# Mozart vs Beethoven (yet again)



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I've witnessed much combat between cheerleaders of one composer against cheerleaders of the other. One might say that mozart vs beethoven is THE 'contest' in classical music, because of the close historical proximity between the two titans of Western art music.

I have a theory, which is mine, and which I believe may remove some of the deadlock in this debate. The theory as had two parts. According to Part 1, Participants in the debate are basically talking past one another. According to Part 2, beethovians put much of their stock in the late works, which are simply not appealing to everyone. 

PART ONE:

Those who think beethoven did it better focus on the collection of works that pushed the classical envelope and ushered in romanticism in music: Symphonies 3, 5, 6, 7, 9; Kreutzer sonata; archduke trio; middle-late string quartets; violin concerto; the relevant piano sonatas....

Those who think mozart did it better focus on those of beethoven's works that are within the classical mould or are otherwise less remarkable: most of the violin sonatas; most of the piano trios; the string trios; cello sonatas; etc. 

MORAL: we need to be brutal and honestly accept that, on a per capita basis, Mozart was, indeed, the superior composer. 'Meat and potatoes' Beethoven does not hold up against 'meat and potatoes' Mozart. The latter did with the Classical Style what Beethoven could only do by breaking this style.

PART TWO:

Those who think mozart did it better than beethoven are, frankly, nonplussed about that beethoven labelled utterly 'profound': primarily, the late string quartets and piano sonatas. 

MORAL: I count myself among those who do not 'get' late beethoven: or, more accurately, who 'gets' it but wants a refund. Too many, long, overly drawn-out dirges are not profound so much as tedious. Schubert's 15th string quartet is profound, as even the slow movements go somewhere, unlike in some of beethoven's late works. Moreover, late beethoven famously shows very little regard to 'orchestration'. A sparse (by its nature) string quartet is used in an attempt to convey the same emotional colours as a symphony. This fails, for me, and for perhaps others who don't 'get'/accept late beethoven.

In summation of both parts: Both are masters. However, M did the classical style better than B. B's best works (middle and some late) stretched the classical style to breaking point, while many of his late works are such that they are lost on many serious students of music.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

Comprehension of art, especially of its very summits, is not best promoted by framing it as some kind of a Celebrity Death Match. "'Meat and potatoes' Beethoven does not hold up against 'meat and potatoes' Mozart" is threadbare nonsense even by the standards of these types of comparisons. 

Who are those "many serious students of music" upon whom the late Beethoven is allegedly lost?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Comprehension of art, especially of its very summits, is not best promoted by framing it as some kind of a Celebrity Death Match. "'Meat and potatoes' Beethoven does not hold up against 'meat and potatoes' Mozart" is threadbare nonsense even by the standards of these types of comparisons.


Wow. I see a Beethoven cheerleader has already been triggered.



BiscuityBoyle said:


> Who are those "many serious students of music" upon whom the late Beethoven is allegedly lost


Debussy
Horowitz
Me 
The many music fanatics who don't like beethoven's late music! Or is 'not liking beethoven' synonymous with 'not seriously being into music', for you?!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Comprehension of art, especially of its very summits, is not best promoted by framing it as some kind of a Celebrity Death Match.


I disagree! My money's on the Bonn Bruiser! Now and always. "Kid" Wolfie can bob and weave as he pleases, there's no escaping the bruiser's thunderous right.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle (Feb 5, 2018)

I prefer Mozart to Beethoven, in fact. Just bored by this kind of reductive nonsense. 

Debussy, a composer who was famously leading a highly ideological fight to purge the Teutonic influence on French music - a great example, indeed. I absolutely love it that you put yourself in conjunction with Debussy and Horowitz (who only played 4-5 Beethoven sonatas and was hardly a "serious student" of this composer) though. That is beautiful, thanks.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm with you on the late B works - sometimes think its a case of the emperors new clothes except for the fact some Mozart die hards on here rate the late B works so it must be me. 

I can count a dozen or so Beethoven works without which I would not count him as one of the best 3 composers in history, in particular the best 4 symphonies, VC and Missa Solemnis. In Mozart's case it would be 50+ with the top 10 of those being more or less unsurpassed. So yes I do think he was the better composer. 

When you started your post I thought you were going to leave the question open but I see you have thrown the gauntlet down.

You are not a pink floyd fan by any chance?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

RogerWaters said:


> Wow. I see a Beethoven cheerleader has already been triggered.
> 
> Debussy
> Horowitz
> ...


'The _many_ music fanatics who don't like beethoven's late music!' Well as you've managed to name three including yourself you have obviously proved your point! :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I'm with you on the late B works - sometimes think its a case of the emperors new clothes...


Seriously, can you listen to Beethoven's late piano sonatas and say that? Really?


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> One might say that mozart vs beethoven is THE 'contest' in classical music,


On the other hand, one might not...well, this one doesn't, at any rate. There are no "contests" in classical music except that some think it's imperative to make them. There may have been direct spats between composers and their acolytes (though if you start to type "Brahms v..." in Google, it comes up "Radiohead" before Wagner!) but that is not the same as intended in the tired LvB v WAM.

I'm afraid your theory sheds no light on something that isn't there.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Seriously, can you listen to Beethoven's late piano sonatas and say that? Really?


Did you read my next statement


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I would pick Beethoven over Mozart, since I still think that Mozart is overrated, although I learnt to appreciate his music more. Due to frequent presence of musical clichés (repeated patterns of same chords), most of his music sounds very similar to my ears and I do not care for much for most of his output (I am happy with the best 10% of what he has written and do not care for the rest). I think some of his works are masterpieces and I especially love his sinfonia concertante, his string quintets (the 4th), his great mass. Basically I like where his music shows some real emotion. It is a pity Mozart was not born a couple of decades later and did not compose romantic music. He could have been fantastic.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What emerges most clearly here is what you yourself admit: you do not "get" Beethoven's later works. Well, as you know, you have company. But your inability to respond to the music you're presuming to discuss does rather undermine your analysis of what other people hear in it, as well as your attempt to resolve what is always a pointless debate.

It is not "more accurate" to say that you _do_ "get" Beethoven's late works but want a refund. The truth is that you want a refund because you don't respond to the music or appreciate what's remarkable about it. Your description of his music and his presumed intentions in writing it doesn't describe the composer I know. For example, he did not write string quartets with the intention of conveying the "emotional colors" (whatever that means) conveyed by his symphonies. Beethoven knew one musical medium from another, and his quartet writing is not only perfectly idiomatic but searches out new possibilities inherent in the medium.

Your idea of which of Beethoven's works are "in the Classical mould" and which of them are "less remarkable" (have you actually listened to the cello sonatas?) doesn't correspond to the way people who know his works well regard them. First of all, his music can't be readily categorized in this way. The fact is that he was constantly innovating, began "breaking the mold" quite early, and never ceased to do it, generally with complete success. The enormous originality of his late work is only the most extreme instance of this lifelong quest. And yes, this extraordinary level of creative thinking does elicit the highest acclamation from his admirers.

It isn't necessary to overlook Beethoven's early works - do you realize how good the early quartets and sonatas are? - in order to prefer his music to Mozart's. It's likewise very possible to award Mozart first prize in this tiresome competition without "focusing" on Beethoven's early work and without being "nonplussed" by the admiration accorded his late work.

I really don't know what else to say here, except that a better understanding of Beethoven would give you a better understanding of why many people rate him as highly as they do. Apparently Mozart's music gives you less difficulty, since you don't ask for a refund for having listened to it. That's good, but I do wish you the eventual happy discovery of what Beethoven was up to in those "overly drawn-out dirges."


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> The truth is that you want a refund because you don't respond to the music or appreciate what's remarkable about it.


You are implicitly assuming that there is something there to be 'gotten'. Many would say there just isn't. Why are THEY wrong, and you right?

Moral: no party is right, and the other wrong. Rather, one party responds to a collection of physical stimuli in one way, often results in the utterance 'this is profound, anyone who disagrees with me must be pathological or not tuned into The Forms'; the other part responds to the same collection of stimuli in a different way.



Woodduck said:


> a better understanding of Beethoven would give you a better understanding of why many people rate him as highly as they do


Again... the rather self-righteous assumption that people who don't get down on their knees for late deaf beethoven have failed in some way: have come up 'short'.

I have heard the early string quartets. I like them more than the late quartets. But I don't find them more poetic or interesting than Mozart's or Haydn's. I have also herd the early sonatas, and i would agree with you that they are amazing. Better than that drudge-fest No. 32 movt 2!


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

stomanek said:


> I'm with you on the late B works - sometimes think its a case of the emperors new clothes except for the fact some Mozart die hards on here rate the late B works so it must be me.
> 
> I can count a dozen or so Beethoven works without which I would not count him as one of the best 3 composers in history, in particular the best 4 symphonies, VC and Missa Solemnis. In Mozart's case it would be 50+ with the top 10 of those being more or less unsurpassed. So yes I do think he was the better composer.
> 
> ...


Yes I certainly am!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Yes I certainly am!


Interesting, I am not and I like prog rock and listened to it before coming to classical. Maybe there is some association between the enjoyment of Pink Floyd and Mozart?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Jacck said:


> Interesting, I am not and I like prog rock and listened to it before coming to classical. Maybe there is some association between the enjoyment of Pink Floyd and Mozart?


I listening to much Prog rock in my 20s.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I wouldn't claim Mozart is greater than Beethoven, but I still must say, Beethoven's "Mozartian" works sound like student works after Mozart to me, and in those works, he doesn't seem to have perfected classicism more than Mozart.
Beethoven's Piano Concerto No.3 in C minor is modelled after Mozart's Piano Concerto No.24 in C minor, but Mozart's has more chromaticism and greater variety of emotion (the opening chromatic theme, which span over all 12 tones of the chromatic scale, the chromatic bassline, and chromatic melody lines formed from chromatic fourths in the woodwinds are said to have greatly inspired Brahms) I get why Beethoven told Cramer "we shall never be able to do anything like that." 
Beethoven's his early to middle string quartets especially Op.18 No.5 in A, Op.59 No.3 in C are modelled after Mozart's K464 in A and K465 in C. Mozart's 6 quartets dedicated to Haydn were impressive even for the father of the string quartet, he said Mozart is the greatest composer he knew after hearing them. K387 in G and K464 were Beethoven's favorites. I don't think Beethoven's early-mid quartets surpassed Mozart's Haydn quartets. 
Mozart's Masonic Funeral Music in C minor K477 



 pretty much has most, if not all, Beethovenian elements, even before Beethoven came along.

There are wonderful works in late Beethoven like String Quartet Op.131 in C sharp minor, which I find to be very profound,
but there are also some other pieces that show late Beethoven's eccentric, egotistical, and bombastic personality,
Fantasia for piano in G minor Op.77 is one of such works. 
Although I absolutely admire Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 7th symphonies, but the 9th feels a little awkward in terms of structure. The vocal writing is not great. Even Verdi criticized it. 
More importantly, the last movement "stops" and then "continues" in few places and doesn't flow naturally. (



 / 



) I feel he should have written proper transitions for them. 
The "Ode to Joy" motif also appears in Misericordias Domini in D minor K.222 



 which Mozart wrote at age 19. I prefer this piece better than Beethoven's 9th symphony 4th movement.

I also find late Mozart slightly more intriguing and complex than late Beethoven. Fantasias in F minor for Organ K594, K608, Fugue in G minor K401, Overture in C major K399, Rondo in A minor K511, Adagio in B minor K540, Gigue in G major K574, Adagio and Fugue in C minor for String Orchestra K546, Die Zauberflote Overture, String Quintets in G minor K516, D major K593 etc.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Seriously, can you listen to Beethoven's late piano sonatas and say that? Really?


I just listened to ps 32. It has some interesting passages but I had no wow moment.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Seriously, can you listen to Beethoven's late piano sonatas and say that? Really?


29 is far too long. First movt is obviously amazing.
30 is good
31 is decent but is hindered by loads of naff
32 first movement is amazing while the second is insufferable in its length to content ratio. The sudden move to the upbeat section is so random i can't believe it's anything but trolling.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

RogerWaters said:


> You are implicitly assuming that there is something there to be 'gotten'. Many would say there just isn't. Why are THEY wrong, and you right?
> 
> Moral: no party is right, and the other wrong. Rather, one party responds to a collection of physical stimuli in one way, often results in the utterance 'this is profound, anyone who disagrees with me must be pathological or not tuned into The Forms'; the other part responds to the same collection of stimuli in a different way.
> 
> ...


I'm not implicitly assuming anything. I'm saying it outright. Beethoven's late quartets, piano sonatas, cello sonatas, and violin sonatas are extraordinary, original, brilliantly realized works that explore new expressive territory. No one has to believe that, of course. Nothing is more self-reassuring than saying, "I don't get it, wherefore those who say they do are just talking nonsense." Nothing is easier than skepticism; you don't have to know anything to be a skeptic. When people who do know a great deal about something assure me that something is true or valuable, I tend to assume that there is probably something there, something which I may be able to perceive at some point or through some effort, and that if I fail to perceive it the misfortune is probably mine. We've all failed in some way, and come up short. There's no shame in it. Don't be so defensive and supercilious. You sound like a college student.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Our CA IRA good friend, didn't stay to his question and the evidences given (well done) but he went a little further given also his personal opinion, based on these evidences. With all my respect this drives the members, who want to participate to the conversation, to a pre determined already drawn path, which I can not follow, without throwing into our conversation statements like: A no comparison to me! Beethoven is so much superior! What the FFF are we arguing here??? Or: Hey! Have you ever listened what the great Lenny said for Beethovens music? That every FFF note he put in his music scores is inevitable? That can not be more musical perfection than the one he produced in every of his works?

With all my respect, questions of the type: Who is holier? Jesus Christus or Maria the Virgin, Paulus or Peter etc. can not be answer from human beings and definitely not from me. With these in my mind I say very diplomatic: The German is the biggest composer in human history, the Austrian the only one! 

I wish you all, a very nice and productive week!


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not implicitly assuming anything. I'm saying it outright. Beethoven's late quartets, piano sonatas, cello sonatas, and violin sonatas are extraordinary, original, brilliantly realized works that explore new expressive territory. No one has to believe that, of course. Nothing is more self-reassuring than saying, "I don't get it, wherefore those who say they do are just talking nonsense." Nothing is easier than skepticism; you don't have to know anything to be a skeptic. When people who do know a great deal about something assure me that something is true or valuable, I tend to assume that there is probably something there, something which I may be able to perceive at some point or through some effort, and that if I fail to perceive it the misfortune is probably mine. We've all failed in some way, and come up short. There's no shame in it. Don't be so defensive and supercilious. You sound like a college student.


I sound like a college student because I'm basically pushing a flat-footed premise, but one i've reached after much thought. Call it cultured barbarianism, if you want.

The premise you might call 'nihilsitic' i call true: there are no objective measures of musical quality. What this means can be made even more clear. One is not irrational in holding the belief that late Beethoven isn't all great music. All one is doing is not liking something you want them to like.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Nothing is more self-reassuring than saying, "I don't get it, wherefore those who say they do are just talking nonsense."


I was trying to be a tad bit more ecumenical in my original post, if you take another look.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> MORAL: I count myself among those who do not 'get' late beethoven: or, more accurately, who 'gets' it but wants a refund. Too many, long, overly drawn-out dirges are not profound so much as tedious. Schubert's 15th string quartet is profound, as even the slow movements go somewhere, unlike in some of beethoven's late works. Moreover, late beethoven famously shows very little regard to 'orchestration'. A sparse (by its nature) string quartet is used in an attempt to convey the same emotional colours as a symphony. This fails, for me, and for perhaps others who don't 'get'/accept late beethoven.
> 
> In summation of both parts: Both are masters. However, M did the classical style better than B. B's best works (middle and some late) stretched the classical style to breaking point, while many of his late works are such that they are lost on many serious students of music.


You begin with what looks like an even-handed theory, and then decide that the outcome of the application of your theory is a "MORAL". You go on to assert your opinion about M and B, as if it has been somehow validated by your theory, but then chide Woodduck for doing the very same thing that you yourself do.

MORAL: People in glass houses...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Wow. I see a Beethoven cheerleader has already been triggered.
> 
> Debussy
> Horowitz
> ...


Tchaikovsky was another. I don't feel Ludwig's late period works are as profound as some do, but they are endlessly creative, and ahead of their time (or out of the times? ). I hear them as both rambling and spectacular at the same time. He took the music forward, but also back a bit from his middle period.

Another myth, I feel is Beethoven wasn't as much a creative force as Mozart. I feel the Romantic view of Mozart as more of a natural, composing in his sleep, may still be around. Beethoven's music is more complex than Mozart's. There is no doubt about it. He needed to take more time to one up on Mozart, after Mozart did almost everything first, or else he'd be another Hummel or Schubert.

In the end I feel they are not comparable. They both had different qualities that cannot be imitated. For Mozart to have done what he did before Beethoven and remain relevant is what makes me give him a slight edge in the battle of 2 great geniuses, but it doesn't mean anything when you hear the final results of both of their music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

RogerWaters said:


> 29 is far too long. First movt is obviously amazing.
> 30 is good
> 31 is decent but is hindered by loads of naff
> 32 first movement is amazing while the second is insufferable in its length to content ratio. The sudden move to the upbeat section is so random i can't believe it's anything but trolling.


Oh well, we're all entitled to our opinion I suppose. If that is so I wonder why so many great pianists play them?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Phil loves classical said:


> Tchaikovsky was another. I don't feel Ludwig's late period works are as profound as some do, but they are endlessly creative, and ahead of their time (or out of the times? ). I hear them as both rambling and spectacular at the same time. He took the music forward, but also back a bit from his middle period.
> 
> Another myth, I feel is Beethoven wasn't as much a creative force as Mozart. I feel the Romantic view of Mozart as more of a natural, composing in his sleep, may still be around. *Beethoven's music is more complex than Mozart's.* There is no doubt about it. He needed to take more time to one up on Mozart, after Mozart did almost everything first, or else he'd be another Hummel or Schubert.
> 
> In the end I feel they are not comparable. They both had different qualities that cannot be imitated. For Mozart to have done what he did before Beethoven and remain relevant is what makes me give him a slight edge in the battle of 2 great geniuses, but it doesn't mean anything when you hear the final results of both of their music.


I think it depends on which works you take as an example. I would say that (eg) Figaro or the other da Ponte operas are far more complex than Fidelio.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

RogerWaters said:


> Again... the rather self-righteous assumption that people who don't get down on their knees for late deaf beethoven have failed in some way: have come up 'short'.
> 
> !


I agree there are some people who adopt that holier than thou attitude. I must say though I do find it difficult to imagine why you use the word 'naff' of one of Beethoven's greatest piano sonatas. I have no problem with you saying you don't get it or don't like it. The problem is you come across as just as self-righteous as the other guy


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I believe it was Beecham who said that 'Beethoven's late quartets were written by a deaf man and should only one listened to by deaf people!' A typical Beecham piece of mischief making. However, he did conduct the Missa Solemnis so he wasn't totally out of touch with late beethoven


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> You begin with what looks like an even-handed theory, and then decide that the outcome of the application of your theory is a "MORAL". You go on to assert your opinion about M and B, as if it has been somehow validated by your theory, but then chide Woodduck for doing the very same thing that you yourself do.
> 
> MORAL: People in glass houses...


To the point! What Moral and Music have to do together, I don't know… Maybe that both start with M. (1000 times better an unmoral genius than a moral idiot. We are talking about music and not for our girl-boyfriend.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Beethoven's music is more complex than Mozart's. There is no doubt about it.


I used to think that way, but then I realized complexities of late Mozart
















which are just as fascinating as those of Beethoven
there's so much intellectualism hidden beneath the facility and mercurial flow, reminiscent of JS Bach


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Tchaikovsky was another. I don't feel Ludwig's late period works are as profound as some do, but they are endlessly creative, and ahead of their time (or out of the times? ). I hear them as both rambling and spectacular at the same time. He took the music forward, but also back a bit from his middle period.
> 
> Another myth, I feel is Beethoven wasn't as much a creative force as Mozart. I feel the Romantic view of Mozart as more of a natural, composing in his sleep, may still be around. Beethoven's music is more complex than Mozart's. There is no doubt about it. He needed to take more time to one up on Mozart, after Mozart did almost everything first, or else he'd be another Hummel or Schubert.
> 
> In the end I feel they are not comparable. They both had different qualities that cannot be imitated. For Mozart to have done what he did before Beethoven and remain relevant is what makes me give him a slight edge in the battle of 2 great geniuses, but it doesn't mean anything when you hear the final results of both of their music.


What he said................


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> MORAL: *I count myself among those who do not 'get' late beethoven: or, more accurately, who 'gets' it but wants a refund.* Too many, long, overly drawn-out dirges are not profound so much as tedious. Schubert's 15th string quartet is profound, as even the slow movements go somewhere, unlike in some of beethoven's late works. Moreover, late beethoven famously shows very little regard to 'orchestration'. A sparse (by its nature) string quartet is used in an attempt to convey the same emotional colours as a symphony. This fails, for me, and for perhaps others who don't 'get'/accept late beethoven.
> 
> In summation of both parts: Both are masters. However, M did the classical style better than B. B's best works (middle and some late) stretched the classical style to breaking point, while m*any of his late works are such that they are lost on many serious students of music.*


You don't get late Beethoven (or middle Beethoven), yet you apparently believe you are competent to critique it. It doesn't work that way. Comprehension is supposed to precede criticism. Instead of opining on what today's serious students of music understand, have you considered actually studying Beethoven's music with the help of people who do understand it?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I couldn't choose between Beethoven and Mozart. Their music is very different and they excelled at different things. I also would not be able to choose between either of them and Bach ... and I believe that the three of them are the greatest of the great. Some others come close but I don't think they are quite at that levels. I don't think this is a subjective judgment on my part but if you want to add a couple more names to the greatest of the great I won't argue with you about that. 

As for those who want to argue that one or other of these greats was actually not great and that the informed consensus of more more than 150 years is wrong ... I feel certain that they are confusing their own subjective preference (and essentially a failure to get one or other of these greats) for an objective judgment. The clue for me is the huge weight of informed opinion over a long period of time. You can say "I don't feel the way they do" but I don't think you can say "they're all wrong". And, if you are wise, you will recognise that it is better (for you!!!) to leave open the possibility that you will one day experience some sort of breakthrough with the great composer who you are somehow not getting at the moment.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Beethoven Vs. Mozart

Your Vote: Mozart vs. Beethoven

Mozart vs. Beethoven

Beethoven vs Mozart vs Bach

Early Beethoven vs. Mozart

*And violadude in this post sums up my thoughts entirely:

Mozart Vs. Beethoven: Why choose sides?
*

First off, there are already plenty of threads for this, I'm confused why we need another one. And choosing sides- which I have done in the past, voting for Beethoven- makes me feel as if Mozart is an inferior composer, which is just not true. Now I know and love both. Can't I love Beethoven's late piano sonatas _and_ Mozart's symphonies? Both are incredible pieces of music from incredible composers.

I think a better argument would be Schoenberg vs. Cage.

I'd vote for Schoenberg, personally.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> What emerges most clearly here is what you yourself admit: you do not "get" Beethoven's later works. Well, as you know, you have company. *But your inability to respond to the music you're presuming to discuss does rather undermine your analysis of what other people hear in it,* as well as your attempt to resolve what is always a pointless debate.


He he. Pot and kettle (you on some Mahler/Strauss).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ Me too (Schoenberg). But maybe Cage is too recent to judge conclusively?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> He he. Pot and kettle (you on some Mahler/Strauss).


I doubt that you actually know what my estimate of Mahler and Strauss is, and I've certainly never offered a judgment on what other people hear in them, so I recommend keeping your little "gotcha" witticisms to yourself and not interjecting them into a discussion where Mahler and Strauss, and my opinion of them, are irrelevant.

Perhaps you'd like to respond to the substance of my post, which you've gone to the trouble of quoting in full?

EDIT: OK, now you've gone back and edited out most of it. Too bad. It was worth quoting - and reading.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> You don't get late Beethoven (or middle Beethoven), yet you apparently believe you are competent to critique it. It doesn't work that way. *Comprehension is supposed to precede criticism*. Instead of opining on what today's serious students of music understand, have you considered actually studying Beethoven's music with the help of people who do understand it?


Forgive me for chuckling. It's just that I remembered you saying that Mahler's 3rd was "_a bad piece of music_".


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps you'd like to respond to the substance of my post, which you've gone to the trouble of quoting in full?


Honesty I only read the first paragraph of that post, so I just edited the quote accordingly.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ Me too (Schoenberg). But maybe Cage is too recent to judge conclusively?


That's true. Cage died 41 years after Schoenberg and still needs time for some of his good works to become classics, like the "In a Landscape" and the String Quartet. Now Schoenberg with works like Transfigured Night and Pierrot Lunaire has had over a hundred years for his works to become popular- and he's still quite neglected.

Also... I doubt that someone would just "say" Mahler's fourth symphony is "bad." To my memory, whenever I dislike a work, I say "I dislike it," implying that perhaps it will take time for me to appreciate. And I've learned my lesson never really to critizicize a certain work too harshly, or I will eat my words later.

Example of what I said on "Favorite Ballets" thread several years ago:

"I used to like Tchaikovsky ballets but they aren't deep enough for my tastes and I went searching for something better. I found the Rite of Spring and at first I absolutely HATED IT!!!!!! Before than I hadn't listened to much post-1900 music and was thoroughly Romantic. But as I listened to it more and more I began to understand it's originality, amazing orchestration, and brilliant new orchestral techniques. But still, I wouldn't really count the Rite of Spring as my favorite ballet, because I've never actually seen the ballet version, just heard the concert piece. So my favorite actual ballet would probably be the Firebird- what a beautiful piece of music! I LOVE THE FINALE!"

They're not "deep enough" for my tastes??? I sound so pretentious and it's quite embarassing that post still exists. On the Alma Deutscher thread I've also said some pretty... interesting things.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Honesty I only read the first paragraph of that post, so I just edited the quote accordingly.


You should have read the rest.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Forgive me for chuckling. It's just that I remembered you saying that Mahler's 3rd was "_a bad piece of music_".


Yes, IMO it is. How is that relevant?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, IMO it is. How is that relevant?


Not relevant at all! just kind of funny, you're trying to give advice to the O. Poster (for not "comprehending" Beethoven's late music) to study "with the help of people who do understand it", whereas you don't seem to understand other works either (e.g. Mahler's 3rd, which is a great piece of music to many others, including me). Anyway....


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Not relevant at all! just kind of funny, you're trying to give advice to the O. Poster (for not "comprehending" Beethoven's late music) to study "with the help of people who do understand it", whereas you don't seem to understand other works either (e.g. Mahler's 3rd, which is a great piece of music to many others, including me). Anyway....


Ah, but I've studied Mahler's symphonies, as my analytical commentary on them has demonstrated in a number of threads on Mahler's music. I've done complete formal analyses of works by Mahler. So, I've done a considerable amount of work to comprehend Mahler. Do you think Mahler's Third's critical reception is comparable to that of Beethoven's late sonatas and quartets?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Ah, but I've studied Mahler's symphonies, as my analytical commentary on them has demonstrated in a number of threads on Mahler's music. I've done complete formal analyses of works by Mahler. So, I've done a considerable amount of work to comprehend Mahler. Do you think Mahler's Third's critical reception is comparable to that of Beethoven's late sonatas and quartets?


I have just got into Mahler's third and like it very much - which is what music is all about?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I have just got into Mahler's third and like it very much - which is what music is all about?


Yes indeed. Mahler wrote his 3rd symphony in exactly the way he did so that you would like it. Very much.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I've done complete formal analyses of works by Mahler. So, I've done a considerable amount of work to comprehend Mahler.


Looks like it hasn't paid off unfortunately. Have you done similar amount of work to comprehend Bruckner too, whose music you have referred to as "boring" and you being "physically repulsed by it"?



EdwardBast said:


> Do you think Mahler's Third's critical reception is comparable to that of Beethoven's late sonatas and quartets?


Different kind of works. All great in their own way. Mahler's 3rd was voted one of the ten greatest symphonies of all time in a survey of conductors carried out by the BBC Music Magazine. Do you remember?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I personal like more Beethoven works than Mozart works. Others like the reverse. Just personal preference. No harm no foul. What's the big deal? To each his/her own.

I do think your characterizations and reasoning are off, however.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I must confess to liking Mozart and Beethoven equally. Who I like best usually depends on who I am listening to at the time! Mind you, I am just thankful for every composer who has come into my life - usually through recordings - and enriched my world.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Looks like it hasn't paid off unfortunately. Have you done similar amount of work to comprehend Bruckner too, whose music you have referred to as "boring" and you being "physically repulsed by it"?
> 
> Different kind of works. All great in their own way. Mahler's 3rd was voted one of the ten greatest symphonies of all time in a survey of conductors carried out by the BBC Music Magazine. Do you remember?


This thread is about Mozart and Beethoven. Do you remember?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> I have a theory, which is mine, and which I believe may remove some of the deadlock in this debate.


Strange, this 'theory' looks a lot like an opinion.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

This is another thread where opinions are presented as if they are facts.

By consensus, both Beethoven and Mozart are in the top echelon of composers. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yesterday I listened to Mozart’s Piano Concerto #20. I concluded that Mozart is the greatest composer who ever lived.

This morning I listened to Beethoven’s Piano Sonata #32. I conclude that Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived.

This afternoon I listened to Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro. I conclude that, no, Mozart is the greatest composer who ever lived.

Just now I listened to Beethoven’s Violin Concerto. I was wrong, Beethoven is....


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Capricious.>>>>>>>


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Yesterday I listened to Mozart's Piano Concerto #20. I concluded that Mozart is the greatest composer who ever lived.
> 
> This morning I listened to Beethoven's Piano Sonata #32. I conclude that Beethoven is the greatest composer who ever lived.
> 
> ...


What he said............


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Threads like this are part of what keeps me from becoming active again on tc.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

The debate is really Beethoven vs Mozart vs Bach, for those are the only composers who can be argued as the greatest of all time.

I happen to think Mozart is behind the other two but would have closed the gap had he lived longer. His last years showed a greater maturity and depth.

The one area where Mozart clearly outshines Beethoven is in vocal repertoire. This is the one area where Beethoven was relatively weaker, whereas Mozart was among the greatest.

But in the area of symphonic, chamber and solo piano music Beethoven reigned supreme over everyone. There is no doubt about that. His achievements in these areas were such that I think he deserves his place as the greatest composer of all time. Only Bach comes close.

For me what closes the deal on Beethoven’s supremacy is the unique character he was able to instill into each composition. From the Eroica onwards, for example, each symphony is a completely different animal. By contrast, you can’t be blamed for feeling at times that much of Bach and Mozart sounds the same. Beethoven took more time and was far less prolific, but the result was greater inspiration.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> You begin with what looks like an even-handed theory, and then decide that the outcome of the application of your theory is a "MORAL". You go on to assert your opinion about M and B, as if it has been somehow validated by your theory, but then chide Woodduck for doing the very same thing that you yourself do.
> 
> MORAL: People in glass houses...


Don't put too much stock in a word i used. You could replace with 'upshot'.

The general form of the theory was this. There are two possible reasons mozart fans downgrade beethoven. Frist, because mozart composed at a higher average standard. Second, because mozart fans might not like beethoven's late works as much as beethoven fans. I got overly polemical in later posts because I was enjoying triggering beethovians who immediately insisted that one is neceassarily 'missing something' objective in the late works if one does not get all serious and ernest at the merest mention of 'late beethoven'. Perhaps said beethoven fans are thus somewhat vindicating part 2 of my thesis: there exist a group of people who think late beethoven is objectively amazing: one is simply wrong/normatively substandard in not agreeing. This is, of course, absolutely fallacious reasoning, and ripe for causing a stand-off


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> For me what closes the deal on Beethoven's supremacy is the unique character he was able to instill into each composition. From the Eroica onwards, for example, each symphony is a completely different animal. By contrast, you can't be blamed for feeling at times that much of Bach and Mozart sounds the same. Beethoven took more time and was far less prolific, but the result was greater inspiration.


I just can't agree with this. If it were true I think there would be more works by Beethoven I would enjoy. I don't think Beethoven has more diversity than Bach or Mozart. I think one can largely separate Beethoven into 3 phases - classical Beethoven, aggressive Beethoven, and the later chatty and rambling Beethoven, but largely the same compositional character and harmonic language runs through all of these works. There is perhaps one sub category that pieces like the Grosse Fugue and Hammerklavier fall into, (in terms of a differing harmonic language), but though these works are strong, original and have masterful elements to them, I don't see a good subtle and tasteful use of harmony being one of those attributes. This is my problem with Beethoven, he doesn't use harmony in a way that pleases me. To my ears Bach and Mozart were masters of using harmony and dissonance, Beethoven was not.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> I just can't agree with this. If it were true I think there would be more works by Beethoven I would enjoy.


No problem. I enjoy enough Beethoven for both of us!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The debate is really Beethoven vs Mozart vs Bach, for those are the only composers who can be argued as the greatest of all time.
> 
> I happen to think Mozart is behind the other two but would have closed the gap had he lived longer. His last years showed a greater maturity and depth.
> 
> ...


Figaro, the Don, Cosi, the Flute? Sounds the same? Mozart's symphonies 40 and 41? The same?
Bach St John and St Matthew Passions? The same?
Sorry, I think you'd better listen harder! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> Don't put too much stock in a word i used.


Where do I stop with that one, I wonder...?



RogerWaters said:


> Don't put too much stock in a word i used. You could replace with 'upshot'.
> 
> The general form of the theory was this. There are two possible reasons mozart fans downgrade beethoven. Frist, because mozart composed at a higher average standard.


This is all nonsense. What on Earth does "average standard" mean?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Figaro, the Don, Cosi, the Flute? Sounds the same? Mozart's symphonies 40 and 41? The same?
> Bach St John and St Matthew Passions? The same?
> Sorry, I think you'd better listen harder! :lol:


Yes, much of what they composed sounds the same, whereas Beethoven had more diversity of style. Now if you want to take my opinion to the extreme that everything they wrote sounds the same you'd be making a straw man argument. That's not what I'm saying, My argument is that compared to Beethoven their writing was more homogeneous.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Figaro, the Don, Cosi, the Flute? Sounds the same? Mozart's symphonies 40 and 41? The same?
> Bach St John and St Matthew Passions? The same?
> Sorry, I think you'd better listen harder! :lol:


same same but different (if you've been to Thailand, you know what I am hinting at)


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The debate is really Beethoven vs Mozart vs Bach, for those are the only composers who can be argued as the greatest of all time.
> 
> I happen to think Mozart is behind the other two but would have closed the gap had he lived longer. His last years showed a greater maturity and depth.
> 
> ...


There is a lot of Mozart that does sound like he's using 1 bag of tricks - I will grant you that - many of the early serenades and divertimenti - early quartets, masses. Mozart had to compose for a living and there are times when he composed for his bread with less inspiration. But we dont judge Mozart by these compositiosn - just as we dont judge Beethoven by many of his early works or wellingtons victory. We judge Mozart by his best works. And I dont hear sameness in works like pc23 and pc 24 - or sy 41 and sy 40 - or any of his operas all as different from each other as they can be.

It has been said by 1 famous critic that some of Mozart's minor key works - such as PC24 - are Beethovenish. This seems odd to me but at least implies that Beethoven's signature sound is evident in his works - there is no more nor less samishness to Beethoven as there is in Mozart at their best.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My argument is that compared to Beethoven their writing was more homogeneous.


I'm not so sure - if you listen to Bach's organ music, compare it to the Brandenburg Concertos, compare that to the cello suites, compared to the cantatas etc. I hear a lot of diversity there. With Mozart across genres as well. I just don't see Beethoven as having a wider range of expression. Comparable diversity perhaps, but not greater.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Yes, much of what they composed sounds the same, whereas Beethoven had more diversity of style. Now if you want to take my opinion to the extreme that everything they wrote sounds the same you'd be making a straw man argument. That's not what I'm saying, My argument is that compared to Beethoven their writing was more homogeneous.


There's not that much variety in his orch style once it was established - excellent as it is - Beethoven still sounds like himself and no other and once he found this formula he more or less stuck to it. There's more variety in Mozart's orchestral techniques - textures and shades than you give him credit - my evidence would be the variety of music in the best piano concertos and late symphonies - the music of don giovanni, zauberflote, the requiem - there is a staggering amount of variety there.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> There is a lot of Mozart that does sound like he's using 1 bag of tricks - I will grant you that - many of the early serenades and divertimenti - early quartets, masses. Mozart had to compose for a living and there are times when he composed for his bread with less inspiration. But we dont judge Mozart by these compositiosn - just as we dont judge Beethoven by many of his early works or wellingtons victory. We judge Mozart by his best works. And I dont hear sameness in works like pc23 and pc 24 - or sy 41 and sy 40 - or any of his operas all as different from each other as they can be.
> 
> It has been said by 1 famous critic that some of Mozart's minor key works - such as PC24 - are Beethovenish. This seems odd to me but at least implies that Beethoven's signature sound is evident in his works - there is no more nor less samishness to Beethoven as there is in Mozart at their best.


Certainly in the 19th century Mozart's minor-key works were highly valued as being "Beethovenish" -- the Symphony #40 (don't know about the #25) and the two minor-key piano concertos. Today we seem to be a bit more reasonable, and many will place the A-major piano concerto at the top of the heap.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

tdc said:


> I'm not so sure - if you listen to Bach's organ music, compare it to the Brandenburg Concertos, compare that to the cello suites, compared to the cantatas etc.


Or just the diversity within the WTC alone - then listen to the Goldbergs, Art of Fugue - pretty far from homogenous.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

So many thoughts and so many words thrown, for a meaningless question... And all this from top level users (like you), they know a hell of a music. (this is NOT an accusation! In Germany we have sometimes this problem: Talking, talking and say nothing.) With all my respect and love for you, fellow members, use your HIGH knowledge for something more creative, so I and other users they visit our beautiful forum, to learn useful and interesting things. 

(This one reminds me something stupid I made some years before: I have written that the Busonis Concerto (with Donohoe) has alone the value of all the concertos has written by the XXX composer. The debate ended with the thread locked and 2 users ban for a week. The owner of the forum (I was admin) told me that what I have done was insulting for my fellow users and not to repeat it. By this time, found his suggestion an exaggeration. After, I understood, that I had more ways to say my opinion without let the other users with the felling that they listen rubbish and I was the expert who knew everything...)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

stomanek said:


> There is a lot of Mozart that does sound like he's using 1 bag of tricks - I will grant you that - many of the early serenades and divertimenti - early quartets, masses.


there's a lot of early Mozart gems people tend to overlook,


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The one area where Mozart clearly outshines Beethoven is in vocal repertoire. This is the one area where Beethoven was *relatively weaker*, whereas Mozart was among the greatest.


Quite... Mozart just pipped him to the post.

Understatement of the week. :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

RogerWaters said:


> Don't put too much stock in a word i used. You could replace with 'upshot'.
> 
> The general form of the theory was this. *There are two possible reasons mozart fans downgrade beethoven. Frist, because mozart composed at a higher average standard.* Second, because mozart fans might not like beethoven's late works as much as beethoven fans. I got overly polemical in later posts because I was enjoying triggering beethovians who immediately insisted that one is neceassarily 'missing something' objective in the late works if one does not get all serious and ernest at the merest mention of 'late beethoven'. Perhaps said beethoven fans are thus somewhat vindicating part 2 of my thesis: there exist a group of people who think late beethoven is objectively amazing: one is simply wrong/normatively substandard in not agreeing. This is, of course, absolutely fallacious reasoning, and ripe for causing a stand-off


This is nonsense. Who said Mozart fans downgrade Beethoven? I'm a Mozart fan and I love Beethoven. Please stop using these generalisations


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> By contrast, you can't be blamed for feeling at times that much of Bach and Mozart sounds the same. Beethoven took more time and was far less prolific, but the result was greater inspiration.


At times I think Beethoven struggles with building a good tune, as people have pointed out, A Question of Melodists: Is Schubert really a more talented melodist than Beethoven? he sometimes seems to struggle in this department even more than Chopin or Schubert. I can say that all of Chopin Etudes, Nocturnes are melodically inspired. I cannot say the same for Beethoven Sonatas for piano. Pathetique, Moonlight, Tempest, Waldstein, Appassionata are indeed very inspired, but there are also ones (that are not very good) like No. 18 in E flat and No.25 in G. Fantasia in G minor Op.77 feels like a mish-mash of random musical ideas put together in a single body of work. Likewise, I think Choral Fantasia Op.80 shows the egotistical, bombastic nature in his late period. I think Leonardo Bernstein had this piece in mind when he said 




While Beethoven explored more into the genre of Sonatas than Mozart, I have to say Mozart was more into Fantasia-type solo pieces than Beethoven. K394, K396, K397, and the proto-Romantic Rondo in A minor K511. K475 inspired Beethoven to write his Pathetique and Appassionata. 
There's none in Beethoven's organ pieces that are melodically inspired as Andante K616 in F major, contrapuntally profound as Fantasias in F minor K608, K594, Fugues in G minor K401, K154, Overture in C major (from Suite K399)






In this regard, Bach's (in works such as Italian Concerto in F major BWV971 and Chromatic Fantasia in Fugue in D minor BWV903) command of both simple and complex textures is incredible. I'm inclined to think by the sheer number of masterpieces he produced, Bach > Beethoven = Mozart, in keyboard works. 
Well Tempered Clavier is by far the most influential set of keyboard works in history of music. Honestly, if you don't find these works inspired, I suggest you listen to them played on harpsichord. It helped me realize their artistic merits.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> This is nonsense. Who said Mozart fans downgrade Beethoven? I'm a Mozart fan and I love Beethoven. Please stop using these generalisations


He should have qualified his statement by saying "some Mozart fans" which I am sure is what he meant


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> there's a lot of early Mozart gems people tend to overlook,


Yes there are many gems from the childhood days - one of my favourites is K139 another less famous mass in C minor.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

stomanek said:


> There's not that much variety in his orch style once it was established - excellent as it is - Beethoven still sounds like himself and no other and *once he found this formula he more or less stuck to it.* There's more variety in Mozart's orchestral techniques - textures and shades than you give him credit - my evidence would be the variety of music in the best piano concertos and late symphonies - the music of don giovanni, zauberflote, the requiem - there is a staggering amount of variety there.


Formula? Yeah right. After his second symphony and every one thereafter, no one had the slightest idea what the next one would be like. If there is any substance to your use of the word formula, please tell us what it is. What is this mysterious formula Beethoven followed?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Formula? Yeah right. After his second symphony and every one thereafter, no one had the slightest idea what the next one would be like. If there is any substance to your use of the word formula, please tell us what it is. What is this mysterious formula Beethoven followed?


It can be deduced from the lines that follow that statement.

You are clever enough to make a case against one of Mahler's greatest works - I'm sure you will work it out.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> It can be deduced from the lines that follow that statement.


It can? I guess I'm not smart enough to deduce it.

Are there any two successive symphonies - or concertos, or sonatas - in Mozart's ouevre as different from each other as Beethoven's 5th and 6th symphonies? Would you even identify them as being by the same composer? Not only are they radically unlike each other in form and content, but each represents something strikingly new in the very idea of a symphony. I would hope that the need to defend Mozart's power of invention - which I do not underestimate - doesn't blind you to the very exceptional ability, represented by these two symphonies in startling juxtaposition, to rethink basic aspects of form and expressive purpose and bring each new conception to perfect fulfillment at a single stroke. Beethoven didn't "experiment"; he discovered new territory and claimed it uncontested.

I would imagine that the unprepared minds of the audience at the premiere of these two works - first heard at the same famous evening-long concert - experienced some serious boggling. But then, it was the sort of thing that Beethoven accomplished again and again.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I came here just to say that I love unconditionally the music of Mozart and Beethoven, and that I can't really understand what makes a person admire one of them and hate the other - for me both are gods of music!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'd call this induction not deduction.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Sorry, but the President has declared a ban on both immortal composers. All debates about their respective merits have been rendered null and void and prohibited. But the respective merits of Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf and Robert Fuchs are still open for discussion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Sorry, but the President has declared a ban on both immortal composers. All debates about their respective merits have been rendered null and void and prohibited. But Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf and Robert Fuchs are still open for discussion.


I think you may have stumbled into a vortex. Can't be too careful down there!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> ...Are there any two successive symphonies - or concertos, or sonatas - in Mozart's ouevre as different from each other as Beethoven's 5th and 6th symphonies? Would you even identify them as being by the same composer? Not only are they radically unlike each other in form and content, but each represents something strikingly new in the very idea of a symphony.


Joseph Kerman, in his book on Beethoven's quartets, says that hearing the Razumovskies is like meeting three distinct individuals, each characterized by its "unique physiognomy." He speaks of this as if it were something quite new in music, and I agree with that. The quartets share little in the way of style or technique; what they obviously have in common is that they could not have been written, at that time, by anybody but Beethoven.

The same, I think, applies to the symphonies and even the piano sonatas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Joseph Kerman, in his book on Beethoven's quartets, says that hearing the Razumovskies is like meeting three distinct individuals, each characterized by its "unique physiognomy." He speaks of this as if it were something quite new in music, and I agree with that. The quartets share little in the way of style or technique; what they obviously have in common is that they could not have been written, at that time, by anybody but Beethoven.
> 
> The same, I think, applies to the symphonies and even the piano sonatas.


The piano sonatas have been called Beethoven's laboratory.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> Sorry, but the President has declared a ban on both immortal composers. All debates about their respective merits have been rendered null and void and prohibited. But the respective merits of Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf and Robert Fuchs are still open for discussion.


All presidential declarations must go through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Joseph Kerman, in his book on Beethoven's quartets, says that hearing the Razumovskies is like meeting three distinct individuals, each characterized by its "unique physiognomy." He speaks of this as if it were something quite new in music, and I agree with that. The quartets share little in the way of style or technique; what they obviously have in common is that they could not have been written, at that time, by anybody but Beethoven.
> 
> The same, I think, applies to the symphonies and even the piano sonatas.


Especially the piano sonatas I would say: The "Waldstein," Op. 53, Op. 54, and the "Appassionata," Op. 57 are three masterpieces in close proximity with wildly different personalities. The Op. 31 set is equally diverse.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> What is this mysterious formula Beethoven followed?


Charles Hazlewood discusses in the BBC Beethoven documentary how Beethoven builds music on a 4-note motif (5th Symphony, 6th Symphony, 4th Piano Concerto). 



Beethoven's also uses a 4-note motif in the Appassionata, 



 except this time it is more like his homage to Mozart's K475 




Mozart on the other hand, has this "chromatic fourth motif" embedded in his musical language
K595: 



K491: 



K477: 



K511: 



K465: 




like Beethoven, it's remarkable how he re-uses the motif and yet sound very different each time. 
*I don't see these motifs as "formulas". But rather, their "signatures".* They're very-well written "musical poetry" based on strict rules (like rhyme), "mastery of motivic development."


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> It can? I guess I'm not smart enough to deduce it.
> 
> Are there any two successive symphonies - or concertos, or sonatas - in Mozart's ouevre as different from each other as Beethoven's 5th and 6th symphonies? Would you even identify them as being by the same composer? Not only are they radically unlike each other in form and content, but each represents something strikingly new in the very idea of a symphony. I would hope that the need to defend Mozart's power of invention - which I do not underestimate - doesn't blind you to the very exceptional ability, represented by these two symphonies in startling juxtaposition, to rethink basic aspects of form and expressive purpose and bring each new conception to perfect fulfillment at a single stroke. Beethoven didn't "experiment"; he discovered new territory and claimed it uncontested.
> 
> I would imagine that the unprepared minds of the audience at the premiere of these two works - first heard at the same famous evening-long concert - experienced some serious boggling. But then, it was the sort of thing that Beethoven accomplished again and again.


I think formula was the wrong word to use when what I meant was palette. He did expand the art of orchestration to a point and its not that difficult to recognise the Beethoven sound. In my early classical music days after I heard the symphonies but did not know the overtures - I had little trouble, for example, in recognising Beethoven orch pieces when heard on the radio. For example - Egmont overture - - Choral fantasy and other works to me obviously came from the same composer's palette. That's what I meant when I said he stuck to a successful formula once he had it.

The symphonies are the obvious works where Beethoven is radically different from one work to the next. I would have thought some of Mozart's works qualify to an extent by the same criteria - the G minor quintet is surely a groundbreaking work in the history of chamber music. The d minor PC - the 1st and 2nd mvt of k466 is from another universe comparing it with any previous pc by Mozart or anybody else. Die Zauberflote virtually heralded in the birth of german opera. I think Beethoven's reputation and achievements as a pioneer of form blind many to Mozart's ground breaking works and I think he is more innovative than is generally thought.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Allerius said:


> I came here just to say that I love unconditionally the music of Mozart and Beethoven, and that I can't *really understand what makes a person admire one of them and hate the other *- for me both are gods of music!


That's not really happening though. Many listeners on here have as their no 1 and 2, M and B - it does stop us arguing about the relative merits of one over the other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> *The symphonies are the obvious works where Beethoven is radically different from one work to the next.* I would have thought some of Mozart's works qualify to an extent by the same criteria - the G minor quintet is surely a groundbreaking work in the history of chamber music. The d minor PC - the 1st and 2nd mvt of k466 is from another universe comparing it with any previous pc by Mozart or anybody else. Die Zauberflote virtually heralded in the birth of german opera. *I think Beethoven's reputation and achievements as a pioneer of form blind many to Mozart's ground breaking works and I think he is more innovative than is generally thought.*


Beethoven's sonatas are just as contrasting as his symphonies if not more so, and there's tremendous variety in his other chamber works as well.

I agree completely that Mozart was more innovative than he's sometimes given credit for. But it wasn't characteristic of composers in the Classical era to try to do something unprecedented and challenging with each work. There were both aesthetic and economic reasons for that. Haydn, secure in his employment by a sympathetic patron and isolated from the world, amused himself by trying new things, and the results still surprise and delight us, but his innovations were and are more amusing than disturbing. Mozart would have been even more original than he was had he not had to make a living. Beethoven, in the spirit of a new era and of his own cussedness, just went ahead and pleased himself, looked at a new composition as a new structure to be built from the ground up, repeatedly set the world on its ear, and turned out stuff that some people still can't come to terms with. I can't think of any precedent for that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> The symphonies are the obvious works where Beethoven is radically different from one work to the next. I would have thought some of Mozart's works qualify to an extent by the same criteria - the G minor quintet is surely a groundbreaking work in the history of chamber music. The d minor PC - the 1st and 2nd mvt of k466 is from another universe comparing it with any previous pc by Mozart or anybody else. Die Zauberflote virtually heralded in the birth of german opera. *I think Beethoven's reputation and achievements as a pioneer of form blind many to Mozart's ground breaking works and I think he is more innovative than is generally thought*.


I think Mozart's last two symphonies are pretty different if you take the trouble to listen to them carefully. You are very right in that Mozart expanded the form of opera in so many ways he might be considered a revolutionary. He was enormously innovative. Of course, Beethoven was obviously more revolutionary but we mustn't overlook the advances Mozart made


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> It can? I guess I'm not smart enough to deduce it.
> 
> Are there any two successive symphonies - or concertos, or sonatas - in Mozart's ouevre as different from each other as Beethoven's 5th and 6th symphonies? Would you even identify them as being by the same composer? Not only are they radically unlike each other in form and content, but each represents something strikingly new in the very idea of a symphony. I would hope that the need to defend Mozart's power of invention - which I do not underestimate - doesn't blind you to the very exceptional ability, represented by these two symphonies in startling juxtaposition, to rethink basic aspects of form and expressive purpose and bring each new conception to perfect fulfillment at a single stroke. Beethoven didn't "experiment"; he discovered new territory and claimed it uncontested.
> 
> I would imagine that the unprepared minds of the audience at the premiere of these two works - first heard at the same famous evening-long concert - experienced some serious boggling. But then, it was the sort of thing that Beethoven accomplished again and again.


True enough but I think the kind of differences that you are describing are part and parcel of Romanticism. But I hope we are not going to move on to an argument about whether Classicism is inferior to Romanticism!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> I think one can largely separate Beethoven into 3 phases - classical Beethoven, aggressive Beethoven, and the later chatty and rambling Beethoven, but largely the same compositional character and harmonic language runs through all of these works. There is perhaps one sub category that pieces like the Grosse Fugue and Hammerklavier fall into, (in terms of a differing harmonic language), but though these works are strong, original and have masterful elements to them, I don't see a good subtle and tasteful use of harmony being one of those attributes.


I'm not really wanting to engage with your whole post but was surprised by how you characterise middle-period Beethoven as "aggressive Beethoven". This is the period that included works like the Violin Concerto, the Pastoral and the first Rasumovsky Quartet? I'm not sure I would go along with characterising late Beethoven as "chatty", either. It makes me think that you are hearing very different things to me when I listen to Beethoven.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Ah, but I've studied Mahler's symphonies, as my analytical commentary on them has demonstrated in a number of threads on Mahler's music. I've done complete formal analyses of works by Mahler. So, I've done a considerable amount of work to comprehend Mahler. Do you think Mahler's Third's critical reception is comparable to that of Beethoven's late sonatas and quartets?


I wonder if this post fails the test you set up in your post #33 (where you suggest that a critic needs to get/understand a work before critiquing it)? It seems to me that it might be that your formal analysis of Mahler could have been undertaken prior to your "getting" Mahler? Or maybe we have to take that on trust?

For me, to "get" a composer means that the music talks to me, affects me. Of course, it could be that there is actually not much in music that has little affect on me but, in the case of widely loved composers, I have to think that it is me who is missing the point. I am incapable to undertaking (technical) critical analyses of musical works but have seen so many dodgy arguments about the worth of this or that composer based on applying technical arguments to music that the author just doesn't relate to.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven's sonatas are just as contrasting as his symphonies if not more so, and there's tremendous variety in his other chamber works as well.
> 
> I agree completely that Mozart was more innovative than he's sometimes given credit for. But it wasn't characteristic of composers in the Classical era to try to do something unprecedented and challenging with each work. There were both aesthetic and economic reasons for that. Haydn, secure in his employment by a sympathetic patron and isolated from the world, amused himself by trying new things, and the results still surprise and delight us, but his innovations were and are more amusing than disturbing. Mozart would have been even more original than he was had he not had to make a living. Beethoven, in the spirit of a new era and of his own cussedness, just went ahead and pleased himself, looked at a new composition as a new structure to be built from the ground up, repeatedly set the world on its ear, and turned out stuff that some people still can't come to terms with. I can't think of any precedent for that.


A FFF good post! Only with this one you can end this debate. Mozart was hunted. Beethoven was THE hunter!

Beethoven (was felling so powerful and secure) told once: I learned NOTHING from Haydn! (a BIG lie) Near the end of his life admitted that Haydn was a big teacher and inspiration to him... Mozart he was kissing pissed under wares to survive... Who knows what he had written if he had Beethoven's freedom.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> I think Mozart's last two symphonies are pretty different if you take the trouble to listen to them carefully. You are very right in that Mozart expanded the form of opera in so many ways he might be considered a revolutionary. He was enormously innovative. Of course, Beethoven was obviously more revolutionary but we mustn't overlook the advances Mozart made


People here only talk of how both composers' consecutive works contrast in character, but why not also talk about contrasting characters/forces in a single work, or movement? I think the slow movement of the masonic Symphony No.39 in E flat is remarkable in this regard, as it explores the classical concept of seeking balance and resolve between two contrasting forces in a level unprecedented by any other classical symphony slow movements at the time, anticipating early Romantic self-expression like Chopin Ballade No.2 in F.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder if this post fails the test you set up in your post #33 (where you suggest that a critic needs to get/understand a work before critiquing it)? It seems to me that it might be that your formal analysis of Mahler could have been undertaken prior to your "getting" Mahler? Or maybe we have to take that on trust?
> 
> For me, to "get" a composer means that the music talks to me, affects me. Of course, it could be that there is actually not much in music that has little affect on me but, in the case of widely loved composers, I have to think that it is me who is missing the point. I am incapable to undertaking (technical) critical analyses of musical works but have seen so many dodgy arguments about the worth of this or that composer based on applying technical arguments to music that the author just doesn't relate to.


The Mahler symphonies I spent the most time studying were the Fifth and the Sixth. I liked them and "got them" the first time I heard them, and wanted to analyze them to see what made them work. It was a labor of love. My problem with the Third is not a problem with Mahler, it is specific to that work.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> The Mahler symphonies I spent the most time studying were the Fifth and the Sixth. I liked them and "got them" the first time I heard them, and wanted to analyze them to see what made them work. It was a labor of love. My problem with the Third is not a problem with Mahler, it is specific to that work.


A problem I have had, too. In my case it was cured by Horenstein ... and, more recently, Jansons. It is funny how a blind spot can be cured by one performance that then opens up many of the other performances that were not working for me originally.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> A problem I have had, too. In my case it was cured by Horenstein ... and, more recently, Jansons. It is funny how a blind spot can be cured by one performance that then opens up many of the other performances that were not working for me originally.


There is then time yet for EdwardBast to appreciate Mahler's 3rd.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

To me the comparison is like this:

Mozart is like a sports car:









Beethoven is like a muscle car:









While the sports car is fun to drive, the muscle car is way more fun. And given the keys to both for a day, I would always go to the muscle car.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

stomanek said:


> There is then time yet for EdwardBast to appreciate Mahler's 3rd.


I heard the Horenstein performance. Conclusion: The first movement of Mahler 3 has several good passages. Had he thrown out the other 30 minutes and started over, it might have gone somewhere. I'm sure it is just a sign of a neurological disorder on my part, but I burst out laughing about five times because that movement is so silly. Needless to say, this condition of mine will make it impossible for me to ever again attend a live performance of the work. The one time I heard it live must have been a bad performance because I was only bored with that one. When done well and enthusiastically, as in the Horenstein recording, it has some really funny moments.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Fritz Kobus said:


> To me the comparison is like this:
> 
> Mozart is like a sports car:
> 
> ...


Here's Schubert:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

And here is the very shiny Mahler "Excess", _Bauchgeplatzt _edition. Often called the "Car of a Thousand" after the number of repairs typically required in the first year of ownership.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

That's just a small woman I think.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's the Dmitri Model XLK Anti-fascist Battlecar. A bit cobbed together and the seams are showing, but best not get in the way.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Here is Brahms (or more colloquially XM1 Abrams):


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The Bach _Kirchenauto_. The organ pipes are clearly visible, ready for a brilliantly improvised prelude and maybe even a fugue!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

For me...
Mozart = BMW
Beethoven = Mercedes-Benz
Both German luxury cars


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Haydn's symphonies, all lined up and ready to go. Too bad about the diesel thing.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

LOL!...........


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Well here's the Peter-Maxwell-Davies-symphonies-mobile. A jumble of badly formed ideas in a vehicle unfit for long (or short) distances. Fairweather transportation. The lack of side windows offers uncluttered views but invariably leave the passengers cold.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I think you can all figure out who this is.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Madam, I'm sure more people would pay to see you jump off the piano than to sing."


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

And who can forget the Mahler 3? Whilst many of the other Mahler models (apart from the Mahler 8 which had a terrible background rumble from far too many passengers and seats - 1000, I believe) were excellent this one was far too long. Shame, as parts of it are well-designed but it just needed to be (at least) three quarters of its original length. A trip in this model often makes me feel bored and uncomfortable and it's not a great drive to begin with. Thankfully the proceeding model was much shorter and way more interesting.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Improbus said:


> I think you can all figure out who this is.


It must be Philip Glass?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

stomanek said:


> That's not really happening though. Many listeners on here have as their no 1 and 2, M and B - it does stop us arguing about the relative merits of one over the other.


Agreed, but I've seem many discussions of Mozart vs Beethoven in the net that do not go so well.

The youtube video below is about some differences in the composing style of Beethoven and Mozart. I think that it's interesting, and didn't expect so much hatred for the composers on the commentaries section. The _1504Shawn_ commentary ("_Melody: Mozart, Harmony: Beethoven, Complexity: Mozart, Sonata: Beethoven, Concerto: Mozart, Symphony: Beethoven, Mass: Mozart, Opera: Mozart_﻿") for example looked promising for me to see a nice discussion about them, but unfortunately seemed to become a nest of haters that endless attack both composers.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Allerius said:


> Agreed, but I've seem many discussions of Mozart vs Beethoven in the net that do not go so well.
> 
> The youtube video below is about some differences in the composing style of Beethoven and Mozart. I think that it's interesting, and didn't expect so much hatred for the composers on the commentaries section. The _1504Shawn_ commentary ("_Melody: Mozart, Harmony: Beethoven, Complexity: Mozart, Sonata: Beethoven, Concerto: Mozart, Symphony: Beethoven, Mass: Mozart, Opera: Mozart_﻿") for example looked promising for me to see a nice discussion about them, but unfortunately seemed to become a nest of haters that endless attack both composers.


I appreciate this is only a short commentary but I dont like the way this guy talks about Mozart - the cliche of the perfect music has been done to death - every note in the right place - and of course only Beethoven can shock and surprise. Why did you choose K330 you jackass - listen to the 1st mvt of K332 - you never know what's going to happen next - its full of surprises, contrasts, stops and starts. There's much more diversity than this guy gives Mozart credit. Well I stopped at 5 minutes maybe it improved. I dont liike the way he plays either - I have seen diploma level students play better he seems to be labouring all the time.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

stomanek said:


> I appreciate this is only a short commentary but I dont like the way this guy talks about Mozart - the cliche of the perfect music has been done to death - every note in the right place - and of course only Beethoven can shock and surprise. Why did you choose K330 you jackass - listen to the 1st mvt of K332 - you never know what's going to happen next - its full of surprises, contrasts, stops and starts. There's much more diversity than this guy gives Mozart credit. Well I stopped at 5 minutes maybe it improved. I dont liike the way he plays either - I have seen diploma level students play better he seems to be labouring all the time.


Perhaps you're right. I think that Mozart's advances to music are a bit underrated. His use of the clarinet and what he did for the piano concerto genre for example are unprecedented, I suppose. He is much more than just a composer of perfect melodies in my opinion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Allerius said:


> Agreed, but I've seem many discussions of Mozart vs Beethoven in the net that do not go so well.
> 
> The youtube video below is about some differences in the composing style of Beethoven and Mozart. I think that it's interesting, and didn't expect so much hatred for the composers on the commentaries section. The _1504Shawn_ commentary ("_Melody: Mozart, Harmony: Beethoven, Complexity: Mozart, Sonata: Beethoven, Concerto: Mozart, Symphony: Beethoven, Mass: Mozart, Opera: Mozart_﻿") for example looked promising for me to see a nice discussion about them, but unfortunately seemed to become a nest of haters that endless attack both composers.


 This is really simplistic stuff making generalisations which are based on a few observations. If we started comparing the operas we would come to different conclusions. The fact was that Beethoven came up to Mozart and therefore built on what M had already done. So of course Beethoven developed the sonata form more than Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Allerius said:


> Perhaps you're right. I think that Mozart's advances to music are a bit underrated. His use of the clarinet and what he did for the piano concerto genre for example are unprecedented, I suppose. He is much more than just a composer of perfect melodies in my opinion.


I just think he had a narrative to tell and selected pieces on that basis. I mean - he just plays and then makes comments doesnt actually highlight anything. Saying everything is in the right place etc doesnt tell us much.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

It's a matter of personal preference, obviously. I would never argue that one is obviously greater than the other and I dearly love both composers.

But Chio mi scordi encapsulates much of what I find more in Mozart than any other composer, this epic drama of fluctuating emotion, subtle, deft, beautifully poised, but also full of human tenderness, far from cold:






Or listen to the first few minutes of Don Giovanni, an astounding, toe-tapping whirlwind of humour, irony, drama, pathos...Mozart when at his best is bursting with so many different ideas, painting so many different shades of emotion all at once. He may not be as stylistically varied as Beethoven but I find in him a greater variety and subtlety of feeling. Related to this may also be Mozart's sense of humour, the interplay between piano and orchestra in the concertos is often so witty (e.g. 1st movement of the Jeunehomme) that it never fails to put a smile on my face. Beethoven can be funny in places, like the Diabelli Variations, but there's not so much of that ever-present sparkle, that assured playfulness which Mozart always has. And Mozart's self-restraint and simplicity of form can give greater power of expression: the K.304 violin sonata is one of the saddest pieces I know in its unpretentious, sweet resignation...the minuet never fails to bring me to tears.

Just some ideas I guess, not very well formed.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DavidA said:


> This is really simplistic stuff making generalisations which are based on a few observations. If we started comparing the operas we would come to different conclusions. The fact was that Beethoven came up to Mozart and therefore built on what M had already done. So of course Beethoven developed the sonata form more than Mozart.


It's hard to find another pair of composers so different but yet so similar.
Whenever I listen to Mozart Fantasia in C minor K475, I'm always reminded of Beethoven Sonata in F minor Op.57 "Appassionata".
Whenever I listen to the first movement of Beethoven Op.10 No.1 Sonata in C minor, it reminds me of the third movement of Mozart's Sonata in C minor K457.
Whenever I listen to Mozart's Adagio and Fugue for String Orchestra K546 (or Fugue in C minor for two pianos K426), I remember the first movement of Beethoven's last Piano Sonata, Op.111 in C minor.
Whenever I listen to the third movement of Beethoven's Piano Concerto in C minor Op.37, I can't help but think of the fourth movement of Mozart's Serenade for Winds in C minor K388 (or String Quintet in C minor K406)
etc

They have a mutual bond so strong that you can prefer one over the other, but you can't hate one while loving the other. At least that's my view on these 'Classicals' of Viennese tradition.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> This is really simplistic stuff making generalisations which are based on a few observations. If we started comparing the operas we would come to different conclusions. The fact was that Beethoven came up to Mozart and therefore built on what M had already done. So of course Beethoven developed the sonata form more than Mozart.


Mozart enthusiasts often say this sort of thing, while failing to mention Haydn, who many believe was a bigger influence, CPE Bach, and a host of other composers. Moreover, describing what Beethoven did to transform sonata cycles (sonatas, quartets, symphonies) as building on Mozart makes it sound like his innovations were somehow genetically related to Mozart's style and a predictable outgrowth of it. In fact, no important innovation in Beethoven's sonata writing derives from Mozart.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's hard to find another pair of composers so different but yet so similar.
> Whenever I listen to Mozart Fantasia in C minor K475, I'm always reminded of Beethoven Sonata in F minor Op.57 "Appassionata".
> Whenever I listen to the first movement of Beethoven Op.10 No.1 Sonata in C minor, it reminds me of the third movement of Mozart's Sonata in C minor K457.
> Whenever I listen to Mozart's Adagio and Fugue for String Orchestra K546 (or Fugue in C minor for two pianos K426), I remember the first movement of Beethoven's last Piano Sonata, Op.111 in C minor.
> ...


There's no question that we can feel in these pieces you mention the influence Mozart had on Beethoven. I think that this is probably most explicitly found in Mozart's K464 string quartet, which influenced Beethoven's 5th string quartet, among other works, and of which Beethoven apparently said that it was Mozart's way of telling the world, "look what I could do for you, if only you were ready."


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Allerius said:


>


A commenter on youtube for this video compared both composers and wrote:

_Melody: Mozart
Harmony: Beethoven
Complexity: Mozart
Sonata: Beethoven
Concerto: Mozart
Symphony: Beethoven
Mass: Mozart
Opera: Mozart﻿_

Many people complained about his choice for overall complexity, and gave this to Beethoven.

Since that this is a Mozart vs Beethoven thread... what do you think?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Allerius said:


> A commenter on youtube for this video compared both composers and wrote:
> 
> _Melody: Mozart
> Harmony: Beethoven
> ...


I agree with the above except for complexity where I don't have any particular opinion.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Allerius said:


> A commenter on youtube for this video compared both composers and wrote:
> 
> _Melody: Mozart
> Harmony: Beethoven
> ...


I don't think complexity matters much to how great a composer is. That said, I don't think Mozart wrote anything more complex than the Grosse Fuge, the late Beethoven piano sonata, and the later string quartets.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I don't think complexity matters much to how great a composer is. That said, I don't think Mozart wrote anything more complex than the Grosse Fuge, the late Beethoven piano sonata, and the later string quartets.


Not sure I'd agree. There's a moving-score analysis on YouTube of the finale of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. It identifies each of the five main motifs and how they're intertwined and developed. And near the end of the movement, all five motifs are played simultaneously.

I'd say Mozart could match the best in complexity when he was in the mood.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Not sure I'd agree. There's a moving-score analysis on YouTube of the finale of Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. It identifies each of the five main motifs and how they're intertwined and developed. And near the end of the movement, all five motifs are played simultaneously.
> 
> I'd say Mozart could match the best in complexity when he was in the mood.


Yeah, I've seen that video actually, and it was very impressive. But Beethoven's contrapuntal writing I still think beats it out. Then again, I have no idea if more complexity in music is actually a good thing. I prefer many of Mozart's "simpler" pieces to Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, so I wouldn't say being more complex is an "honor" for either composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I don't think complexity matters much to how great a composer is. That said, I don't think Mozart wrote anything more complex than the Grosse Fuge, the late Beethoven piano sonata, and the later string quartets.


I think Fantasie for organ K608 



 is just as complex as late Beethoven, considering only a handful of composers after Bach really mastered writing double fugues.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think Fantasie for organ K608
> 
> 
> 
> is just as complex as late Beethoven, considering only a handful of composers after Bach really mastered writing double fugues.


Great performance.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think Fantasie for organ K608
> 
> 
> 
> is just as complex as late Beethoven, considering only a handful of composers after Bach really mastered writing double fugues.


Complexity isn't just a matter of how many notes or lines one can juggle. It's also a matter of how much territory a work can cover coherently and the interrelationships and large structures that hold its parts together. In that perspective, Mozart's baroquey pastiche with its French overture/fugal bookends and charming Classical sandwich filling (God, what a metaphorical pastiche!) is not a patch for complexity on Beethoven's late keyboard works, just as his symphonies don't compare in complexity with Beethoven's. It was complexity - structural and expressive - more than length that made the "Eroica" symphony revolutionary.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Allerius said:


> A commenter on youtube for this video compared both composers and wrote:
> 
> _Melody: Mozart
> Harmony: Beethoven
> ...


If we are talking numbers, I'm Ok. If about quality in every case a BIG no!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Complexity isn't just a matter of how many notes or lines one can juggle. It's also a matter of how much territory a work can cover coherently and the interrelationships and large structures that hold its parts together. In that perspective, Mozart's baroquey pastiche with its French overture/fugal bookends and charming Classical sandwich filling (God, what a metaphorical pastiche!) is not a patch for complexity on Beethoven's late keyboard works, just as his symphonies don't compare in complexity with Beethoven's. It was complexity - structural and expressive - more than length that made the "Eroica" symphony revolutionary.


If that's what you think. that's ok. I respect your opinion. I'm not saying Mozart is superior to Beethoven, I'm just saying he's a worthy predecessor to Beethoven and I feel he needs to be more respected in that regard.
"Beethoven had a copy of the piece (K608) and made his own version of the fugue section of the work," https://muswrite.blogspot.com/2013/09/mozart-fantasia-for-mechanical-clock.html
"It's therefore important to realize that Beethoven not only knew Mozart's fugue, but even made a copy of it in his own handwriting. *We must assume he was impressed by this work.*" https://unheardbeethoven.org/search.php?Identifier=hess37




"I think this is gorgeous music but if you hadn't told me I would never guess that it was Mozart" 
-Glenn Gould 






Dimace said:


> If we are talking numbers, I'm Ok. If about quality in every case a BIG no!


there are many great movements in the earlier ones as well, the expressive slow movements of 9th, 15th, 17th, 18th, the contrapuntal finale to 14th, 19th are superb


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Complexity isn't just a matter of how many notes or lines one can juggle. It's also a matter of how much territory a work can cover coherently and the interrelationships and large structures that hold its parts together. In that perspective, Mozart's baroquey pastiche with its French overture/fugal bookends and charming Classical sandwich filling (God, what a metaphorical pastiche!) is not a patch for complexity on Beethoven's late keyboard works, just as his symphonies don't compare in complexity with Beethoven's. It was complexity - structural and expressive - more than length that made the "Eroica" symphony revolutionary.


Listening to the 2nd mvt of the eroica - seems to me the most ambitious slow mvt composed to the date in which it appeared - covers an astonishing amount of ground and remains structurally secure. Yes I agree Mozart never composed anything to equal the complexity and range of this movement. But Beethoven in my view in his symphonies never matched this.

In the 18thC as I have pointed out before Mozart was the most complex composer alive at that time - the 1st mvts of the later sy notably the prague and no 41 are light years ahead of anything else being composed at the time, save Haydn of course. The first mvt of K467 has an introduction before the piano enters as long as the 1st mvt of some composer's entire 1st mvts. The 2nd mvt of K466 1st mvt of k515 k563 and many more - I dont think your characterisation of Mozart does him sufficient credit - not every work is like the "mozart by candlelight" pieces that are played in Vienna at inflated prices before gullible tourists.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Dimace said:


> If we are talking numbers, I'm Ok. If about quality in every case a BIG no!


Well that's not even up for debate. Beethoven's VC in my view is the greatest VC ever composed - but then Mozart never composed a mature VC as good as his early efforts are and I would not give up any one of K216,218 or k219 for Beethoven's despite its superiority.
For Beethoven we are left wit 5 piano concertos - 2 of which make the highest grade (4 and 5) (3 is an inferior homage to Mozart's c minor)
The Triple Concerto? An attractive work.

I honestly dont think you can compare this output with a dozen great piano concertos, clarinet concerto, 2 for flute, 4 for horn, sinfonia concertante, 5 violin concertos.

If you want numbers look to Vivaldi - he composed 100 violin concertos. and other unknown composers who composed by the bucketload all now forgotten


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

stomanek said:


> In the 18thC as I have pointed out before Mozart was the most complex composer alive at that time - the 1st mvts of the later sy notably the prague and no 41 are light years ahead of anything else being composed at the time,






_"The most breathtaking chromatic trip of all occurs in the final movement, which begins innocently enough, and isn't too eventful tonally throughout the whole exposition. But then, again comes the development section, and all hell breaks loose. 
Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? What an inspired idea.. all the notes except the tonic.
It could easily pass for twentieth-century music, if we didn't already know it was Mozart. 
But even that explosion of chromaticism is explainable in terms of the circle of fifths, not that I'd dream of burdening you with it. Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is classically contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor. 
And, again, believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."
_


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

What a great teacher Lenny was.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Listening to the 2nd mvt of the eroica - seems to me the most ambitious slow mvt composed to the date in which it appeared - covers an astonishing amount of ground and remains structurally secure. Yes I agree Mozart never composed anything to equal the complexity and range of this movement. But Beethoven in my view in his symphonies never matched this.
> 
> In the 18thC as I have pointed out before Mozart was the most complex composer alive at that time - the 1st mvts of the later sy notably the prague and no 41 are light years ahead of anything else being composed at the time, save Haydn of course. The first mvt of K467 has an introduction before the piano enters as long as the 1st mvt of some composer's entire 1st mvts. The 2nd mvt of K466 1st mvt of k515 k563 and many more - *I dont think your characterisation of Mozart does him sufficient credit - not every work is like the "mozart by candlelight" pieces that are played in Vienna at inflated prices before gullible tourists.*


I certainly never characterized Mozart in the silly way you describe. I was responding to a particular (incorrect) assertion that one of his organ pieces was comparable in complexity to late Beethoven, and I mentioned Beethoven's expansion of symphonic form by the way. I was tempted to cite the first movement of Mozart's "Prague" as possibly the richest symphonic movement before Beethoven, but didn't want to bog down the argument. I agree that now and again Mozart writes a movement exceptionally rich in material and of exceptional dimensions, but I do not agree that Beethoven's later symphonies never matched his "Eroica" in this respect. His 5th, for example, breaks new ground in the conception of a four-movement work as an integrated whole; its interrelationships and narrative trajectory make it a single piece to a degree that no Haydn or Mozart symphony is. That integration takes complexity to another level.

I hasten to add that complexity, by itself, is a limited virtue. It's really worthwhile only if it enriches meaning. In Beethoven (and Mozart too) it always does.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

jdec said:


> What a great teacher Lenny was.


When you hear a really great musician like bernstein talking about Mozart in this way, it really does make you wonder about what the nay-sayers are grumbling about! :lol:


----------

