Beethoven vs. Cage?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Florestan said:


> How about a poll: Beethoven vs. Cage?


The poll has started. Make your choice.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The poll has started. Make your choice.


Done. Looks like a very popular thread already.


----------



## JeffD

Could have been a much shorter thread as follows:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Why don't I like Beethoven?"

"I don't know, why don't you like Beethoven?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. "

"Because so many people like him that much."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There four posts, condensing down 647 posts.


----------



## atsizat

I am not into Beethoven either except Moonlight Sonata.

Moonlight Sonata is so good. It is depressing as ****,which is why I like it so much.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Perhaps you don't like Beethoven symphonies, because you have been listening exclusively to the Liszt transcriptions?


----------



## Tallisman

hpowders said:


> OP: Perhaps you don't like Beethoven symphonies, because you have been listening exclusively to the Liszt transcriptions?


AND played by that twit Glenn Gould


----------



## JeffD

What I really don't understand is why anyone thinks anyone else cares if they like Beethoven or not.

Well that is not a true statement. I do understand.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Why don't I like okra?


----------



## mathisdermaler

You just need to wait to be blessed. Maybe try listening to the late piano sonatas and string quartets.

I used to only know the symphonies and thought Beethoven was very overrated. Then, I found the chamber music and piano music and I was changed. The symphonies I love also now. I think he's the greatest composer who ever lived and if he were alive today I would fight with Bettina over him.

:angel: BEETHOVEN :angel:


----------



## JeffD

I am making the transition, the past several years, from being primarily symphony, concerto, orchestra based to focusing on chamber music. It is like I am rediscovering all this music. 

I am sure that when I start listening to symphonies again, I will hear the music with new ears now, more reductionistically.


----------



## Nevum

Moesart said:


> Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


It is not just a sin. It is blasphemy.


----------



## Guest

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Why don't I like okra?


Well I'm blowed if I know why _I _don't like okra - so I'm certainly clueless about your reasons!


----------



## SixFootScowl

MacLeod said:


> Well I'm blowed if I know why _I _don't like okra - so I'm certainly clueless about your reasons!


I find the mucilaginous character of cooked okra rather disgusting.


----------



## Guest

Florestan said:


> I find the *mucilaginous *character of cooked okra rather disgusting.


But a lovely word I'd not heard before - thanks!


----------



## Merl




----------



## Larkenfield

Moesart said:


> Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


 It's not all on the composer. One must start by being aware of one's own personal reactions and emotional responses to the music. It starts with the internal personal awareness of the listener and not some outside opinion. Some listeners don't care for the occasional explosions in Beethoven's music, or the sense of anger, turbulence or agitation, and will be put off by that. But every composer has his or her own characteristics or shortcomings, including the immortal Beethoven, that will match or not match what emotions or reactions each individual listener is personally comfortable with; otherwise listeners may always end up waiting around for an outside opinion to explain one's reactions that ultimately can only truly be understood from within. To ask someone else why one doesn't like something can be completely disempowering to the development of one's internal awareness about one's emotional reactions and how they match up with a composer.

One way to tune in to any composer is to write down one's reactions as one is listening - the immediate reactions to different passages, moods, feelings, rhythms... anything. For those who love the music, it can be one of the best practices in the world in order to better know thyself; and by better knowing thyself, one may perhaps better know the composer, even if a legendary Titan such as Beethoven is ultimately still not for you. The experience is a collaboration.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> The experience is a collaboration.


Good point. But unless moesart is still here under another name, you're wasting your time trying to talk to him/her. 660+ posts but no engagement from the OP.


----------



## Ethereality

It's hard for me to listen to something like this:






I'll take a clear pass.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I listen to quite a lot of Beethoven, some of his works are among my favourites (including PC 4 above!), and for many it is the case that if I play them then I enjoy them a lot (symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets, overtures, concertos, etc among them).

However, in general I don't have the feeling of a natural attraction that I do with many other composers. With Brahms, Ravel, Bach, Sibelius, Haydn and many others, I decide to listen to a piece and I'm looking forward to it before it starts. With Beethoven, I don't so much have that, and I have instead a sense of having to make myself put it on. Although I know in advance that I will enjoy it, I am not emotionally drawn beforehand.

Take Beethoven PC 4, for example, as soon as those magical initial notes sound I know it will be great, but before then I have a vague reluctance to put it on in preference to something else. This contrasts with listening (say) to Sibelius' 7th symphony or Brahms' PC2: with those, I want to put them on, and know it will be great before it starts.

I haven't a clue what the nonsense I have written above means, but in a sense it puts me in the same territory as the poster: I don't really like Beethoven. Except when I put him on, and then I often love the stuff.


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> I listen to quite a lot of Beethoven, some of his works are among my favourites (including PC 4 above!), and for many it is the case that if I play them then I enjoy them a lot (symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets, overtures, concertos, etc among them).
> 
> However, in general I don't have the feeling of a natural attraction that I do with many other composers. With Brahms, Ravel, Bach, Sibelius, Haydn and many others, I decide to listen to a piece and I'm looking forward to it before it starts. With Beethoven, I don't so much have that, and I have instead a sense of having to make myself put it on. Although I know in advance that I will enjoy it, I am not emotionally drawn beforehand.
> 
> Take Beethoven PC 4, for example, as soon as those magical initial notes sound I know it will be great, but before then I have a vague reluctance to put it on in preference to something else. This contrasts with listening (say) to Sibelius' 7th symphony or Brahms' PC2: with those, I want to put them on, and know it will be great before it starts.
> 
> I haven't a clue what the nonsense I have written above means, but in a sense it puts me in the same territory as the poster: I don't really like Beethoven. Except when I put him on, and then I often love the stuff.


As John Dryden wrote,

"Shakespeare was the Homer, or father of our dramatic poets; Jonson was the Virgil, the pattern of elaborate writing: I admire him, but I love Shakespeare."

I admire Beethoven, but I love Bach.


----------



## Xisten267

Moesart said:


> Why don't I like Beethoven? Everybody says he's the greatest composer that ever lived but I struggle to understand the reason. Can you please explain what makes him better than every other composer that has ever lived before and after and why it's a sin to say otherwise. Thank you :tiphat:


I don't think that there's the need for anybody to like Beethoven or any other composer. Our taste is subjective and we are free to enjoy what we wish. Beethoven is regarded by many as a great composer and his oeuvre is rich in every fundamental element of music (melody, harmony, rhythm, texture, dynamics, tone color, form), is original, innovative (for his time) and very expressive, so it's my opinion that a person should be exposed to his works at some point in her life so that she can form an opinion on him - but there's no need for her to enjoy a single bar of his music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Well Ed I respect you, but this is a topic I feel strongly about. Bach mastered Sonata form, (the old style), he used it in the WTC. I prefer the old style to Beethoven's method any way (which I think in itself was put to better use by composers after him).
> I just don't buy Beethoven's concocted drama. It sounds to me as though he makes up straw men for musical arguments (with a lot of loud bashing and repetition - now _that_ tactic is cheap) and then proceeds to beat them up.
> *He was a great composer, important, influential and unique. But if you try and measure Beethoven against the other greats using any other area of composition other than Sonata form, he doesn't really stand up so well.* That is why I think so much of the Beethoven fanboyism is ridiculous, this talk of Beethoven being on this tier so far above the later masters - it is hogwash to me, and I think it is sad when I notice posters like Woodduck encouraging that kind of behavior.
> Beethoven has this Romantic image - people want to put his music on a pedestal. He is like the Rocky Balboa of composers. But lets focus on the music. It gets tiring when people prop up his music so much. Its false. Kudos to micro for calling it like he sees it.


It seems tdc has long been obsessed with the idea that "if you take individual elements of Beethoven separately, there's nobody". But I think, as others have said, there's more to Beethoven than just a combination of those elements. The first movement of the tempest sonata, for example. On the score, all the stuff can look "plain", but the way to create a "desolate mood" strikes me as special. It feels like "standing in the middle of a wasteland". It's totally a valid opinion to think that this stuff is "'less pedantic' than anything that came before."
I know tdc likes to rant about Beethoven's harmonic style, but I think this is because Beethoven is closer to figures such as Schubert (D.887 G major string quartet), Berlioz, than Carl Philipp Emanuel, Michael Haydn in style. I don't think it's "weak", but rather "different".
For example, in the Et incarnatus est from Beethoven's Missa solemnis; I don't quite hear the kind of "contrapuntal dissonance" (or whatever) of Michael Haydn's Missa sti Gabrielis 



 (6:43), but Beethoven has other interesting elements to compensate for it. 
Overall I think that even early Beethoven is quite unique from the work of his predecessors. I think the F major romance (Op.50), for example is totally Beethovenian, but at the same time, there are aspects of 18th-century Classicism Beethoven doesn't quite cover throughout his life.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think both are apples and oranges; Mozart has good things of the old age, whereas Beethoven has of the new age.
> While generally I feel more "depth of dissonance" and fluidity in the part-writing of Mozart, (I don't mean "musical depth", which I don't think either of them lacks), Mozart doesn't quite have the "poetic content" of Beethoven, the "fantastic feel" of the Romantic lied. And Beethoven tends to be less "predictable" in cadential resolutions. ("predictability" wasn't really a bad thing in the 18th century, it was more like a Classical virtue).
> I also can understand why people find Beethoven to be more "majestic", "heroic"; Beethoven was good at bringing out his kind of drama, but I think there are merits in Mozart's sense of drama as well.





hammeredklavier said:


> What makes Beethoven and Schubert special is their sense to "expand" space, - somehow their works are increased x2 in length and still convincing musically.***
> For example, in the extended development sections of the 3rd symphony and Archduke trio (pizzicatos in the strings, and trills, scales in thirds in the piano)
> Beethoven can seem to be "not doing anything very significant" in the way Bernstein described, - but is still interesting musically.
> Beethoven may not have been the greatest melodist, but he has sense and skill to make things somehow less repetitious (in my view) than Schubert.





hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven is one of the first composers to conceive music not bounded by the rules of good taste, I think that alone is significant. I don't think his predecessors would have approved of certain works of his as "good". (I don't believe Mozart ever said of him "he will give the world something to talk about.")
> For example, the Tempest sonata first movement consists of long passages of hands in unison, long dragged-out chords, arpeggios, recitatives, and stuff Bernstein would have described as "unremarkable melodies":
> View attachment 145759
> 
> View attachment 145758
> 
> View attachment 145760


----------



## Ethereality

It's one way to look at it.


----------



## SanAntone

Beethoven is one of the "great composers" for what that classification is worth. We have been taught that, and his music has stood the test of time. But he is not among _my_ favorites, a fact that is of no interest to anyone but myself.

Classical music is filled with these composers - old music, music from hundreds of years ago. It is like going to a museum.

Some days I listen to Beethoven and enjoy it, the cello and violin sonatas, the early and middle quartets. Never the symphonies. There is a quality of Beethoven taking himself too seriously, an abundance of earnestness, that - at least for me - doesn't wear well. No humor.

The late works are a bit too heavy-handed for my taste.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> It is like going to a museum.


Wouldn't listening to John Cage be like going to a museum of all-white paintings?


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Wouldn't listening to John Cage be like going to a museum of all-white paintings?


Listening to any dead composer's music is like going to a museum. Which is why I spend a certain amount of time each day listening to music by living composers, some written within the last year. This music is vibrant and often very pleasing. I've interviewed a number of these young composers for my blog and promote their music as much as I can.

This is the future of classical music, despite the negative reaction by some members of TC. For so-called lovers of classical music, they are missing the boat. What they really are are lovers of the classical music museum.

But, regarding John Cage there is a lot of music there besides _4'33"_. In fact, that work is of least interest to me. It is his last period of number pieces that I listen to the most.


----------



## premont

SanAntone said:


> Listening to any dead composer's music is like going to a museum.


Strange thought I think. Mentally and culturally, we are the sum of our past and therefore composers (as for example also writers and painters) from the past will always have a real and not just a historical actuality for us today. No living composer can claim to be more relevant than previous composers. Likewise with writers. I thus regard Shakespeare as one of the most relevant writers of all time, including the present. Of course, I do not think about what the broad and gradually history-less masses are dealing with, but only what people who see the history of humanity in a holistic perspective are interested in.


----------



## Eclectic Al

premont said:


> Strange thought I think. Mentally and culturally, we are the sum of our past and therefore composers (as for example also writers and painters) from the past will always have a real and not just a historical actuality for us today. No living composer can claim to be more relevant than previous composers. Likewise with writers. I thus regard Shakespeare as one of the most relevant writers of all time, including the present. Of course, I do not think about what the broad and gradually history-less masses are dealing with, but only what people who see the history of humanity in a holistic perspective are interested in.


This is clearly true.
I might go further, and argue that the figures from the past whose work is still widely experienced are much more important than the more recent and living ones.
Those who are currently writing music or writing books or painting are doing so in a world which has experienced the work of the old masters for a long time, been influenced by them and shaped by them. Equally, the current writers have had a chance to digest the work of those people, reflect on them, maybe reject some aspects and want to progress from or reinvent others.
This cannot be the same (in such a widespread, deeply embedded, way) for the influence of more recent writers. There just hasn't been the time for the tentacles to spread and be absorbed into the culture.

This is potentially too mundane an observation for the learned deliberations of a TC thread, but cultural artefacts like pieces of music are formed from traditions - even if (and perhaps "even more if") the whole aim of an artefact may be to reject that tradition. And those traditions are significantly formed by and from the persistently influential examples found in the works of the remembered masters from the past.


----------



## LAS

*There's a difference between "liking" and "labeling 'great'"*

Who knows why you don't "like" Beethoven. Personal preference can't be analyzed with much success. Why he is recognized as "great" requires knowledge of the terms of musicology and understanding of the discipline. I'm afraid I can't comment on that. But why he is "great" may have something to do with his really, really broad appeal on the "like"/"don't like" scale.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Some suggestions here ^^^


----------



## SanAntone

premont said:


> Strange thought I think. Mentally and culturally, we are the sum of our past and therefore composers (as for example also writers and painters) from the past will always have a real and not just a historical actuality for us today. No living composer can claim to be more relevant than previous composers. Likewise with writers. I thus regard Shakespeare as one of the most relevant writers of all time, including the present. Of course, I do not think about what the broad and gradually history-less masses are dealing with, but only what people who see the history of humanity in a holistic perspective are interested in.


I agree with you to a point. Along with Shakespeare are the novels written this year. The best seller list only contains new books.

I think in all the other arts there is an appreciation for both old and new. It seems that only with classical music is the scale tilted so heavily toward old music with hardly anything from the 21st century, now into its third decade. Regular concert programming will feature works 200-300 years old and maybe announce a work 75-100 years old, written in the 20th century, as something "new".


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> I think in all the other arts there is an appreciation for both old and new. It seems that only with classical music is the scale tilted so heavily toward old music with hardly anything from the 21st century, now into its third decade. Regular concert programming will feature works 200-300 years old and maybe announce a work 75-100 years old, written in the 20th century, as something "new".


But in visual arts, stuff like Jackson Pollock is never called "classical art", but "modern art". Why can't we follow the same reasoning, in music?

Btw, you're starting to sound like "Mahlerian" in your constant context-free defense of contemporary music. (Look through this thread for his posts, if you're curious what kind of poster he is)


----------



## KenOC

John Ruskin was evidently no fan of Ludwig: "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags - with here and there a dropped hammer."


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I agree with you to a point. Along with Shakespeare are the novels written this year. The best seller list only contains new books.
> 
> I think in all the other arts there is an appreciation for both old and new. It seems that only with classical music is the scale tilted so heavily toward old music with hardly anything from the 21st century, now into its third decade. Regular concert programming will feature works 200-300 years old and maybe announce a work 75-100 years old, written in the 20th century, as something "new".


I would disagree with that. There's as much reverence for the "classic" writers in literature, and with as big a host of relatively unknown new "serious" artists. The "classic" or venerable ones go up until about John Updike or Saul Bellow. The best sellers are people like Stephen King and J. K. Rowling; the "serious" ones are published in specialty or academic journals or may never make it to print at all and just content themselves with being published on websites or whatnot.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Listening to any dead composer's music is like going to a museum. Which is why I spend a certain amount of time each day listening to music by living composers, some written within the last year. This music is vibrant and often very pleasing. I've interviewed a number of these young composers for my blog and promote their music as much as I can.
> 
> This is the future of classical music, despite the negative reaction by some members of TC. For so-called lovers of classical music, they are missing the boat. What they really are are lovers of the classical music museum..


For some reason, after almost 3 years, this thread was resurrected by someone suddenly feeling the need to dump on one of the most beloved piano concertos. And then above, after lectures about 'each to his own, it's all subjective', those who prefer traditional CM are told they are 'so-called lovers of classical music' and are 'missing the boat'. So noted for future reference.


----------



## consuono

DaveM said:


> For some reason, after almost 3 years, this thread was resurrected by someone suddenly feeling the need to dump on one of the most beloved piano concertos. And then above, after lectures about 'each to his own, it's all subjective', those who prefer traditional CM are told they are 'so-called lovers of classical music' and are 'missing the boat'. So noted for future reference.


Yeah, you have to love "I can't bear to listen to this" and then posting a clip. Well...just don't listen. :lol: Or maybe there's sarcasm there?.Who knows. But I love the Beethoven piano concertos, including 1 and 2.


----------



## Itullian

Is this a trick question?


----------



## Xisten267

SanAntone said:


> Some days I listen to Beethoven and enjoy it, the cello and violin sonatas, the early and middle quartets. Never the symphonies. There is a quality of Beethoven taking himself too seriously, an abundance of earnestness, that - at least for me - doesn't wear well. *No humor.*


My opinion couldn't be more opposite. To me, Beethoven is one of the composers that truly knew how to put humor in his pieces when he wished to - he was after all the pupil of J. Haydn, a master of musical jokes. I think that pieces such as his _rondo in the hungarian style, Op. 129_ or the last movement of his piano sonata Op. 2 no. 2 are quite fun, as are IMO the second movement of string quartet Op. 59 no. 1 or the last of Op. 59 no. 3. In the symphonies, I think that nos. 4 and 8 have endings with great humor.

"The Eighth Symphony, on the contrary, is suffused by a joyful mood of contentment and wholehearted happiness. It depicts the peaceful and quiet pleasures of the human soul which is not yet prey to the spirit of embitterment, doubt, and despair. Both themes in the first movement are full of grace and elegance, and they are developed in a compact and simple manner, accompanied by a transparent and light harmony. The second theme is extraordinarily original thanks to the unexpected modulational turns and a capricious modulation of keys.

The second movement (Andante scherzando) belongs, together with the renowned Allegretto from the Seventh Symphony, to those passages in Beethoven's music most beloved by the public. Its originality consists above all in the fact that Beethoven, contrary to the usual manner of instrumentation, has entrusted the wind instruments here with the accompaniment, whilst the violins play a jestingly flirtatious, good-humoured melody and the double basses ponderously answer the latter with a similarly constructed phrase. The third movement, a minuet in terms of form and rhythm, resembles, both in its style and the unassuming simplicity of its main theme, the minuets of Haydn. In the Finale, one of the greatest symphonic masterpieces of Beethoven, there is a profusion of humour, unexpected episodes, striking harmonic and modulational contrasts-indeed, a whole mine of the most novel orchestral effects which only a genius could possibly devise. For example, there is the striking C-sharp blast by the whole orchestra which, after a long diminuendo based on various instruments calling out to one another in all possible registers a fragment of the first theme, suddenly irrupts, in the most unexpected fashion, into the remote key of C major. Likewise, there is the very humorous effect, twice repeated, of a combination of bassoons and timpani seesawing together on two broken F's in neighbouring octaves. In this Finale there is an endless multitude of curious details of this sort!" - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

I too find Beethoven to be one of the funniest composers I know and am perplexed whenever anyone claims he "took himself too seriously", sounds "egotistical", or anything of the sort. I mean, just listen to this:






or this:






or this:






or this:






His final movements in particular have a tendency to put a smile on my face, even more so than Haydn's, Mozart's, or Bach's. Even in the late "sublime" Beethoven, there's tons of humor to be enjoyed. The second movement of op. 110, the whole of op. 135, the Diabelli variations...

Yes, sometimes it can be a bit "in your face" compared to, say, Mozart. But that doesn't make it any less funny!


----------



## hammeredklavier

this bit in the 9th symphony 4th movement:




 (51:23~51:40)
I'm not exactly sure if it's "humor"; it could just be an expression of strong urge to conclude the piece in optimism.


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> But in visual arts, stuff like Jackson Pollock is never called "classical art", but "modern art". Why can't we follow the same reasoning, in music?


We do. We have baroque music, classical music, romantic music, modern music, contemporary music, sometimes called new music.



> Btw, you're starting to sound like "Mahlerian" in your constant context-free defense of contemporary music.


What is the proper context for talking about new music?


----------



## Plague

DaveM said:


> For some reason, after almost 3 years, this thread was resurrected by someone suddenly feeling the need to dump on one of the most beloved piano concertos. And then above, after lectures about 'each to his own, it's all subjective', those who prefer traditional CM are told they are 'so-called lovers of classical music' and are 'missing the boat'. So noted for future reference.


Isn't this the same person who complained about being belittled in this forum for his/her musical taste? This lack of self-consciousness is amusing.


----------



## Ethereality

I still always crack up at the joke in _Beethoven's Third_, the motif in Mvt 1 coming in a measure early. The pure tension within that measure.










Though, I much prefer the 4th movement overall. The development is terrific.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> this bit in the 9th symphony 4th movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (51:23~51:40)
> I'm not exactly sure if it's "humor"; it could just be an expression of strong urge to conclude the piece in optimism.


Of course we all have our views on music, I don't claim mine to be better or worse than anybody's. But in my opinion, the finale of the _Choral_ symphony is more about _celebrating_ joy, happiness and perhaps freedom than of actually being funny. It's much more about optimistic transcendence to me than actual humor and diversion.


----------



## Art Rock

*A friendly reminder to all:

Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. *


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> We do. We have baroque music, classical music, romantic music, modern music, contemporary music, sometimes called new music.


Quit your "play on words" please.  You know perfectly well I didn't mean "Classicism" when I said "classical music" in that post [#677]. Did you honestly think we were talking of "Classicism" when we discussed:


SanAntone said:


> Should avant-garde music be prohibited in the General *Classical Music* discussion and relegated to its own forum?


-----


SanAntone said:


> What is the proper context for talking about new music?


You're free to say whatever you want, it's just that it's funny you're taking this thread as another chance to express your controversial view regarding "people's appreciation of old music", in this "classical music forum". 


SanAntone said:


> Classical music is filled with these composers - *old music, music from hundreds of years ago*. It is like going to a museum.


----------

