# Is Beethoven over-hyped?



## Potiphera

*Is Beethoven overhyped?*

Is Beethoven overrated? 
Can anyone list piece by the great man that they dislike?

I am tired of his symphonies, but still love his piano concertos, and some of is late exquisite violin quartets. Though I really dislike his violin concerto.


----------



## Flamme




----------



## Sol Invictus

In regards to your first question, it depends on who you ask. Me personally, I don't listen to Beethoven all that often.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Don't care for the Violin Concerto or the "Emperor" Piano Concerto


----------



## Star

Potiphera said:


> Is *Beethoven overrated?*
> Can anyone list piece by the great man that they dislike?
> 
> I am tired of his symphonies, but still love his piano concertos, and some of is late exquisite violin quartets. Though I really dislike his violin concerto.


No never. Proud cannot overrate such genius


----------



## eugeneonagain

Beethoven was great, but he is a victim of his own popularity.

So many people come to classical music through Beethoven that he remains a favourite. His music provides many things to many people: not least the supposition that he represents the 'discerning person's genius of choice' and also represents music in the established classical tradition, but which has enough edge to it for the aficionado to just escape being the sort of listener who enjoys the mere entertainments of a Mozart. A sort of Mozart, but for _real_ men. (At least that's what they tell themselves).

I don't belong to the club who declares, with a deep sense of cultured ennui: "I'm now tired of Beethoven's 5th..." No, I think that symphony is still great in every way and will remain so. It stays fresh because I have never fetishised it.


----------



## amfortas

I avoid Beethoven and all other over-hyped composers.

Just give me Wagner.


----------



## Art Rock

Overrated is such an overrated word. To the many classical music lovers who love his music, his place in the eternal unchangeable big three is the way it should be. But there are also lots of classical music lovers who do not rate him that highly.

I love him for many works that after 30 years still are among my favourites (e.g. string quartets, piano sonatas, symphonies 5+6, violin concerto, piano concertos 3+4), but there are easily 20 composers I would overall prefer over LvB.

There are also many famous works that I've never really appreciated, including:

- Symphony 9
- Missa solemnis
- Cello sonatas
- Triple concerto
- Fidelio


----------



## isorhythm

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't belong to the club who declares, with a deep sense of cultured ennui: "I'm now tired of Beethoven's 5th..." No, I think that symphony is still great in every way and will remain so. It stays fresh because I have never fetishised it.


I don't think I fetishized it and I don't think I'm saying this with ennui, but the truth is I did listen to that symphony about ninety thousand times as a teenager and now I never want to hear it again (same with the seventh). It's my fault, not Beethoven's.


----------



## eugeneonagain

isorhythm said:


> I don't think I fetishized it and I don't think I'm saying this with ennui, *but the truth is I did listen to that symphony about ninety thousand times as a teenager* and now I never want to hear it again (same with the seventh). It's my fault, not Beethoven's.


You're right, ninety thousand listens in the space of about 7 years is nothing like fetishism...


----------



## Woodduck

No he isn't overhyped. Yes he is. I don't know. I don't care. Hero worship and iconoclasm are equally boring. All I'm certain of - as certain as one can be of such things - is that Beethoven produced a lot of music which is as great as any ever composed, the sort of music that just leaves me dumbfounded that anyone could ever have gone there - wherever "there" is - and come back to go there again and again.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> Beethoven was great, but he is a victim of his own popularity.
> 
> So many people come to classical music through Beethoven that he remains a favourite. His music provides many things to many people: not least the supposition that he represents the 'discerning person's genius of choice' and also represents music in the established classical tradition, but which has enough edge to it for the aficionado to just escape being the sort of listener who enjoys the mere entertainments of a Mozart. A sort of Mozart, but for _real_ men. (At least that's what they tell themselves).
> 
> I don't belong to the club who declares, with a deep sense of cultured ennui: "I'm now tired of Beethoven's 5th..." No, I think that symphony is still great in every way and will remain so. It stays fresh because I have never fetishised it.


I think I keep Beethoven fresh by listening to other composers and not just him. I also like Haydn, Mozart, Bach and others.


----------



## arnerich

Whether Beethoven is overhyped, overrated or overblown overindulging in his oeuvre can be overkill. Except his overtures which over and above overcomes the overpowering overpraise. Roll over Beethoven.


----------



## Bulldog

Art Rock said:


> There are also many famous works that I've never really appreciated, including:
> 
> - Symphony 9
> - Missa solemnis
> - Cello sonatas
> - Triple concerto
> - Fidelio


I love the cello sonatas, but they didn't open up for me until I heard them on period instruments (Coin/Cohen/Harmonia Mundi)


----------



## Ariasexta

I used to sleep to his string quartets during my 8th grade year, I loved his string music but he seemed paled to Mozart in symphonies. His music is not bad, a lot of warmth and ideas, he is a great musician. It is true that I never buy his music CD, but I surely want to in the future, but never piano and choral music, piano is the enemy, no choral music after Mozart, string quartet only.


----------



## Balthazar

Potiphera said:


> Is Beethoven overrated?












The OP makes no mention of the piano sonatas, which I find to be the most richly varied and perennially rewarding part of his oeuvre.


----------



## isorhythm

eugeneonagain said:


> You're right, ninety thousand listens in the space of about 7 years is nothing like fetishism...


To me "fetishism" implies some kind of meta-musical and unhealthy reverence, rather than just listening to something on repeat (the way you might a catchy pop song). But point taken.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Balthazar said:


> The OP makes no mention of the piano sonatas, which I find to be the most richly varied and perennially rewarding part of his oeuvre.


Agreed, closely followed by the string quartets. I might add that there's a huge amount of variety and reward to be found in the symphonies, too. A magnificent composer.


----------



## Jacred

If Beethoven is overrated, then I suppose the whole of classical music should be deemed overrated as well! :lol:

It is normal (inevitable, I'd argue, unless there really is some fetishism going on) to dislike some works by a certain composer and still hold him in high regard.


----------



## Haydn man

I share the view that Beethoven is not overrated.
If all he had written were symphonies and concertos he would still be seen as great. Add in all the chamber music and his place amongst the gods is assured


----------



## Phil loves classical

I agree Beethoven can’t be overrated, unless we overrate our opinions. I had a friend who wanted to show how much he knew of music by saying he was. We aren’t friends anymore.


----------



## Woodduck

I would rather be with someone who will risk overrating something than someone who needs to talk about something being overrated.


----------



## mbhaub

No, he isn't overrated, but over played. What a musical giant he was. The fertility of thought, the power, the beauty - what a master. It was for good reason that 19th c. composers felt threatened by his legacy and that they would never be able to match him. As a bassoon player, every time I rehearse or play any of the symphonies, concertos, overtures I'm just blown away at how great it is. Beethoven isn't tedious or annoying to play - which can't be said of a lot of others. He was so influential in the 19th c there were orchestras formed for the sole purpose of playing his music. But like every composer he had his duds. I've never cared for the Christ on the Mount of Olives and with Wellington's Victory he hit rock bottom.


----------



## Manxfeeder

mbhaub said:


> I've never cared for the Christ on the Mount of Olives and with Wellington's Victory he hit rock bottom.


Yep. Charles Rosen said about Christ on the Mount of Olives, "It is unique in Beethoven's output for its total lack of interest: it almost never rises above the merely competent or falls below it." He also says of Wellington's Victory, "It is so frankly a potboiler that shame would have been of little comfort, and Beethoven, reproached for it during his lifetime, indignantly put the best possible face on it."


----------



## KenOC

There is one other Beethoven work that is said to be quite bad - so bad that I have never listened to it: _Der glorreiche Augenblick_ (The Glorious Moment), cantata for four solo voices, chorus and orchestra Op. 136 (1814). Written one year after his _Wellington's Victory_.


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> As a bassoon player, every time I rehearse or play any of the symphonies, concertos, overtures I'm just blown away at how great it is. Beethoven isn't tedious or annoying to play -


absolutely - as a bassoonist, I always loved playing the Beethoven symphonies, overtures, and the chamber music [6tet, 8tet!! top notch stuff ] LvB wrote great bassoon parts...

I've played Beethoven Sym #5 more than any other symphony, but I'm still not tired of it...it is always fun to play....same with all of them - when you get to #4, that's a real adventure, quite a challenge to do well, but so worth it. #2 is wonderful to play also, kind of under-rated, IMO....neat piece - beautiful slow mvt...exquisite woodwind writing.


----------



## MarkW

No. .


----------



## eugeneonagain

Playing any composer's work is often a different experience than passive listening. Hindemith wrote some works that sound a bit dull when merely listening, but when you have the music in front of you and you're playing it you notice all the marvellous structure. I'm thinking in particular of his Kanonische Sonatine, which I didn't think much of at first listen, but after having a go at playing it and studying it for performance, you appreciate it more.


----------



## bharbeke

KenOC said:


> There is one other Beethoven work that is said to be quite bad - so bad that I have never listened to it: _Der glorreiche Augenblick_ (The Glorious Moment), cantata for four solo voices, chorus and orchestra Op. 136 (1814). Written one year after his _Wellington's Victory_.


Ken, I don't recall which version I heard (probably from a Complete Beethoven volume), but these are the parts of Op. 136 that I noted as highlights:

"O Himmel, welch Entzucken!"/"Alle die Herrscher darf ich grussen"


----------



## KenOC

bharbeke said:


> Ken, I don't recall which version I heard (probably from a Complete Beethoven volume), but these are the parts of Op. 136 that I noted as highlights:
> 
> "O Himmel, welch Entzucken!"/"Alle die Herrscher darf ich grussen"


Thanks for that! I'll gird up my loins (once I figure out what that means) and give it a listen! 

(I have it on the complete Brilliant box, which I bought at the mistaken original price of thirty bucks, chortle chortle...)


----------



## Etherealz

I think classical music is the only genre that has perfectly rated musicians, all are geniuses, one more than the other. But very gifted. Beethoven's work is really fascinating.


----------



## Pugg

Overrated is when one seeing someone starting a thread about it.


----------



## spectral

The first question cannot be answered satisfactorily because it requires that there be a universal artistic taste which there cannot be.

It is the discussion equivalent of dividing by zero.

The question concerning individuals' dislike of specific pieces is answerable.

Generally, my impression of Beethoven's music is that I'm much more likely to run into a performance I dislike rather than a composition I dislike. That said, I don't like them all equally nor have I heard them all. I may be the only person on Earth who has been listening to classical music heavily for decades and yet have never listened to all of his symphonies. I spend most of my attention on keyboard-related music. Now that I think of it, I'm not keen on Ode to Joy.


----------



## KenOC

Is Beethoven over-hyped? Most likely yes, now that musicologists have determined that he faked his deafness and paid others to write his best-known works. Like that Japanese guy, in fact.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...sed-fraud-hired-ghostwriter-article-1.1605189


----------



## DavidA

amfortas said:


> I avoid Beethoven and all other over-hyped composers.
> 
> Just give me Wagner.


"We are talking about Beethoven! Before such a name we all prostrate ourselves reverently." (Giuseppe Verdi)

He would have been interested to know he was wrong!


----------



## Enthusiast

I've been bored of these or those Beethoven works many times but that was probably from overplaying them. I've always ended up coming back to them and loving them just as much or more. The symphonies, quartets, piano sonatas, concertos ... are as great as any music I know. Apart from anything else there is just so much to find in them, so many different ways of playing them. I can't begin to understand how he made so much music that is so wonderful. I feel the same about Mozart and Bach and a few others.


----------



## Nicksievers

No I don't think he is overhyped by the musically educated. Perhaps in the general public but only because they know his name but know almost none of his music. Imo creatures of prometheus is very underrated and the work has some brilliant orchestral textures that he was unable to explore in his symphonic works. I think when it comes to keyboard music no one had pushed the envelope as far as Beethoven. Much of it is subtle change to be sure (when comparing to what Chopin or Debussy did to piano music). However the textures he creates I think are genius. Take a listen through sonata no. 7. The way he uses silence is so effective and his textures are pure genius.


----------



## Nicksievers

I agree. I think among the musically educated, the perfect merit has been given to almost all composers. Beethoven is a big deal for a reason. However unfortunately there are many who were geniuses in their own right who history has forgotten. Take Hummel's piano music for example. Not well known except among some circles but his craft is extraordinary.


----------



## mbhaub

Heck148 said:


> absolutely - as a bassoonist, I always loved playing the Beethoven symphonies, overtures, and the chamber music [6tet, 8tet!! top notch stuff ] LvB wrote great bassoon parts...
> 
> I've played Beethoven Sym #5 more than any other symphony, but I'm still not tired of it...it is always fun to play....same with all of them - when you get to #4, that's a real adventure, quite a challenge to do well, but so worth it. #2 is wonderful to play also, kind of under-rated, IMO....neat piece - beautiful slow mvt...exquisite woodwind writing.


You're right - 5 is fun to play. I've played all three parts and the contra part is a joy to play, despite being devilishly difficult. I've played 8 of the 9; I've steered clear of 4 for reasons only bassoonists understand.


----------



## KenOC

I'm not an instrumentalist, but noticed on hearing the Leibowitz version of Beethoven's 4th that the woodwind writing was quite virtuosic. Challenging, I'd bet! Now I always listen to it with that in mind.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Beethoven is the best!


----------



## PlaySalieri

No he's not overrated - and I say that as a Mozart fanatic.

The best symphonies, vc, and various other works are as good as it gets in classical music.


----------



## Simon Moon

spectral said:


> The first question cannot be answered satisfactorily because it requires that there be a universal artistic taste which there cannot be.
> 
> It is the discussion equivalent of dividing by zero.
> 
> The question concerning individuals' dislike of specific pieces is answerable.


I agree with this completely.

When it comes to art, which is almost completely subjective, the terms "overrated" and "underrated" do not even make sense.

You are in effect, stating, that since you don't like artist X as much as many people seem to, said artist must be overrated. No, it is much simpler, you just don't like artist X as much as others seem to.


----------



## mmsbls

Personally, I don't think any composer is overrated. Beethoven, for me, is second only to Mozart, and I adore every work of his I've heard. I will say I've never listened to Wellington's Victory.

One argument some make is that famous works overly dominate concert (or other performance) repertoire. If the same works are repeatedly performed, other interesting works are rarely, if ever, played. I can understand some wishing that the emphasis on Beethoven and other well-known (and loved) composers would be tempered such that other quality works could be heard more often or even once.


----------



## AfterHours

No, he is a rare case when the hype meets reality. It is not hyperbole to claim he is the greatest artist who ever lived. Michelangelo might have been, had he been more prolific, but alas, he chose awfully time consuming art to work on. Not that this should be held against him (the results speak for themselves) but if it comes to comparing the two it is difficult to ignore the staggering number of masterpieces and assorted amazing works that Beethoven composed (with Bach and Mozart not far behind).


----------



## tdc

When people claim that Beethoven is the greatest artist or even the greatest composer of all time, then I think they are over rating him, according to my tastes anyway. I still think he was a great composer and a genius I just don't hear what other people are hearing when I hear all this "greatest" talk especially when it comes to his orchestral works, which don't seem _that_ great to my tastes. His piano sonatas and chamber works are mostly excellent.

To me he is clearly a top 5 composer for his innovation and impact on music, but a good step down from that top stop.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Beethoven and Mozart were great architects/designers in music. They frame a room, continue to another room, and go back and furnish the rooms, and joins them together, and builds a roof over them. Bach is different, in that he details and forms the same time, due to the difference in forms. Stravinsky, also a great architect in music, presents a room, demolishes it, and forms another where the old one was, or overlays the rooms and somehow they hold.


----------



## Larkenfield

I admire the _man_ as well as the music. In that sense, he's a one-of-a-kind and a tremendous inspiration because of his unprecedented deafness at the time and his indomitable will to overcome the loss and suffering that was so very much a part of it. I believe that combination of genius and catastrophe captured the imagination of the world and is still going strong after 200 years. There's a huge difference between "hype" and the public's genuine interest in Beethoven's life. Whether one cares about his music or not, he's perhaps the most discussed composer in the world, including Bach and Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> *I admire the man as well as the music.* In that sense, he's a one-of-a-kind and a tremendous inspiration because of his unprecedented deafness at the time and his indomitable will to overcome the loss and suffering that was so very much a part of it. I believe that combination of genius and catastrophe captured the imagination of the world and is still deservedly going strong after 200 years. It's not his fault if some listeners are playing him to death and then grow tired of him.


I admire the man's determination which made him overcome his deafness. Unfortunately there were aspects of his life that were far less admirable, like the way he treated people around him. As to the music? Some of the greatest ever! Playing Beethoven over and over does not diminish my love for his music. Same with Bach, Mozart, etc


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

..........cancelled.........


----------



## mmsbls

Haydn67 said:


> Agree, athough I imagine some of his fans probably feel we "just don't get it".


Sure, but that's true of any composer one doesn't enjoy. We have differing tastes and some may not like Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, Boulez, or others.


----------



## ToneDeaf&Senile

As Beethoven is my musical ideal, I can't consider his music as being over-hyped. I suspect that with any acknowledged "great" composer whose music we are not quite in full sympathy with, an argument can be made that that music is over-hyped. To each his or her own.


----------



## Star

I think it's impossible to argue that one composer is 'the greatest'. Depends what you are looking for. It might be argued that Mozart is the greatest because he mastered just about every form. However, Bach might have produced the greatest work ever in the St Matthew Passion? Or is that Handel in Messiah? But Beethoven would certainly rank as one of the very greatest. Astonishing genius!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Please pardon...Not a good day;not firing on all fours.


----------



## Lenny

This is a FAQ. Answer: No.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Unlike other composers, I enjoy the fact that each piece by Beethoven in his mid-later seem to have a unique voice. The same can probably be said about Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck

Captainnumber36 said:


> Unlike other composers, I enjoy the fact that each piece by Beethoven in his mid-later seem to have a unique voice. The same can probably be said about Mozart.


Not to the same degree. Beethoven was possibly the most _questing_ of all composers, always breaking new ground. Without hindsight, it would be impossible to believe his early and late works to be by the same person, and the variety among his piano sonatas alone is mind-boggling. He was always setting himself new problems and solving them brilliantly.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> Not to the same degree. Beethoven was possibly the most _questing_ of all composers, always breaking new ground. Without hindsight, it would be impossible to believe his early and late works to be by the same person, and the variety among his piano sonatas alone is mind-boggling. He was always setting himself new problems and solving them brilliantly.


You may or may not be right about "not to the same degree", I don't know. It's hard to imagine the author or Orgelbuchlein is the same person as the author of the Leipzig Chorales: Bach was also always setting himself new problems and solving them brilliantly. I would say similar things about Nono and Cage and Stockhausen. Someone who knows about 18th and 19th century music would, I bet, say similar things about Haydn and Liszt, and maybe Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> You may or may not be right about "not to the same degree", I don't know. It's hard to imagine the author or Orgelbuchlein is the same person as the author of the Leipzig Chorales: Bach was also always setting himself new problems and solving them brilliantly. I would say similar things about Nono and Cage and Stockhausen. Someone who knows about 18th and 19th century music would, I bet, say similar things about Haydn and Liszt, and maybe Mozart.


Things like this are hard to prove. Many composers, especially since the modernist period, have been experimental. But just doing things differently is no great achievement (especially once it became permissible to produce any kind of stunt and call it art). Beethoven seems to me to have not only expanded the aesthetics of music - the sense of what music can say and how it can sound - again and again, but to have done so in the form of finished masterpieces that don't sound like experiments but like culminations.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> Things like this are hard to prove. Many composers, especially since the modernist period, have been experimental. But just doing things differently is no great achievement (especially once it became permissible to produce any kind of stunt and call it art). Beethoven seems to me to have not only expanded the aesthetics of music - the sense of what music can say and how it can sound - again and again, but to have done so in the form of finished masterpieces that don't sound like experiments but like culminations.


Yes, he's clearly a great great composer, and I fully understand your point of view. Happy Christmas, by the way!


----------



## Alydon

To answer the question which seems very similar to lots of other threads (especially on Beethoven and Mozart) no, Beethoven isn't overrated as only a thing which is either fake or not true can be overrated and Beethoven certainly doesn't fall into either of those categories.
As to Beethoven's music there's a piece for everyday and every mood of the year, and sometimes I want the piano sonatas and next month binge out on a load of historic symphony recordings. As Beethoven is forever fascinating in terms of culture, western art and sheer human achievement there isn't a work I dislike as the whole of Beethoven's output is the sum of the man and each and every work leads to a complete understanding of him.


----------



## snowyflow

eugeneonagain said:


> ...His music...has enough edge to it for the aficionado to just escape being the sort of listener who enjoys the mere entertainments of a Mozart...


Agreed. Take his symphonies, which carry indisputable weight in establishing Beethoven's position in Western music history, definitely have much more "edge" than Mozart. His nine symphonies, overall, constantly seeks new ground, not only on form, but also demonstrate a transition of focus from classic artistry of form to romantic expression of individual emotions. To me, he wrote far less number of symphonies than Mozart, but produced far more variety and depth.


----------



## st Omer

"Is Beethoven over hyped?" That is the thread question. If he is then I guess Bach and Mozart are over hyped as well, and Michelangelo, Da Vinci. and Rembrandt in the visual arts, and Shakespeare and Tolstoy in literature. 

It seems like a question posed to provoke discussion and not one to seriously contemplate. If the question had been, "Is Vivaldi over hyped by superficial rich yuppies?", then I might take it seriously. I think Vivaldi is fine but he doesn't rate the love he gets from casual classical music fans. Another good question would be, "Was John Cage a serious composer or just a talented con man who was the world's foremost authority on mushrooms?"


----------



## KenOC

I doubt anybody around here could overhype Beethoven. That would take a genius of historical magnitude.


----------



## Mandryka

KenOC said:


> I doubt anybody around here could overhype Beethoven. That would take a genius of historical magnitude.


There's a very good book on Beethoven hype which, given that you like his music, I think you'd enjoy. It's called "The Changing Image of Beethoven: A Study in Mythmaking" by Alessandra Comini.


----------



## eugeneonagain

snowyflow said:


> Agreed. Take his symphonies, which carry indisputable weight in establishing Beethoven's position in Western music history, definitely have much more "edge" than Mozart. His nine symphonies, overall, constantly seeks new ground, not only on form, but also demonstrate a transition of focus from classic artistry of form to romantic expression of individual emotions. To me, he wrote far less number of symphonies than Mozart, but produced far more variety and depth.


I meant something different. More like Beethoven's longer life, and ability to take part in the new artistic environment of the early romantics, enabled him to build on the sort of symphonies Mozart was already writing at the end of his life. In that respect Beethoven is favoured by those who seek to escape being tarnished as listeners of 'Mozartian trifles'. They are misguided.


----------



## Larkenfield

Is Beethoven over-hyped? No... he’s under-miked!


----------



## Serendipitous

The problem with this discussion, I think, is the use of the word "over-hyped". What Beethoven meant to the history of classical music, to music in general, cannot be "over-hyped". He fully earned his place in history.

His music, however, was written 200 years ago. It has been performed innumerable times, recorded innumerable times, listened to by many innumerable times. I think it obvious that some listening fatigue would set in with some. Also, those that prefer the music of the 20th and 21st centuries would hear it differently. 

But... none of that makes him "over-hyped". What he means to music is etched forever in history. The word "over-hyped" in connection with him seems unfair to me.


----------



## DaveM

Serendipitous said:


> The problem with this discussion, I think, is the use of the word "over-hyped". What Beethoven meant to the history of classical music, to music in general, cannot be "over-hyped". He fully earned his place in history.
> 
> His music, however, was written 200 years ago. It has been performed innumerable times, recorded innumerable times, listened to by many innumerable times. I think it obvious that some listening fatigue would set in with some. Also, those that prefer the music of the 20th and 21st centuries would hear it differently.


I understand what you're saying, but keep in mind that for the new/young listener, Beethoven is just as new regardless of how along ago the music was composed. And the music will be just as fresh as modern music. Personal persuasion will still determine which is preferred if indeed there is a preference.


----------



## DavidA

Serendipitous said:


> The problem with this discussion, I think, is the use of the word "over-hyped". What Beethoven meant to the history of classical music, to music in general, cannot be "over-hyped". He fully earned his place in history.
> 
> His music, however, was written 200 years ago. It has been performed innumerable times, recorded innumerable times, listened to by many innumerable times. *I think it obvious that some listening fatigue would set in with some. *Also, those that prefer the music of the 20th and 21st centuries would hear it differently.
> 
> But... none of that makes him "over-hyped". What he means to music is etched forever in history. The word "over-hyped" in connection with him seems unfair to me.


Well I would say listen to someone else for a time. I can't understand this 'listening fatigue'. I have a very catholic collection of music on record which I listen to and vary quite regularly. This is our privilege as 21st century people. I admit contemporary composers are not top of the list though.


----------



## tdc

To me the answer is yes in some ways and no in others. I think Beethoven deserves to be looked at as among the greatest composers and he obviously made a very big impact on music. He was a musical genius and very influential.

On the other hand I do come across instances where people insist such and such a Beethoven work is 'the most important piece of music ever composed', or 'Beethoven's impact on the development of Western music cannot be over estimated'. I disagree with those statements. I don't think any of his compositions were more important than the major works of the greatest composers that preceded him and I think Beethoven's impact on music _is_ often over estimated as though he practically invented music as we know it, foresaw every future development and every subsequent piece of music that was composed is because of his musical breakthroughs. It is in this sense I think he is often over hyped.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> To me the answer is yes in some ways and no in others. I think Beethoven deserves to be looked at as among the greatest composers and he obviously made a very big impact on music. He was a musical genius and very influential.
> 
> On the other hand I do come across instances where people insist such and such a Beethoven work is *'the most important piece of music ever composed'*, or *'Beethoven's impact on the development of Western music cannot be over estimated'*. I disagree with those statements. *I don't think any of his compositions were more important than the major works of the greatest composers that preceded him and I think Beethoven's impact on music is often over estimated as though he practically invented music as we know it, foresaw every future development and every subsequent piece of music that was composed is because of his musical breakthroughs. It is in this sense I think he is often over hyped.*


Musically knowledgeable people don't make such careless, extravagant claims. Beethoven is "over-hyped" only by the less knowledgeable, who rely partly on cultural cliches and received opinion, or by people with something to sell. Bach, Mozart and Wagner (and occasionally others) are also over-hyped in this way. I take no offense at any of this over-hyping, since - paradoxically - the less knowledgeable may not appreciate the full greatness of the composers they praise any more than they see their defects. It isn't easy to say why music is great, even if we know it when we hear it, and it's tempting to fall back on easy, culturally approved superlatives. That said, I concur that the best works of the above (and some other) composers are impossible to overpraise. But no composer wrote nothing but best works.

Probably the only significant misfortune of the over-hyping of one thing is the resultant neglect of another. There are probably no forgotten Bachs and Beethovens moldering in damp library basements, but there are Zelenkas and Hummels whose works are sadly underplayed.


----------



## MarkW

G. B. Shaw, whose Beethoven worship knew few bounds. wrote an appreciation in the 20s in which he posited that during all of the English hatred for Germans during the Great War, the one name that was never mentioned was that of Beethoven. Because if a British soldier facing a German counterpart across No Man's Land were for one instant to think that the man he was about to kill were another Beethoven he'd hesitate just long enough that the possible Beethoven would shoot him. So, by unspoken agreement it was assumed that Beethoven belonged to the world.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Serendipitous said:


> The problem with this discussion, I think, is the use of the word "over-hyped". What Beethoven meant to the history of classical music, to music in general, cannot be "over-hyped". He fully earned his place in history.
> 
> His music, however, was written 200 years ago. It has been performed innumerable times, recorded innumerable times, listened to by many innumerable times. I think it obvious that some listening fatigue would set in with some. Also, those that prefer the music of the 20th and 21st centuries would hear it differently.
> 
> But... none of that makes him "over-hyped". What he means to music is etched forever in history. The word "over-hyped" in connection with him seems unfair to me.


That is the way I see it. His contribution, Bach and Haydn's to common-practice music can't be over-hyped, he is a major artery. But his influence is more limited on 20th century modern music practices, since they run on a different vein. He would be heard not much differently than Haydn, who was more instrumental in the development if the form.


----------



## Serendipitous

DavidA said:


> Well I would say listen to someone else for a time. I can't understand this 'listening fatigue'. I have a very catholic collection of music on record which I listen to and vary quite regularly. This is our privilege as 21st century people. I admit contemporary composers are not top of the list though.


I was careful to say that listening fatigue would set in with "some", which might lead to the genesis of a conversation of this type. Obviously music from all eras can still be enjoyed, revered even. I have some preference for late Romantic and early to mid-20th century for my listening, but my preferences would never relegate those of somewhat earlier times to the category of over-hyped.


----------



## KenOC

Mandryka said:


> There's a very good book on Beethoven hype which, given that you like his music, I think you'd enjoy. It's called "The Changing Image of Beethoven: A Study in Mythmaking" by Alessandra Comini.


Thanks. At $50 for the paperback, I'll give it a pass until that big Lotto win that's coming up. Certainly Beethoven was complicit in making the "Beethoven myth," honestly believing in his own unparalleled genius and heroic greatness. The real question is, was he wrong?


----------



## Phil loves classical

KenOC said:


> Thanks. At $50 for the paperback, I'll give it a pass until that big Lotto win that's coming up. Certainly Beethoven was complicit in making the "Beethoven myth," honestly believing in his own unparalleled genius and heroic greatness. The real question is, was he wrong?


I think he overhyped himself into some sort of Demi-God. But we underlings have hyped him above us appropriately.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

KenOC said:


> Thanks. At $50 for the paperback, I'll give it a pass until that big Lotto win that's coming up. Certainly Beethoven was complicit in making the "Beethoven myth," honestly believing in his own unparalleled genius and heroic greatness. The real question is, was he wrong?


That book might be over hyped a few sellers want over 1000 for it new.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Thanks. At $50 for the paperback, I'll give it a pass until that big Lotto win that's coming up. Certainly Beethoven was complicit in making the "Beethoven myth," honestly believing in his own unparalleled genius and heroic greatness. The real question is, was he wrong?


You just hit the numbers; there's a used paperback on Amazon for $19.97.


----------



## Woodduck

What's the evidence that Beethoven "hyped himself"? What does that mean?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> What's the evidence that Beethoven "hyped himself"? What does that mean?


I'm just finishing up Lewis Lockwood's _Beethoven's Symphonies: An Artistic Vision_, which made me think about that. It's chock full of quotes where Beethoven assumes his near-divinity. To a princely sponsor: "What you are, you are by accident of birth. What I am, I am by my own nature." To a fellow musician: "That is not music for you, but for a future generation." (both from memory) In other words, don't even bother to talk to me, plebe.

My problem with these seemingly objectionable statements is, it's difficult to say Beethoven was wrong! In any event, I don't recommend Lockwood's book. If you want a book on the symphonies, get Sir George Grove's.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Woodduck said:


> What's the evidence that Beethoven "hyped himself"? What does that mean?


I get the impression Beethoven saw himself as a prophet in the religion of Music ( "Here I am talking to my God, and you expect me to be concerned with your miserable violin?!")

it seems he was fanciful to believe in humans approaching the devine. Hence his disappointment in Napeoplean's tyranny
"So he is no more than a common mortal! "

He seemed to me that he became his own tool to reaching the devine, by making fanciful quotes or propaganda
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."
"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend."

That is my take.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> I'm just finishing up Lewis Lockwood's _Beethoven's Symphonies: An Artistic Vision_, which made me think about that. It's chock full of quotes where Beethoven assumes his near-divinity. To a princely sponsor: "*What you are, you are by accident of birth. What I am, I am by my own nature*." To a fellow musician: "That is not music for you, but for a future generation." (both from memory) In other words, don't even bother to talk to me, plebe.
> 
> My problem with these seemingly objectionable statements is, it's difficult to say Beethoven was wrong! In any event, I don't recommend Lockwood's book. If you want a book on the symphonies, get Sir George Grove's.


In that same quote, Beethoven continued: "There are many princes and there will continue to be thousands more, but there is only one Beethoven."


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> I'm just finishing up Lewis Lockwood's _Beethoven's Symphonies: An Artistic Vision_, which made me think about that. It's chock full of quotes where Beethoven assumes his near-divinity. To a princely sponsor: "What you are, you are by accident of birth. What I am, I am by my own nature." To a fellow musician: "That is not music for you, but for a future generation." (both from memory) In other words, don't even bother to talk to me, plebe.
> 
> My problem with these seemingly objectionable statements is, it's difficult to say Beethoven was wrong! In any event, I don't recommend Lockwood's book. If you want a book on the symphonies, get Sir George Grove's.


I don't find those statements the least bit objectionable. He was right to stick it to the aristocracy. And he wasn't saying "don't even bother to talk to me, plebe," he was saying he wasn't writing down to the skills of lazy and unimaginative players. He was absolutely right and was proved so: Twenty years hence if one couldn't play Beethoven, one wasn't good enough.


----------



## Star

jdec said:


> In that same quote, Beethoven continued: "There are many princes and there will continue to be thousands more, but there is only one Beethoven."


Didn't make him above taking their money though!


----------



## Star

Phil loves classical said:


> I get the impression Beethoven saw himself as a prophet in the religion of Music ( "Here I am talking to my God, and you expect me to be concerned with your miserable violin?!")
> 
> it seems he was fanciful to believe in humans approaching the devine. Hence his disappointment in Napeoplean's tyranny
> "So he is no more than a common mortal! "
> 
> He seemed to me that he became his own tool to reaching the devine, by making fanciful quotes or propaganda
> "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."
> "Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend."
> 
> That is my take.


It's probable that Beethoven suffered from BPD (not the only composer to do so) and this type of self aggrandisement was an expression of it.


----------



## EdwardBast

Star said:


> Didn't make him above taking their money though!


Why would he be "above" taking it? One would think he would be proud to relieve the parasites of their money! More of a sacred duty than something to stoop to.


----------



## Star

EdwardBast said:


> Why would he be "above" taking it? One would think he would be proud to relieve the parasites of their money! More of a sacred duty than something to stoop to.


He would no doubt have seen it like that. He wasn't above double dealing his publishers either!


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I love Beethoven. I've gone through phases where I might listen to him a bit too often, and phases where I won't at all. Beethoven is like a shirt you really like. If you put it on too much you'll wear it out. Give some other composers a good listen. I've spent the last handful of years trying to listen to people I might not have given a good chance. Sure, I put on the 9th once in a while and get swept up in the emotions of that piece, but there's always another Hummel or Gluck piece my ears could discover.


----------



## Genoveva

I don't believe that Beethoven is over-hyped. Anyone who thinks that he is over-hyped is merely saying they disagree with the majority opinion held down the ages that he is a top drawer composer. People are obviously entitled to disagree with the majority opinion but it wont change the facts.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Genoveva said:


> I don't believe that Beethoven is over-hyped. Anyone who thinks that he is over-hyped is merely saying they disagree with the majority opinion held down the ages that he is a top drawer composer. People are obviously entitled to disagree with the majority opinion but it wont change the facts.


This is a rather spurious argument: that if a lot of people think something, then it is obviously an objective fact.

I happen to think Beethoven is great and I don't much care if everyone else changes their mind tomorrow. I am not relying on the aggregate numbers of fellow Beethoven supporters (though no doubt their enthusiasm kept his work alive long enough for me to encounter it).

People who say he is over-hyped seem to me to be reacting to notions like: 'The big 3' and 'greatest, most innovative genius' and all the other aesthetic opinion.
There are going to be some people who really don't like Beethoven and others who think he's just 'okay'. I don't believe these people are ignorant of an _'objective fact'_.


----------



## Genoveva

Genoveva said:


> I don't believe that Beethoven is over-hyped. Anyone who thinks that he is over-hyped is merely saying they disagree with the majority opinion held down the ages that he is a top drawer composer. People are obviously entitled to disagree with the majority opinion but it wont change the facts.
> 
> 
> eugeneonagain said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rather spurious argument: that if a lot of people think something, then it is obviously an objective fact.
> 
> I happen to think Beethoven is great and I don't much care if everyone else changes their mind tomorrow. I am not relying on the aggregate numbers of fellow Beethoven supporters (though no doubt their enthusiasm kept his work alive long enough for me to encounter it).
> 
> People who say he is over-hyped seem to me to be reacting to notions like: 'The big 3' and 'greatest, most innovative genius' and all the other aesthetic opinion.
> There are going to be some people who really don't like Beethoven and others who think he's just 'okay'. I don't believe these people are ignorant of an _'objective fact'_.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that I made any mention of Beethoven's long-term popularity being consistent with anything other than peoples' belief that he is a "top drawer composer". I made no mention of Beethoven's claim to fame being an "objective fact". This is terminology that you have invented.


----------



## hpowders

Yes. FOR ME, Beethoven's music has been over-hyped. There's a limit to how much of his aggressive brashness I can stand.

I don't care to debate anyone who feels differently. I speak only for myself.

For the last six weeks, I've been listening to NOTHING but Haydn-the complete Piano Sonatas on fortepiano with Ronald Brautigam, and a smattering of the piano sonatas on modern piano by the likes of Schiff, Ax, Yarden and Becker; also, the Seven Last Words of Christ-string quartet version-Emerson, Kodály and Skálholt; The Creation with forces directed by Pearlman and Marriner AND the Paris Symphonies led by Bernstein and Järvi.

Haydn's music is so darn clever and inventive-NEVER aggressively in one's face-as Beethoven's so often is. So JOYFUL and extroverted; even his minor keys don't remain minor for long!

I consider Haydn to be a greater composer than Beethoven, since the former's music always puts me in a better mood than the latter's.

If there wasn't the matter of JS Bach, Haydn would fill the number one slot for me of greatest composer for all time. 

Beethoven? Perhaps fourth place.


----------



## Bulldog

I would place Beethoven's music in my top ten, but the fact is that I admire it more than I listen to it. In recent years, I've largely restricted myself to his cello sonatas, Hammerklavier sonata and the choral symphony; I'm happy with that.

hpowders mentions "aggressive brashness", and that description is probably in line with my feelings.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Genoveva said:


> I don't believe that I made any mention of Beethoven's long-term popularity being consistent with anything other than peoples' belief that he is a "top drawer composer". I made no mention of Beethoven's claim to fame being an "objective fact". This is terminology that you have invented.


Well I certainly didn't "invent" the terminology; it definitely precedes me.

If you state:


> People are obviously entitled to disagree with the majority opinion but it wont change the facts.


It surely suggests (more than suggests) that the aggregate opinion over time of Beethoven as 'a top drawer composer' constitutes a 'fact' which people are (you say) merely kicking against when they say Beethoven is over-hyped.

Alternatively, if you're only saying they're kicking against the objective fact that a lot of people throughout history have said they think Beethoven is good, I don't think it is all that compelling as a statement. I'm pretty certain there will be people who say Beethoven is great because other, authoritative people say so.


----------



## KenOC

I know that Beethoven is one of the very greatest composers, certainly among the top three. And I know that is not an opinion but is an objective fact. How do I know that? I read it right here, in this very forum.

What source, pray tell, could be more authoritative?


----------



## Genoveva

eugeneonagain said:


> Well I certainly didn't "invent" the terminology; it definitely precedes me.
> 
> If you state:
> 
> It surely suggests (more than suggests) that the aggregate opinion over time of Beethoven as 'a top drawer composer' constitutes a 'fact' which people are (you say) merely kicking against when they say Beethoven is over-hyped.
> 
> Alternatively, if you're only saying they're kicking against the objective fact that a lot of people throughout history have said they think Beethoven is good, I don't think it is all that compelling as a statement. I'm pretty certain there will be people who say Beethoven is great because other, authoritative people say so.


I am not going to try to defend a statement about Beethoven's greatness being an "objective fact" based on his long-term popularity.

I never made any such statement. You have ascribed that to me without any foundation, based on terminology you now say you've seen elsewhere before.

The only "fact" I referred to is that majority opinion held down the ages is that he is a top drawer composer. Therefore to argue that he is "over-hyped" is inconsistent with majority opinion on the matter.

I can't see why you have trouble comprehending such a simple point. The same or similar point has been many times before on this and other forums, in the context of Beethoven as well as other top drawer composers.

I'll be interested to see what others may think about this matter, but this is my last word.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Genoveva said:


> I am not going to try to defend a statement about Beethoven's greatness being an "objective fact" based on his long-term popularity.
> 
> I never made any such statement. You have ascribed that to me without any foundation, based on terminology you now say you've seen elsewhere before.
> 
> The only "fact" I referred to is that majority opinion held down the ages is that he is a top drawer composer. Therefore to argue that he is "over-hyped" is inconsistent with majority opinion on the matter.
> 
> I can't see why you have trouble comprehending such a simple point. The same or similar point has been many times before on this and other forums, in the context of Beethoven as well as other top drawer composers.
> 
> I'll be interested to see what others may think about this matter, but this is my last word.


No, I said that the 'terminology' "objective fact" was not invented by me. That seems to me obvious. If you mean something else, then I suggest you are using the wrong word because about 99.99% of the terminology we are all using here wasn't originated by us.

I see quite clearly that you are not stating that Beethoven was the greatest wonder of all time. I got that before. The reason you can't see why I can't comprehend your 'simple point' is because there is more to it than you are allowing.

Majority opinions of many things are not identical opinions in the aggregate. I think my grandfather thought that Beethoven was great, but probably because he has been so declared throughout time. Quite different from the more sophisticated opinion of e.g. Haydn.
That people might not think Beethoven is quite as fantastic, and that they contradict the usual opinion, is not a logical inconsistency. That their opinion is not consistent with standard opinion is irrelevant.

This:


> Therefore to argue that he is "over-hyped" is inconsistent with majority opinion on the matter.


Is therefore a complete fallacy. I think there are in fact people who tend to get a bit religious about Beethoven and hype him as a musical figure towering way above any other composer, a sort of musical demi-god. It is facilitated by the generally accepted view of Beethoven.

You get rather aerated when contradicted.


----------



## San Antone

Bulldog said:


> ... the fact is that I admire it more than I listen to it. In recent years, I've largely restricted myself to his cello sonatas, Hammerklavier sonata and the choral symphony; I'm happy with that.


This is how I feel as well, even to the point of agreement over the specific works - although I've never given it any thought before reading this thread. However, I would include op. 131 along with the other three works.


----------



## Woodduck

It seems odd to object to the over-hyping of Beethoven, and then criticize him for his "brashness" or "aggressiveness" or whatever. A fair survey of his major works should make clear that such characterizations of him derive more from the stereotypes propagated by the hypers than from his protean and ever-evolving artistic character. Survey the piano sonatas, the violin sonatas, the cello sonatas, the piano trios, the string quartets, and even the concertos and symphonies, and you'll find that relatively little of it merits those characterizations. If we're concerned about a composer being overpraised, we ought to ask whether the praise - and our reaction - is really about his actual achievement or about some received image of it.


----------



## hpowders

hpowders said:


> Yes. FOR ME, Beethoven's music has been over-hyped. There's a limit to how much of his aggressive brashness I can stand.
> 
> I don't care to debate anyone who feels differently. I speak only for myself.
> 
> For the last six weeks, I've been listening to NOTHING but Haydn-the complete Piano Sonatas on fortepiano with Ronald Brautigam, and a smattering of the piano sonatas on modern piano by the likes of Schiff, Ax, Yarden and Becker; also, the Seven Last Words of Christ-string quartet version-Emerson, Kodály and Skálholt; The Creation with forces directed by Pearlman and Marriner AND the Paris Symphonies led by Bernstein and Järvi.
> 
> Haydn's music is so darn clever and inventive-NEVER aggressively in one's face-as Beethoven's so often is. So JOYFUL and extroverted; even his minor keys don't remain minor for long!
> 
> I consider Haydn to be a greater composer than Beethoven, since the former's music always puts me in a better mood than the latter's.
> 
> If there wasn't the matter of JS Bach, Haydn would fill the number one slot for me of greatest composer for all time.
> 
> Beethoven? Perhaps fourth place.


You know what? You know what?

There is really only ONE Beethoven work I never tire of; a work I must consider in the top five most inspired, deeply felt pieces ever composed, so leave me the........

MISSA SOLEMNIS

(and keep the rest of Beethoven......)

especially, in the magnificent last recording of it left to us by Nikolaus Harnoncourt, for me, even better than the universally acclaimed Klemperer.


----------



## Marinera

I don't like Beethoven's symphonies, but I have yet to find a single Haydn symphony that I don't like. So there's that. Beethoven's a bit too abrupt for my taste. On the other hand I had recently discoverd his string quartets and they're sound marvelous to my ears. Maybe because they're all string, no percussion or piano which mellows Beethoven's music considerably


----------



## Couchie

How "hyped" ought he to be? 

If Beethoven was over-hyped, I should think that the annual tradition of Beethoven-heavy philharmonic programs would be unsustainable because the appeal does not match the hype. And yet programs are Beethoven-heavy because Beethoven never fails to put butts in seats. Sounds like he is appropriately hyped.


----------



## Genoveva

hpowders said:


> Yes. FOR ME, Beethoven's music has been over-hyped. There's a limit to how much of his aggressive brashness I can stand.
> 
> I don't care to debate anyone who feels differently. I speak only for myself.
> 
> For the last six weeks, I've been listening to NOTHING but Haydn-the complete Piano Sonatas on fortepiano with Ronald Brautigam, and a smattering of the piano sonatas on modern piano by the likes of Schiff, Ax, Yarden and Becker; also, the Seven Last Words of Christ-string quartet version-Emerson, Kodály and Skálholt; The Creation with forces directed by Pearlman and Marriner AND the Paris Symphonies led by Bernstein and Järvi.
> 
> Haydn's music is so darn clever and inventive-NEVER aggressively in one's face-as Beethoven's so often is. So JOYFUL and extroverted; even his minor keys don't remain minor for long!
> 
> I consider Haydn to be a greater composer than Beethoven, since the former's music always puts me in a better mood than the latter's.
> 
> If there wasn't the matter of JS Bach, Haydn would fill the number one slot for me of greatest composer for all time.
> 
> Beethoven? Perhaps fourth place.


I see that you've changed your mind quite a bit then over the past few years. I have you down as listing Beethoven in the No 1 spot, and Haydn in the No 7 spot. That was in January 2014 in Bulldog's poll that was running at that time.


----------



## Genoveva

Bulldog said:


> I would place Beethoven's music in my top ten, but the fact is that I admire it more than I listen to it. In recent years, I've largely restricted myself to his cello sonatas, Hammerklavier sonata and the choral symphony; I'm happy with that.
> 
> hpowders mentions "aggressive brashness", and that description is probably in line with my feelings.


You're another who seems to chop and change your mind quite a lot from poll to poll about where to place Beethoven. In your own "Top 100" composer poll back in 2014 you placed Beethoven at No 4. In the "Top 10" composer poll in 2016 (the one that Davila started, but I finished) you didn't list Beethoven at all.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Beethoven was undeniably a musical genius, regardless of taste, as well as the significance of his contribution to music, so I don’t think he can be overhyped. If it is based on personal feelings of his music, then sure he could be. Everybody could have a go at him.


----------



## Genoveva

Couchie said:


> How "hyped" ought he to be?
> 
> If Beethoven was over-hyped, I should think that the annual tradition of Beethoven-heavy philharmonic programs would be unsustainable because the appeal does not match the hype. And yet programs are Beethoven-heavy because Beethoven never fails to put butts in seats. Sounds like he is appropriately hyped.


Quite right. That's all I was saying earlier.

Just because a minority of people don't like Beethoven, or in some cases appear to have diificulty making up their mind about the issue (!), doesn't mean he's over-hyped. He's only over-hyped in their eyes.

You may recall that I presented the results of a composer poll back in 2016 that was started by another member. It was the "Top 10 Composer Poll". Beethoven came out just slightly below Bach in the No 2 spot. Mozart was third.

However, at that time I pooled all the large amount of poll data that I had collected from that poll and combined it with several previous polls going back to 2011. This produced a very large sample of nearly 250 members. I didn't report these results at the time but I have kept all the data and calculate that roughly 75% of people placed Beethoven inside their top 10 favourite composers. That's the highest percentage of all composers by quite a margin, with Bach next (68%) and Mozart in third position (65%). These three were well clear of the next positions: Brahms (51%), Schubert (47%).

I also understand that Beethoven came out as the most "liked" composer in the many polls organised by "nerefidd" a year or so ago. Not only that, but "Artmusik" organised many polls in 2017 in which people were invited to vote for composers in a series of alphbetical listings. I have kept all that data too. Beethoven topped that list with the highest percntage by quite a margin.

Against all these different polling procedures and the very large number of people who participated, talk of Beethoven being "over-hyped" in any general sense doesn't stack up. If Beethoven is "over-hyped" then so too is Bach and Mozart, and possibly a few others further down the list. It's a term that has no objective meaning, and yet some people seem to be trying to attaching one to it that suits their own purposes.

Of course, all these voters who have consistently voted for Beethoven (and Bach and Mozart) as being among their very top favourites could be utterly stupid for thinking that way, but I very much doubt it.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> Beethoven was undeniably a musical genius, regardless of taste, as well as the significance of his contribution to music, so I don't think he can be overhyped. If it is based on personal feelings of his music, then sure he could be. Everybody could have a go at him.


I have a music magazine that states "Beethoven's impact on the development of Western music cannot be over estimated." However you look at it regardless of your personal feelings that statement is false and it is over hype. He _was_ a musical genius that doesn't mean he isn't over hyped sometimes.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> I have a music magazine that states "Beethoven's impact on the development of Western music cannot be over estimated." However you look at it regardless of your personal feelings that statement is false and it is over hype. He _was_ a musical genius that doesn't mean he isn't over hyped sometimes.


I was hoping to kill this thread by simplifying.  If someone says he was the greatest composer by far, then I would agree that is overhype.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> I was hoping to kill this thread by simplifying.  If someone says he was the greatest composer by far, then I would agree that is overhype.


Yes well as Woodduck pointed out other great composers can get over hyped too sometimes, I've probably been guilty of doing it towards Bach on occasion.

I guess to try to sum up the thread in a way that satisfies both sides, yes Beethoven can be over-hyped, but over all he was among the greatest composers so he deserves a lot of accolades, its just that sometimes people get a little carried away.


----------



## KenOC

Beethoven, of course, was a minor master of minor genres. Almost forgotten today, he was unfortunate enough to live in the time of the mighty Méhul!


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I have a music magazine that states "Beethoven's impact on the development of Western music cannot be over estimated." However you look at it regardless of your personal feelings that statement is false and it is over hype. He _was_ a musical genius that doesn't mean he isn't over hyped sometimes.


We needn't take such journalistic hyperbole too literally, or think that anything hangs on its absolute truth, falsehood, or provability. I suspect the author is cautioning us against _underestimating_ Beethoven's impact, which at this distance in time won't be as vivid to us as it was to his contemporaries and successors.

Beethoven's decisive influence on the shape of music to come was recognized quite early on; musicians and listeners realized that he was confronting them, not merely feeding their appetites. And yet, appetites were changing: Beethoven was working when the wave of Romanticism was cresting and about to break and flood the new century, a century which would ask music to be in a sense something more than itself, something limitlessly representational and at once personal and oracular. Beethoven was great enough to make a case for this new aesthetic, a powerful case which no one could ignore; both the form and the meaning of music changed dramatically in his hands, and the Romantics could and did find and take things they needed, sometimes very different, seemingly opposite things, in fulfilling their now very personal visions. Was it mere coincidence that the two composers who represented strenuously opposed streams of Romantic musical thought, Brahms and Wagner, both looked to Beethoven as their musical fountainhead and inspiration? His effect on Wagner alone would qualify him as an influence too great to calculate.

We shouldn't let a little high-toned rhetoric lead us to lose historical perspective, or tempt us into an easy iconoclasm. To us Beethoven may be just one of a long line of great composers, but in his time he was a force not comparable to any yet known.


----------



## Genoveva

I would just like to clarify some statistics I referred to previously concerning Beethoven's popularity amongst classical music aficionados.

The data that I referred to was collected from various composer polls at TC over the period from early 2011 to early 2017. I combined all the data from six separate polls where members were asked to list their top X composers (X a number that varied from 10 up to 100). In that period there was one poll, which was an iterative game, and I excluded that one.

No member was included more than once, and his or her most recent list of top composers was taken. I looked only at the top 10 composers as listed by each member. In most cases, the listings were given by members in ranked order. All listings that did not include a minimum of 10 listings were excluded.

This produced an overall sample of 242 members. As might be imagined, there was a wide variety of responses covering a large number of composers. The top three composers were Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart. To illustrate this:


The percentage of members who included these composers in their top 10 was 75%, 69%, 65" respectively. 

The percentage of members who included these composers in their top three was 55%, 47%, 32% respectively.
From these results, it seems quite staggering that over 50% of members who voted in these polls included Beethoven among their top three composers. Here we are considering the opinions of a wide selection of people who are knowledgeable about, and interested in, classical, music not the opinions of people at large many of whom probably have little knowledge on which to base an informed opinion.

I think that this is such a high figure that it would be difficult to argue that Beethoven is "over-hyped", if that expression has any meaning at all. It is not, therefore, matter of him being "over-hyped", but hyped appropriately according to his immense popularity and status. In fact, the same assessment can be made about any composer, namely that there is no such thing as being "over-hyped" and I think it is illogical to make any such assertion given the subject matter in question.


----------



## Jacck

Yes, Beethoven is overhyped, but he is not overrated. Those Beethoven fans are doing him a disservice, because their sometimes aggressive and uncritical fanboyism can be off-putting


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> Yes, Beethoven is overhyped, but he is not overrated. Those Beethoven fans are doing him a disservice, because their sometimes aggressive and uncritical fanboyism can be off-putting


Describing people who love something passionately as fanboys - or cultists, or any of a number of possible terms of caricature and expressions of disdain - can also be off-putting. Most music-lovers are not equipped with the knowledge to be other than uncritical in their enthusiasm. Those who are better equipped may plead for objectivity, but shouldn't be too hard on others if they don't get it. I run into this often on the opera forum: people who love opera may adore singers whose vocal flaws I as a singer and musician recognize and understand, and I can talk about breath pressure and vibrato and phrasing till I'm blue in the face, but if someone insists on heaping praise on a singer I regard as mediocre I can't and won't put them down for their tastes. Extreme and poorly-considered condemnation of a singer, musical work or composer I know well and love - well, that's a different matter!

Speaking for myself, I have never felt aggressed against by anyone's love of any music, however uninformed it seems to be, and I'm sure Beethoven will survive (and be amused by, if he's watching from composer heaven) the "disservice" his fans do him.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck, you are right. The word "fanboy" might have been too harsh. In music, there is too much comparing going on and people constantly search for the greatest composer, make various lists of greatest composers etc. It seems irrational to me. How can one compare Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and Mahler? The music they composed is so different that it is not comparable. It is like trying to find which kind of fruit is the best or the greatest. It is nonsense. There are just different flavors. 
And then there is also the fashion. At certain times, some composers might be fashionable and and other times, the same composers might be out of fashion. During the fashionable period, some people jump on the hype train etc. I read here somewhere, that Mozart became popular only after the Amadeus movie and was not regarded that highly before. 
There is no denying that Beethoven was a genius. But I would much prefer, if people derived his greatness directly from enjoying his music, and not through comparison or through some historical anecdotes or through the impact he had etc. There are many musicians who had no impact although they composed great music and vice versa.


----------



## LP collector

The nine symphonies do stand as monuments to Beethoven's genius. Written in the 1930's although it could just as easily have been written yesterday, Constant Lambert said this in his book "Music Ho!".

"The classical symphony in the nineteenth century, far from making a development of the Beethoven tradition, marks a definite decline. On the credit side there are Borodin's symphonies, genial works which continue the Haydn rather than the Beethoven tradition, and the symphonies of Brahms, which, though entirely lacking in the germinating vitality of Beethoven, command at least our respect. But for the typical nineteenth-century symphony as represented by Tchaikovsky No.5, Dvorak's 'From the New World' and Cesar Franck in D Minor, there is frankly nothing to be said; their mingling of academic procedure with undigested nationalism or maudlin sentiment, or both, produces a chimerical monster, a musical Minotaur that fortunately has had no progeny".


----------



## Jacck

LP collector said:


> The nine symphonies do stand as monuments to Beethoven's genius


not only the symphonies, but also the string quartets and many other works



LP collector said:


> Constant Lambert said this in his book "Music Ho!": ....and the symphonies of Brahms, which, though entirely lacking in the germinating vitality of Beethoven, command at least our respect. But for the typical nineteenth-century symphony as represented by Tchaikovsky No.5, Dvorak's 'From the New World' and Cesar Franck in D Minor, there is frankly nothing to be said; their mingling of academic procedure with undigested nationalism or maudlin sentiment, or both, produces a chimerical monster, a musical Minotaur that fortunately has had no progeny".


I hope Constant Lambert had no progeny.


----------



## Barbebleu

amfortas said:


> I avoid Beethoven and all other over-hyped composers.
> 
> Just give me Wagner.


Brilliant Amfortas, just brilliant.


----------



## premont

Beethoven is not over-hyped or overrated, but a lot of other composers are underrated.


----------



## gellio

Haydn67 said:


> Don't care for the Violin Concerto or the "Emperor" Piano Concerto


How? The 2nd Mov't of the Emperor Concerto I consider the most beautiful piece of music ever written.


----------



## gellio

I never tire of Beethoven. I feel such an emotional connection to his music, which is why I love it so much. I can listen to the 2nd mov’t of the Emperor Concerto, and have the exact same emotional reaction as the first time I heard it. It makes me so emotional every time. Not because it is simply beautiful. I don’t know why, but I cry every time. And, when I listen to the 4th mov’t of the 5th Symphony I just feel so much joy! These are just two examples, but I connect in some way to all his works.


----------



## Larkenfield

I find it hard to begrudge the attention Beethoven still receives. For a musician, he's faced with the greatest possible challenge a composer could have - his deafness - with the greatest of accomplishments… The contrast is so dramatic between the two that it creates a great deal of interest in his life, not just his works but who he was as a person, and of course, his many complications of personality, family problems, love-life problems, plus his explosive temper and impatience with others. The entire mix is perhaps far more interesting and compelling than in the life of any other composer. Maybe now that he's gone to his spiritual rewards he can finally _hear_ people talking about him from _The Other Side_.  So no. I don't think he's been over-hyped.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> I find it hard to begrudge the attention Beethoven still receives. For a musician, he's faced with the greatest possible challenge a composer could have - his deafness - with the greatest of accomplishments…


I'll take your opinion over Glenn Gould's any day of the week: ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip."


----------



## Gallus

Recently been listening through Beethoven's early works (up to 1800ish) and for someone who enjoys the classical idiom there are some real gems. I find the opus 9 string trios absolutely perfect, as fine as any of the chamber music of Mozart and Haydn (which I think is as high praise as one can give).


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> I'll take your opinion over Glenn Gould's any day of the week: ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip."


Glenn Gould certainly lost far too many opportunities for keeping his mouth shut. He should've stuck to playing the piano instead of giving his inane opinions


----------



## fliege

> Is Beethoven overrated?


What's his rating?


----------



## Jacck

fliege said:


> What's his rating?


sandwiched between Bach and Mozart


----------



## larold

Agreed, I had him after Mozart and ahead of Bach, No. 2 of 1-3. I think the three are interchangeable above all others.


----------



## Larkenfield

Gallus said:


> Recently been listening through Beethoven's early works (up to 1800ish) and for someone who enjoys the classical idiom there are some real gems. I find the opus 9 string trios absolutely perfect, as fine as any of the chamber music of Mozart and Haydn (which I think is as high praise as one can give).


Loved every minute of this perfection… and it ends on such a cheerful note, no pun intended. I would have considered Beethoven an immortal even if he had only written this fantastic Trio. A marvelous performance too. How wise people were to recognize his genius while he still walked the earth. They knew they were hearing something extraordinary... the real thing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

saying "[???] is overrated simply because I don't like his music" (without giving plausible reasons; analysis on the structure or its influence on music history) seems shallow to me. I believe there's more to art than aesthetic relativism and subjective beauty. It's what sets classical art apart from modern pop culture. 






KenOC said:


> I'll take your opinion over Glenn Gould's any day of the week: ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip."


Glenn Gould disliked 'theatrical gestures' in music. He disliked much of the Romantic era even more than Beethoven for that reason. He had queer tastes and I tend to not take his opinions very seriously.


----------



## Red Terror

Beethoven is undervalued in the 21st century.


----------



## Steerpike

Beethoven was a composer who influenced the direction of classical music, and perhaps more than anyone elevated the status of the symphony. He was groundbreaking and had popular appeal - many composers have achieved one or the other, but both?

Whether you enjoy his works or not (I do), he remains a titanic figure in the history of music.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> *Glenn Gould disliked 'theatrical gestures'* in music. He disliked much of the Romantic era even more than Beethoven for that reason. He had queer tastes and I tend to not take his opinions very seriously.


There's a rabbit yelling "Big ears!"


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Glenn Gould disliked 'theatrical gestures' in music. He disliked much of the Romantic era even more than Beethoven for that reason. He had queer tastes and I tend to not take his opinions very seriously.


Gould preferred Mahler's "Symphony of a Gazillion" (or whatever that number was) to _Das Lied von der Erde._ So much for disliking "theatrical gestures." It isn't easy to generalize about what Gould liked and why.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Potiphera said:


> Is Beethoven overrated?


Yes. though I do like a lot of his work, I think he isn't any greater than any of the roughly 20 greatest composers out there.

Some people practically worship him and his music, which I don't understand.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I doubt if Beethoven is overrated simply because admiration seems to more or less unanimous. There is a significant % of listeners who doubt Mozart's quality - but nobody claims the great Beethoven symphonies or sonatas are not as good as they are generally perceived to be.


----------



## DavidA

I don't see how you can overrate the towering genius of Beethoven, any more then you can overrate Bach or Mozart.


----------



## Enthusiast

I think, in general, the extreme greatness of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is down to their range - they excelled in so many different forms - and that later composers may have been as good but were inevitably more specialised.

But there is also something else that applies most particularly to Beethoven: the accumulated worth of his utterances in each of his three main forms. I couldn't compare a Beethoven symphony with one by Mozart or Brahms or Mahler - I wouldn't know how to choose between them - but I think I could say that of all "portfolios of symphonies" Beethoven's was the greatest by far. Every one is so different and so perfect. Add them together and you have something of a power that no symphonist ever came close to equaling. And then the same is true for his piano sonatas and for his quartets. And then he was not really an opera composer but he wrote one of the greatest. And so on.... .


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> I think, in general, the extreme greatness of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven is down to their range - they excelled in so many different forms - and that later composers may have been as good but were inevitably more specialised.
> 
> But there is also something else that applies most particularly to Beethoven: the accumulated worth of his utterances in each of his three main forms. I couldn't compare a Beethoven symphony with one by Mozart or Brahms or Mahler - I wouldn't know how to choose between them - but I think I could say that of all "portfolios of symphonies" Beethoven's was the greatest by far. Every one is so different and so perfect. Add them together and you have something of a power that no symphonist ever came close to equaling. And then the same is true for his piano sonatas and for his quartets. And then he was not really an opera composer but he wrote one of the greatest. And so on.... .


I've never understood this argument about writing in different forms. It would not matter to me if a composer 'only' wrote, for example, symphonies. How does that in any way mitigate against them? After all - composers are merely making a particular arrangement are they not?


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> I've never understood this argument about writing in different forms. It would not matter to me if a composer 'only' wrote, for example, symphonies. How does that in any way mitigate against them? After all - composers are merely making a particular arrangement are they not?


Mahler is typical one form composer. Symphonies (and possibly lieder) and that's it.


----------



## janxharris

Sibelius's 5th symphony or piano sonata?


----------



## Enthusiast

janxharris said:


> I've never understood this argument about writing in different forms. It would not matter to me if a composer 'only' wrote, for example, symphonies. How does that in any way mitigate against them? After all - composers are merely making a particular arrangement are they not?


If a composer was able to produce miraculously wonderful operas but not much else - say, like Wagner - then that is wonderful but it is surely not quite as wonderful as being able to produce miraculously wonderful operas, symphonies, concertos and chamber music, as Mozart did. Range is not the be all and end all but if you want to engage in ranking greatness - admittedly not an important activity, just a game - then you need to recognise the extra facility involved in producing great music in a variety of fields. Your later post,, suggesting that you feel that all forms are the same is just not true. Any composer who excelled in composing in more than one form produced very different music for each form. The Beethoven of the symphonies is not the Beethoven of the piano sonatas.

Possibly separate to this is the question of personal preference. I can easily imagine someone who enjoys Wagner more than Beethoven or Mozart. But I think that preference involves missing something wonderful. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Bartok ... all give us something very different and, in each case, very great. To prefer one to another seems unbalanced to me. I certainly have moods where I want one of them and not the others .... but over time (perhaps even years) I will need them all and I cannot easily say which is "the greater".


----------



## MarkW

Writing a world class novel is entirely different from writing a world class poem, short story, play, essay, or book of non-fiction.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> If a composer was able to produce miraculously wonderful operas but not much else - say, like Wagner - then that is wonderful but it is surely not quite as wonderful as being able to produce miraculously wonderful operas, symphonies, concertos and chamber music, as Mozart did. Range is not the be all and end all but if you want to engage in ranking greatness - admittedly not an important activity, just a game - then you need to recognise the extra facility involved in producing great music in a variety of fields. Your later post,, suggesting that you feel that all forms are the same is just not true. Any composer who excelled in composing in more than one form produced very different music for each form. The Beethoven of the symphonies is not the Beethoven of the piano sonatas.


The Beethoven of the symphonies is not the Beethoven of the piano sonatas?





(Symphony no. 3 arranged for piano)



> Possibly separate to this is the question of personal preference. I can easily imagine someone who enjoys Wagner more than Beethoven or Mozart. But I think that preference involves missing something wonderful. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Bartok ... all give us something very different and, in each case, very great. To prefer one to another seems unbalanced to me. I certainly have moods where I want one of them and not the others .... but over time (perhaps even years) I will need them all and I cannot easily say which is "the greater".


Not if one considers a composer as having only produced a limited number of great works.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> I've never understood this argument about writing in *different forms*. It would not matter to me if a composer 'only' wrote, for example, symphonies. How does that in any way mitigate against them? After all - *composers are merely making a particular arrangement are they not?*


Different genres, actually. In the time of Beethoven, symphonies, sonatas and string quartets all use the same form, more or less: They are all sonata cycles with roughly the same types and sequences of movements. But writing for string quartet, solo piano and orchestra are very different enterprises and, generally speaking, the music written for one ensemble can't readily be rearranged for another without a great loss of aesthetic viability. Some composers master symphonic composition but never learn to write good quartets or sonatas. IMO, symphonies are less of a challenge than sonatas and string quartets.


----------



## Enthusiast

The Eroica arranged for piano does not sound like a Beethoven piano sonata to me - even though the arranger had the model of the sonatas as a guide.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Hype? Over-hyped? Wow! I like all of his music, but have a hard time with Grosse Fuge.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> Different genres, actually. In the time of Beethoven, symphonies, sonatas and string quartets all use the same form, more or less: They are all sonata cycles with roughly the same types and sequences of movements. But writing for string quartet, solo piano and orchestra are very different enterprises and, generally speaking, the music written for one ensemble can't readily be rearranged for another without a great loss of aesthetic viability. Some composers master symphonic composition but never learn to write good quartets or sonatas. IMO, symphonies are less of a challenge than sonatas and string quartets.


It would be difficult to prove there was such a loss of 'aesthetic viability'. I think the differences are merely that of the extent of available notes and timbres. I certainly don't agree that a symphony is less of a challenge; I'd say it's more - to have the wherewithal to control that amount of sound and colours is rare a gift.


----------



## janxharris

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Hype? Over-hyped? Wow! I like all of his music, but have a hard time with Grosse Fuge.


Keep trying 
-----------------------------


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> It would be *difficult to prove* there was such a loss of 'aesthetic viability'. I think the differences are merely that of the extent of available notes and timbres. I certainly don't agree that a symphony is less of a challenge; I'd say it's more - to have *the wherewithal to control that amount of sound and colours* is rare a gift.


Doesn't need proving. It's obvious, the dearth of successful adaptations being evidence enough.

I think your view of orchestral composing is exactly backward. Great volume of sound and a full palette of color aren't problematic elements needing control, they amount to an abundance of resources that vastly expand a composer's options and make decision making easy. Not a rare gift at all, but commonplace.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> Doesn't need proving. It's obvious, the dearth of successful adaptations being evidence enough.


You _may_ have a point but it's still a mere assertion. It may just be that audiences become used to the sound of the _initial arrangement_ of a successful piece.



> I think your view of orchestral composing is exactly backward. Great volume of sound and a full palette of color aren't problematic elements needing control, they amount to an abundance of resources that vastly expand a composer's options and make decision making easy. Not a rare gift at all, but commonplace.


I couldn't disagree more; poor orchestration is a reality imho and depends on the composer's ability to imagine the sonic effect - whilst a piano arrangement, for example, is much simpler and easier to check.

Knowledge of the various instruments of the orchestra and how they might be combined is, for me, an incredibly complex skill.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> It would be difficult to prove there was such a loss of 'aesthetic viability'. I think the differences are merely that of the extent of available notes and timbres. I certainly don't agree that a symphony is less of a challenge; I'd say it's more - to have the wherewithal to control that amount of sound and colours is rare a gift.





EdwardBast said:


> Some composers master symphonic composition but never learn to write good quartets or sonatas. IMO, symphonies are less of a challenge than sonatas and string quartets.


Tchaikovsky was a major symphonic composer who didn't really master string quartet writing. I agree there's more skills required to writing different forms. Mozart said he learned how to write string quartets from Joseph Haydn-- he said his own 6 "Haydn" Quartets are "the fruit of a long and laborious effort", something he never said of any of the fugues or symphonies he wrote, however complex they were. Why would he say these things if the string quartet form is just a small-ensembled symphony? (Although Mozart seems to take good things he knows about one genre and apply them in another, I would pick the 'operatic' K608 as one example, as I did in another thread.) There's intricacy involved in making the 4 strings have 'equal involvement'. A good symphonist doesn't automatically know how to write string quartets. 
Hummel wrote good piano concertos but never wrote a symphony as the two forms are not exactly the same. I also tend to think Brahms' first piano concerto kind of awkward for a concerto mainly because he initially intended to write it as a symphony.

Generally the sense of intimacy in solo/chamber compositions can't be exactly replicated in symphonic compositions.
In Beethoven's Op.131 



, the orchestral version sounds 'awkward' because it is meant to be an intimate chamber composition. The sense of intimacy is lost due to the inevitable, subtle differences in tuning pitches in the violins/violas/cellos. While Mozart's K546 



 sounds better played by an orchestra than a string quartet. There's right instrumentation for every composition. ie. orchestration or solo/chamber reduction doesn't necessarily make composition sound better, as it varies case by case.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Tchaikovsky was a major symphonic composer who didn't really master string quartet writing. I agree there's more skills required to writing different forms. Mozart said he learned how to write string quartets from Joseph Haydn. Mozart said his own 6 "Haydn" Quartets are "the fruit of a long and laborious effort", something he never said of any of the fugues or symphonies he wrote, however complex they were. Why did he say these things if the string quartet form is just a small-ensembled symphony? (Although Mozart seems to take good things he knows about one genre and apply them in another, I would pick the 'operatic' K608 as one example, as I did in another thread.) There's intricacy involved in making the 4 strings have 'equal involvement'. A good symphonist doesn't automatically know how to write string quartets.
> Hummel wrote good piano concertos but never wrote a symphony as the two forms are not exactly the same. I also tend to think Brahms' first piano concerto kind of awkward for a concerto mainly because he initially intended to write it as a symphony.
> 
> Generally the sense of intimacy in solo/chamber compositions can't be exactly replicated in symphonic compositions.
> In Beethoven's Op.131
> 
> 
> 
> , the orchestral version sounds 'awkward' because it is meant to be an intimate chamber composition. The sense of intimacy is lost due to the inevitable, subtle differences in tuning pitches in the violins/violas/cellos. While Mozart's K546
> 
> 
> 
> sounds better played by an orchestra than a string quartet. There's right instrumentation for every composition. ie. orchestration or solo/chamber reduction doesn't necessarily make composition sound better, as it varies case by case.


We are all just voicing opinions are't we? Nobody needs to master string quartet writing - it's an arbitrary group after all. Any particular arrangement will require particular skills and will evince a certain sonic effect that will be different to an alternative arrangement. Bernstein on his recording of the orchestral string arrangement of 131: "This is my personal favourite record I've ever made in my life, if you'd really like to know."


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> You _may_ have a point but it's still a mere assertion. It may just be that audiences become used to the sound of the _initial arrangement_ of a successful piece.


We can clear this up by examining the different kinds of arrangements at issue with more specificity:

Symphony to string quartet - There are a couple of insurmountable problems here. First, the string parts, which are essential most of the time in a majority of symphonies, will fully occupy the players of a quartet leaving no one to play the winds, brass and percussion. This reflects the more general problem that there is a great disparity in the number of parts in the two ensembles. Equally devastating is that all of the sonic contrasts of winds and strings will be erased. Conclusion: This is a non-starter.

String quartet to symphony - The disparity in the number of parts, as above, makes this problematic. Also, string parts often don't adapt well to winds due to issues of articulation and breathing. With brass and percussion the problem is much worse. How much string writing is well-suited to brass?

String quartet to solo piano - First of all, why on earth would one ever think of doing this? Piano notes decay, whereas strings can not only sustain indefinitely, they can execute crescendos on sustained notes. Four string instruments will routinely exhibit spacings that are impossible for two hands to cover.

I could go on to cover all the permutations, but it should be clear that what might sound good to you in the abstract is not going to work when one actually examines any of the individual cases in detail.



janxharris said:


> I couldn't disagree more; poor orchestration is a reality imho and depends on the composer's ability to imagine the sonic effect - whilst a piano arrangement, for example, is much simpler and easier to check.
> 
> Knowledge of the various instruments of the orchestra and how they might be combined is, for me, an incredibly complex skill.


Sure, orchestration is more complex than writing for a single keyboard instrument one can play. But the subject is easy to study for anyone who can read orchestral scores. Almost all of the best piano sonatas have been written by accomplished players, if not virtuosi, of the instrument. In the end, the number of good symphonists who have never composed a successful string quartet pretty much nails this issue for me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> We are all just voicing opinions are't we? Nobody needs to master string quartet writing - it's an arbitrary group after all. Any particular arrangement will require particular skills and will evince a certain sonic effect that will be different to an alternative arrangement. Bernstein on his recording of the orchestral string arrangement of 131: "This is my personal favourite record I've ever made in my life, if you'd really like to know."


Op.131 is just one example of such pieces that sounds 'reasonably ok' in its orchestral form. Whatabout other string quartets, if you transcribe any of the 'good moments in Haydn and Mozart quartets' 



 into symphonies, would they still sound good? 
Also there's vocal music, which is a different animal from instrumental music, they're certain phrases and pitches that the composer has to avoid to make it singable for the singer. Skills required for writing vocal music isn't necessarily the same as ones required for instrumental music. There are certain nuances that only singable in voices. It is often said that 'Chopin knew how to write for the piano', if Chopin is played on organ, would it sound good? Conversely, what if Bach's organ pieces are played on piano?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Generally the sense of intimacy in solo/chamber compositions can't be exactly replicated in symphonic compositions.
> In Beethoven's Op.131
> 
> 
> 
> , the orchestral version sounds 'awkward' because it is meant to be an intimate chamber composition. The sense of intimacy is lost due to the inevitable, subtle differences in tuning pitches in the violins/violas/cellos. While *Mozart's K546*
> 
> 
> 
> *sounds better played by an orchestra than a string quartet. There's right instrumentation for every composition.*


I agree that Beethoven's (and most other) quartets sound wrong played by a string orchestra, but I think the same is true of Mozart's K546. The adagio has a certain baroquey grandeur and works well enough with a large ensemble, but the fugue becomes thick and ponderous, its intricacies obscured by the homogeneous fuzz of multiple strings. Moreover, its subject is militantly square, and while solo players can de-emphasize this and compensate with varied inflections, a string orchestra only exaggerates its annoying rigidity, especially at Klemperer's tempo. I find the result pretty hard to take, and can't imagine Mozart liking it.

These people know what to do:


----------



## KenOC

On the other hand, Barshai arranged several of Shostakovich’s string quartets for chamber orchestras with various sets of instruments, and they work very well. Shostakovich approved these arrangements and they are included as addenda in his own opus listing.

I’ve always wondered why these arrangements are so successful, while those of other composers’ quartets I’ve heard are not.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Most likely, no.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> On the other hand, Barshai arranged several of Shostakovich's string quartets for chamber orchestras with various sets of instruments, and they work very well. Shostakovich approved these arrangements and they are included as addenda in his own opus listing.
> 
> I've always wondered why these arrangements are so successful, while those of other composers' quartets I've heard are not.


Perhaps the quartets themselves are better. Or perhaps Barshai was smart about which to arrange; After all, some, like the 10th, would definitely not work.


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> On the other hand, Barshai arranged several of Shostakovich's string quartets for chamber orchestras with various sets of instruments, and they work very well. Shostakovich approved these arrangements and they are included as addenda in his own opus listing.
> 
> I've always wondered why these arrangements are so successful, while those of other composers' quartets I've heard are not.


It may be that they just work for some people. I think they are pretty awful! And pointless. I much prefer quartets played by quartets. But Barshai's arrangement of Prokofiev's Visions Fugitives (a piano piece) is even worse. I cannot begin to imagin why Barshai did that sort of thing. It is not as though the string orchestra lacks wonderful repertoire.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> We can clear this up by examining the different kinds of arrangements at issue with more specificity:
> 
> Symphony to string quartet - There are a couple of insurmountable problems here. First, the string parts, which are essential most of the time in a majority of symphonies, will fully occupy the players of a quartet leaving no one to play the winds, brass and percussion. This reflects the more general problem that there is a great disparity in the number of parts in the two ensembles. Equally devastating is that all of the sonic contrasts of winds and strings will be erased. Conclusion: This is a non-starter.
> 
> String quartet to symphony - The disparity in the number of parts, as above, makes this problematic. Also, string parts often don't adapt well to winds due to issues of articulation and breathing. With brass and percussion the problem is much worse. How much string writing is well-suited to brass?
> 
> String quartet to solo piano - First of all, why on earth would one ever think of doing this? Piano notes decay, whereas strings can not only sustain indefinitely, they can execute crescendos on sustained notes. Four string instruments will routinely exhibit spacings that are impossible for two hands to cover.
> 
> I could go on to cover all the permutations, but it should be clear that what might sound good to you in the abstract is not going to work when one actually examines any of the individual cases in detail.


I am sure you know that Liszt made many transcriptions of orchestral pieces for piano - were his efforts in vain? You imply it (though you reference the string quartet it obviously applies equally or more so to an orchestral transcription):

"String quartet to solo piano - First of all, why on earth would one ever think of doing this?"

Wagner-Liszt Prelude to Tristan and Isolde:





Certainly. particular skills are required depending on the music group one chooses to arrange the composition for, but to elevate a composer just because he has explored a greater variety of such groupings seems unjustified to me. Great music will always sound good whatever the arrangement. Yes, it will sound different - the quartet will naturally sound intimate and the symphony will yield a great dynamic range etc - but in judging a work, we are more interested in the composers handling of melody, harmony and rhythm aren't we?


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Perhaps the quartets themselves are better. Or perhaps Barshai was smart about which to arrange; After all, some, like the 10th, would definitely not work.


Oh... Actually Barshai arranged Shostakovich's 10th String Quartet for string chamber orchestra as Op. 118a, and for me it works pretty well. Here's the first movement (all are there on YouTube):


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I am sure you know that Liszt made many transcriptions of orchestral pieces for piano - were his efforts in vain? You imply it (though you reference the string quartet it obviously applies equally or more so to an orchestral transcription):
> 
> "String quartet to solo piano - First of all, why on earth would one ever think of doing this?"
> 
> Wagner-Liszt Prelude to Tristan and Isolde:


Sure. I love to play this prelude on the piano and lose my soul in its harmonic iridescence and tender desperation. But I have no illusions about actually sustaining its intense orchestral polyphony the way it needs to be sustained. Notes that need to grow keep dying instead, and no amount of pianistic art can save the thing from collapse. Piano transcriptions of orchestral and other music were the customary way to bring music to people who would otherwise not get to hear it, as well as to make money for composers, arrangers and publishers.

This performance, by the way, is horrible.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> Oh... Actually Barshai arranged Shostakovich's 10th String Quartet for string chamber orchestra as Op. 118a, and for me it works pretty well. Here's the first movement (all are there on YouTube):


Just to note it's unavailable in the UK.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Sure. I love to play this prelude on the piano and lose my soul in its harmonic iridescence and tender desperation. But I have no illusions about actually sustaining its intense orchestral polyphony the way it needs to be sustained. Notes that need to grow keep dying instead, and no amount of pianistic art can save the thing from collapse. Piano transcriptions of orchestral and other music were the customary way to bring music to people who would otherwise not get to hear it, as well as to make money for composers, arrangers and publishers.
> 
> This performance, by the way, is horrible.


I don't agree


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Oh... Actually Barshai arranged Shostakovich's 10th String Quartet for string chamber orchestra as Op. 118a, and for me it works pretty well. Here's the first movement (all are there on YouTube):


Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Enthusiast here. The arrangement is an awful idea. Heavy and ponderous. And some passages just seem completely miscast for anything but a solo instrument. The passacaglia must be truly wretched. Ugh.


----------



## Enthusiast

An good case of orchestral treatments of piano pieces is that of Ravel who wrote numerous pieces for piano and then orchestrated them and also his orchestration of Mussorgsky's Pictures ... . I feel the results were different pieces of music but just as good. I'm not sure that this is often true of orchestrations of piano and chamber pieces. I do also like the sting orchestra version of Tchaikovsky's Souvenir of Florence. I must admit I do often enjoy piano versions (often four hands) of big orchestral pieces. I do think in all cases that these transcriptions change the music and, when successful, the result is a new and different piece.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> I don't agree


Then you need to refresh your memory and listen to the original again. She makes hash of it. Right off the bat the pauses are shortchanged, her rubati are awkward, she hits wrong notes, the approach to the climax is excruciating, and God only knows what she's doing after that but it isn't what Wagner wrote...


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Enthusiast here. The arrangement is an awful idea. Heavy and ponderous. And some passages just seem completely miscast for anything but a solo instrument. The passacaglia must be truly wretched. Ugh.


Definitely different ears over here!


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Then you need to refresh your memory and listen to the original again. She makes hash of it. Right off the bat the pauses are shortchanged, her rubati are awkward, she hits wrong notes, the approach to the climax is excruciating, and God only knows what she's doing after that but it isn't what Wagner wrote...


I don't think I missed any of the points you make whilst I was listening.; not a perfect performance, by any means - but one can see that the piece works (would work perfectly) on piano...well, that is mho anyway.

I understand your criticism of the lack of sustain - but if one is used to a certain length and speed of interpretation then it can take some readjusting. I've heard orchestral versions that seem to rush Wagner's phrases and lose their profundity.


----------



## gellio

hammeredklavier said:


> Op.131


That's the last work Franz Schubert wanted to hear before he died, and his friend who was in a string quartet brought his quartet to Schubert's house five days before his death to play it for him. Off topic here, but I love that story. I love how much my 2nd favorite composer loved my favorite composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Knowledge of the various instruments of the orchestra and how they might be combined is, for me, an incredibly complex skill.


It's also interesting to look at what Shostakovich had to say regarding the string quartet form.

http://www.quartets.de/compositions/ssq01.html
_"Shostakovich was now almost thirty-two, fairly late for his first adventure in this genre considering how prolific he had been in his youth and how many string quartets he would compose in the rest of his life. He wrote:

I began to write it without special ideas and feeling, I thought that nothing would come of it. *After all, the quartet is one of the most difficult musical genres.* I wrote the first page as a sort of original exercise in the quartet form, not thinking about subsequently completing and releasing it. As a rule, I fairly often write things I don't publish. They are my type of composer's studies. But then work on the quartet captivated me and I finished it rather quickly.

The composition did make rapid progress for he completed it in Leningrad on the 17 July. Realising that it might be compared with his previous work, the monumental Fifth Symphony, he noted:

Don't expect to find special depth in this, my first quartet opus. In mood it is joyful, merry, lyrical. I would call it 'spring-like'."_


----------



## kyjo

Beethoven was, of course, a great composer and I love quite a few of his works (though I wouldn't count him amongst my top 20 or even 30 composers). But orchestras REALLY need to give his music a break! It seems like orchestra boards feel the need to program his 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th symphonies every damn year! NEWSFLASH: There are other composers out there besides Beethoven (and Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Mahler)!!


----------



## KenOC

kyjo said:


> Beethoven was, of course, a great composer and I love quite a few of his works (though I wouldn't count him amongst my top 20 or even 30 composers). But orchestras REALLY need to give his music a break! It seems like orchestra boards feel the need to program his 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th symphonies every damn year! NEWSFLASH: There are other composers out there besides Beethoven (and Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Mahler)!!


I respectfully disagree. There is no reason to program any music but Beethoven's for the main municipal orchestra during the normal season. Other works by lesser composers might well be presented at lesser venues or perhaps off-season, as appropriate and in accord with local conditions. Those composers might well pay for the exposure, defraying orchestral costs...


----------



## kyjo

KenOC said:


> I respectfully disagree. There is no reason to program any music but Beethoven's for the main municipal orchestra during the normal season. Other works by lesser composers might well be presented at lesser venues or perhaps off-season, as appropriate and in accord with local conditions. Those composers might well pay for the exposure, defraying orchestral costs...


I'm afraid I don't see your point. So you're saying that the *only* composer that should be programmed by orchestras during their "normal" season is Beethoven? That's just silly. Yeah, I get it that big-name composers like Beethoven help ticket sales, but still!


----------



## Steerpike

KenOC said:


> I respectfully disagree. There is no reason to program any music but Beethoven's for the main municipal orchestra during the normal season. Other works by lesser composers might well be presented at lesser venues or perhaps off-season, as appropriate and in accord with local conditions. Those composers might well pay for the exposure, defraying orchestral costs...


Yikes, no!!

There is already an ongoing problem with the contraction of the classical repertoire represented in our concert halls. We must sincerely hope that the people who make the decisions on what music is presented do not succumb to the pressure to achieve a sure fire success by programming only the works of a few 'safe' composers.

There is certainly a demand for, and a place for, Beethoven - but it mustn't be at the expense of everybody else.


----------



## KenOC

Steerpike said:


> Yikes, no!!


Just having a bit of fun, and I _did _put in a smiley. Anyway, in US concert halls even a minor figure like Mozart is played almost as often as Beethoven, so perhaps there's hope! Looks like 5 out of the top 10 are 20th century...


----------



## hammeredklavier

kyjo said:


> It seems like orchestra boards feel the need to program his 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th symphonies every damn year!


Right, his even numbered symphonies especially the 8th, including the first symphony deserve more attention, as well as the more obscure orchestral works such as the Egmont Overture, Coriolan Overture, the other versions of Leonore Overture. The 3rd, 5th, 7th still feel fresh to my ears everytime I come back to them.



kyjo said:


> Beethoven was, of course, a great composer and I love quite a few of his works (though I wouldn't count him amongst my top 20 or even 30 composers). NEWSFLASH: There are other composers out there besides Beethoven (and Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Mahler)!!


Could you give us the names of these "30 composers you consider better than Beethoven, and Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Mahler"? If you think the 30 composers are so underrated, why don't you go to concerts playing the music of the 30 composers only, yourself? 
You know, there are many people each year getting into classical music thanks to those concerts playing the more well-known pieces of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. The concerts aren't there just for people like you. Most of us think Beethoven is the greatest or one of the greatest. The fact that he is (and deserves to be) the mainstream of classical music has been verified by countless other masters through history. Just because you think otherwise, you want us act (promote obscure artists) to suit your tastes. What you're suggesting sounds like "tyranny by the minority" to me.


----------



## kyjo

KenOC said:


> Just having a bit of fun, and I _did _put in a smiley. Anyway, in US concert halls even a minor figure like Mozart is played almost as often as Beethoven, so perhaps there's hope! Looks like 5 out of the top 10 are 20th century...


Ah, sorry Ken, didn't realize you were joking!


----------



## kyjo

hammeredklavier said:


> Could you give us the names of these "30 composers you consider better than Beethoven, and Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Mahler"? If you think the 30 composers are so underrated, why don't you go to concerts playing the music of the 30 composers only, yourself?
> You know, there are many people each year getting into classical music thanks to those concerts playing the more well-known pieces of Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. The concerts aren't there just for people like you. Most of us think Beethoven is the greatest or one of the greatest. The fact that he is (and deserves to be) the mainstream of classical music has been verified by countless other masters through history. Just because you think otherwise, you want us act (promote obscure artists) to suit your tastes. What you're suggesting sounds like "tyranny by the minority" to me.


Hey, no need to get so worked up. (BTW, Brahms and Mahler are two of my favorite composers.) I was merely saying that Beethoven isn't one of my very favorite composers, I wasn't saying that his music shouldn't be played. I do think his most well-known works could be given a break every once in a while to allow for other works to see the light of day, but obviously his music should still be performed regularly, especially for the sake of those just getting into classical music. I simply don't feel the need to advocate for Beethoven's music because so many others do. I would much rather advocate for lesser-known composers who I feel worthy, but that doesn't mean I think they're _better_ than Beethoven or the other well-established "greats". If you really want to see my list of 30 or so _favorite_ (NOT "greatest", favorite) composers, I'd be happy to message it to you. But I have a feeling you'd be too angered by the lack of composers such as Bach and Beethoven and the inclusion of composers such as Atterberg and Braga Santos. It's all a matter of taste...

So, in short: *I don't place a select few composers on a pedestal above everyone else.* Yes, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms etc. were all great composers, but there are _so_ many other great composers out there.


----------



## Larkenfield

The problem with not performing some of Beethoven's most well-known works is that many listeners have never heard them _live_, and that can take the performance into the next dimension. I believe that's why they are still played as much as they are. Practically everyone has heard Beethoven's 5th, or some of the other warhorses, but how many have heard them live? But for more experienced listeners, this prospect could seem deathly dull. That's the problem with trying to please everyone. It's impossible.


----------



## hammeredklavier

kyjo said:


> But orchestras REALLY need to give his music a break!


I understand your preferences. But what I still don't get, is the mentality "it is Beethoven's fault your '30 composers' (who are lesser-known than him) are neglected." Why do you especially blame on Beethoven (and other big names) for yours not getting the attention you think they deserve? Why do you think 'Beethoven-listeners' (out of all people) would give your 30 composers more attention if there's less opportunity for them to listen to Beethoven?
Why not instead blame on something like modern pop music industry or EDM (which are vastly larger than the classical music industry) for dominating the music market and taking all the music 'consumers' for themselves. Should classical music fans really bicker among themselves and blame on each other for not giving attention to composers who deserve them, or giving too much attention to certain composers?
I don't think there isn't need for anyone to be 'jealous' of Beethoven's popularity -- rather you should be blaming on something like pop music instead.


----------



## Steerpike

Well, you certainly provoked a response!

The breakdown you provided is interesting though - no mention of the likes of Sibelius, Bruckner, Mahler, Vaughan Williams ... and Beethoven programmed more often than Prokofiev, Rachmaninov and Shostakovich combined. I'd hazard a guess that the Dvorak figure is made up almost entirely of performances of his 9th Symphony as well (maybe the Cello Concerto a few times).

It's such a shame that there's so much good music that we'll never get the chance to see performed live.


----------



## kyjo

hammeredklavier said:


> I understand your preferences. But what I still don't get, is the mentality "it is Beethoven's fault your '30 composers' (who are lesser-known than him) are neglected." Why do you especially blame on Beethoven (and other big names) for yours not getting the attention you think they deserve? Why do you think 'Beethoven-listeners' (out of all people) would give your 30 composers more attention if there's less opportunity for them to listen to Beethoven?
> Why not instead blame on something like modern pop music industry or EDM (which are vastly larger than the classical music industry) for dominating the music market and taking all the music 'consumers' for themselves. Should classical music fans really bicker among themselves and blame on each other for not giving attention to composers who deserve them, or giving too much attention to certain composers?
> I don't think there isn't need for anyone to be 'jealous' of Beethoven's popularity -- rather you should be blaming on something like pop music instead.


Well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms you opened up there. I agree, it's a big enough issue in itself that pop music dominates classical music in most countries these days, especially the USA. As far as attracting "newbies" to classical music, sure, it's important to expose them to the masterworks of Beethoven, Brahms etc. but realize that there might be other composers out there who may be more to their taste. If they're not exposed to a wide variety of music, how will they know where their interest really lies? For example, my main interest lies in (tonal) 20th century music, much of which is not given its proper due in concert halls today.


----------



## kyjo

Steerpike said:


> It's such a shame that there's so much good music that we'll never get the chance to see performed live.


Amen to that. Just thank God for recordings!


----------



## kyjo

Larkenfield said:


> The problem with not performing some of Beethoven's most well-known works is that many listeners have never heard them _live_, and that can take the performance into the next dimension. I believe that's why they are still played as much as they are. Practically everyone has heard Beethoven's 5th, or some of the other warhorses, but how many have heard them live? But for more experienced listeners, this prospect could seem deathly dull. That's the problem with trying to please everyone. It's impossible.


Yes, I agree - you can't please everyone. I will admit that seeing a Beethoven symphony live - and performed really well - is quite a satisfying experience. When Dudamel came to Pittsburgh a couple years ago he did Beethoven 5 - at first I was reluctant to go - but the performance ended up being electrifying. But then the very next year Vänskä came and did Beethoven 5 _again_ (and no Sibelius! Grrrrrr…) and I didn't even bother going. I'm sure it was good, but I just don't have the desire to spend money to hear the same pieces over and over again.


----------



## KenOC

kyjo said:


> ...but realize that there might be other composers out there who may be more to their taste. If they're not exposed to a wide variety of music, how will they know where their interest really lies? For example, my main interest lies in (tonal) 20th century music, much of which is not given its proper due in concert halls today.


Almost any music is immediately and freely available to anybody these days. Nobody is starved of opportunities to explore whatever might catch their fancy. It wasn't always thus! Hardly necessary to demand that specific preferences be thrust in their faces! Anyway, how many people go to concerts these days?


----------



## gellio

Gallus said:


> I find the *opus 9* string trios absolutely perfect


I'm not being funny here, just trying to get educated, but why oh why do you people do this? I learn so much on this group, but when people refer to works by their Opus # I always have to go look it up. Instead of saying Opus 67, why can't people just say the Fifth Symphony?

Again, not being funny or judgy or anything, I am just curious.

Not picking on you Gallus. I meant to ask this the other night when I was doing research and stumbled across a large Beethoven thread on the string concertos where most people listed their favorites by Opus # rather than just saying "No. 14."


----------



## Woodduck

gellio said:


> I'm not being funny here, just trying to get educated, but why oh why do you people do this? I learn so much on this group, but when people refer to works by their Opus # I always have to go look it up. Instead of saying Opus 67, why can't people just say the Fifth Symphony?
> 
> Again, not being funny or judgy or anything, I am just curious.
> 
> Not picking on you Gallus. I meant to ask this the other night when I was doing research and stumbled across a large Beethoven thread on the string concertos where most people listed their favorites by Opus # rather than just saying "No. 14."


Although I have a pretty fair acquaintance with opus numbers in Beethoven, I share your annoyance, and perhaps exceed it in disliking the exclusive use of catalog numbers to refer to anyone's music (Bach BWV, Mozart K, Schubert D, etc.). I remember keys better than opus numbers, and both together usually make clear what's being referred to (String Quartet in A minor, opus 132). Deplorable though they can be, even spurious nicknames are useful ("Moonlight" Sonata rather than Op. 27, NO. 2).


----------



## gellio

Woodduck said:


> Although I have a pretty fair acquaintance with opus numbers in Beethoven, I share your annoyance, and perhaps exceed it in disliking the exclusive use of catalog numbers to refer to anyone's music (Bach BWV, Mozart K, Schubert D, etc.). I remember keys better than opus numbers, and both together usually make clear what's being referred to (String Quartet in A minor, opus 132). Deplorable though they can be, even spurious nicknames are useful ("Moonlight" Sonata rather than Op. 27, NO. 2).


Yes, I just don't understand the reasoning behind using those numbers. It annoys me, I won't lie, because I see it with Mozart and Schubert a lot too. I remember very few Opus or K numbers and I hate having to go to wikipedia and filter for it. I'm really starting to dive more in to the sonatas so someone says K330 is their favorite Mozart Sontata, rather than 11, I have to look it up so I can find it in my music. Thanks for the answer.


----------



## Beet Lover

Has anyone ever listened to Beethoven's works in approximate chronological order (date) of composition? For example, starting off with the Woo63 Dressler variations first, then then WoO 47 piano sonatas, etc.. The thing is, you would have to listen to a hours of music before you got to his opus 1 from 1795. The exciting thing about doing this is it's almost like you are right there with Beethoven as he makes these pushes into another realm. The exciting thing about doing this is your mind can be blown before your even at his 1st symphony. Context is beautiful, ie just the thought of going through the Appassionata, the 4th piano concerto, the Razomosky quartets, and then the under rated 4th symphony, just to name a sample. I've done this before and my spirit was transported. I distinctly remember I was floating in the clouds during the op 59 string quartets, but was already lifted by the end of the op. 18 six quartets. It's also great to think, as you're listening, that it can't get any better than this, but.... then it does! Mind in heaven with a plethora of works to get through until the 9th symphony and the late piano sonatas and string quartets.


----------



## EdwardBast

gellio said:


> I'm not being funny here, just trying to get educated, but why oh why do you people do this? I learn so much on this group, but when people refer to works by their Opus # I always have to go look it up. Instead of saying Opus 67, why can't people just say the Fifth Symphony?
> 
> Again, not being funny or judgy or anything, I am just curious.
> 
> Not picking on you Gallus. I meant to ask this the other night when I was doing research and stumbled across a large Beethoven thread on the string concertos where most people listed their favorites by Opus # rather than just saying "No. 14."


No one refers to Beethoven's Fifth as Opus 67. Everyone says Symphony no. 5. There are only 9 of them and they don't come in sets of three or six, so using the number is easy and fully informative.

However, when there are a large number of works in a given genre and when those works are organized into smaller sets of works, like Beethoven's piano sonatas, the number just doesn't convey enough information. "Opus 31#3 in E-flat" places the work within the group of sonatas in which it was published and informs those who know some history that it was composed at the very cusp of Beethoven's middle period. Calling it number 18 accomplishes none of this. Pianists tend to use opus number and key or nickname.

Another reason to use catalog numbers (BWV, K, D, etc.) is because they are unambiguous, whereas simple numbered lists sometimes contain spurious works that are later removed from a composer's oeuvre or are plagued by historical errors about date of composition or publication, resulting in today's number 17 being a different work than the one called number 17 in the 19thc.


----------



## Guillet81

Interesting topic. For me, while Beethoven is at times over-hyped, he is none-the-less one of the great composers. And while I am not much of a fan of his late quartets, I really do like his Piano Concertos. And, ironically, I especially love his Violin Concerto: It is sublime; either the very best, or possibly second to Mendelssohn's.


----------



## Woodduck

Guillet81 said:


> Interesting topic. For me, while Beethoven is at times over-hyped, he is none-the-less one of the great composers. And while I am not much of a fan of his late quartets, I really do like his Piano Concertos. And, ironically, *I especially love his Violin Concerto: It is sublime; either the very best, or possibly second to Mendelssohn's.*


Mendelssohn's is overhyped.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> No he isn't overhyped. Yes he is. I don't know. I don't care. Hero worship and iconoclasm are equally boring. *All I'm certain of - as certain as one can be of such things - is that Beethoven produced a lot of music which is as great as any ever composed, the sort of music that just leaves me dumbfounded that anyone could ever have gone there - wherever "there" is - and come back to go there again and again.*


Exactly.........


----------



## Agamemnon

The thing that can bother me while listening to Beethoven is that I sometimes wonder if Beethoven enjoyed his music or that we are allowed to enjoy his music. Because he is so serious! I guess he believed that music can change the world so music becomes some kind of moral obligation.


----------



## Euler

Agamemnon said:


> The thing that can bother me while listening to Beethoven is that I sometimes wonder if Beethoven enjoyed his music or that we are allowed to enjoy his music. Because he is so serious! I guess he believed that music can change the world so music becomes some kind of moral obligation.


As a 'serious' artist his music contains myriad moods, not least a peppering of humour. Millions of people enjoy his music and you can't say that about many composers.


----------



## regenmusic

If you just study Beethoven's words, you will see he's not over-hyped. He could have composed lesser music and still be a great man of history based on the words he wrote.


----------



## Red Terror

_"Mozart is a garden, Schubert is a forest in light and shade, but Beethoven is a mountain range,"_

-Artur Schnabel


----------



## MarkW

I don't know why this thread is still around -- but the answer is still: No.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Agamemnon said:


> The thing that can bother me while listening to Beethoven is that I sometimes wonder if Beethoven enjoyed his music or that we are allowed to enjoy his music. Because he is so serious! I guess he believed that music can change the world so music becomes some kind of moral obligation.


While I don't think Beethoven is overhyped, but people do tend to overhype him about his 'seriousness' pretending as if music became dark and angst forever because of him even though a huge bunch of his output 'parallels' with Haydn and Mozart, as I described in other threads, for example-
they tend to consider Beethoven's Op.59 No.3 considered 'serious' music just because it was written by Beethoven and Mozart's K465 as 'light-hearted' music even though you wouldn't tell which is 'serious' or 'light-hearted' if you're blind-test on these pieces without knowing who composed them. I even tend to sense certain hypocrisy or wishful-thinking from some of these people making 'biased' judgments. I think if you make biased judgments like that on these pieces you either haven't 'understood' classicism or indulging in the 'wishful thinking' that somehow 'Beethoven is special'.

And contrary to what some people think (or they wish to believe), Why does music get so angsty and dark with/after Beethoven? Beethoven wasn't trying to write dark and angst music. Rather it was more like he meant to describe 'human triumph over fate' in the 5th symphony and 'triumph of human brotherhood' in the 9th. (you may not agree, my point is, they aren't any more 'serious' than Mozart and Haydn) He even called Mozart's Requiem 'too wild and terrible'. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/01/wild-terrible-mozart-stephen-klugewicz.html

You may argue some late works by Beethoven show certain emotions of anxiety and sorrow, but Haydn and Mozart's also do 



 - they simply explore different territories from Beethoven in the classical realm. Music became angsty and dark with/after Beethoven?



hammeredklavier said:


> Generally speaking, Classicists were more concerned with structure, manipulation, exploration of the motifs (in the form of large pieces) than expressing overt personal emotions (in the form of miniature pieces).
> 
> Take Mozart K499 for example, see how much contrast there are in each movement.
> 1st movement:
> 
> 
> 
> VS
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd movement:
> 
> 
> 
> VS
> 
> 
> 
> 3rd movement:
> 
> 
> 
> VS
> 
> 
> 
> 4th movement:
> 
> 
> 
> VS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like 80% of Beethoven are like them. After all, he was the direct successor of the Classical tradition of Haydn and Mozart. Anybody who tells me Beethoven is different are either biased or have little listening experience with Beethoven (like the 5th symphony is the only thing that plays in their head when they hear the name Beethoven)
> It's I who should be asking people who think music before Beethoven is merely simple, light music-- "Are you telling me 80% of Beethoven are nothing but simple, light music? What do you think of his Op.18, Op.59 string quartets? Violin sonatas? Or the Archduke piano trio? etc?"


----------



## EdwardBast

Agamemnon said:


> The thing that can bother me while listening to Beethoven is that I sometimes wonder if Beethoven enjoyed his music or that we are allowed to enjoy his music. Because he is so serious! I guess he believed that music can change the world so music becomes some kind of moral obligation.


Strange comment. Beethoven was a comic genius! Listen to The Sonata in Eb, Op. 31#3 or his String Quartets Opp. 59#3 and 135. Brilliant sustained comedy throughout these works.


----------



## Zofia

Flamme said:


>


*claps*

I think not but obviously some people may fanboi to 11 in that circumstance yes.


----------



## Larkenfield

Agamemnon said:


> The thing that can bother me while listening to Beethoven is that I sometimes wonder if Beethoven enjoyed his music or that we are allowed to enjoy his music. Because he is so serious! I guess he believed that music can change the world so music becomes some kind of moral obligation.


His 8th Symphony.  Full of great joy, optimistic exuberance, and wit. The man was not without a sense of humor. His 8th soars with uplifting energy, and the strange irony is that it was written during a very troubled period in his life. Like Mahler was to do, he had the ability to overcome losses, such as the gradual but turbulent loss of his hearing, through the power of his own spirit & will. I think that's what continues to interest and amaze people, not everyone but many.


----------



## larold

Since he's been dead about 250 years, and no one has hired a publicist to hype him in the interim, I'd say it isn't possible for him to be overhyped.

If you mean considered too greatly or talked about or played too much, I'm sure the answer is no. Aside from J.S. Bach and Mozart no other composer deserves to be discussed, played or heard as much as Beethoven. 

He was clearly one of the greatest composers in history and, because of his revolutionary nature and the products he left us, he is probably one of the 2 or 3 most important and infuential artists in history. I can only think of Da Vinci and Michelangelo who made imprints on their art forms as drastically as did Beethoven.

For one, Beethoven started the romantic 19th century with Eroica, a symphony whose scale was more than twice any symphony written before it. His late music, the string quartets and piano sonatas chief among them, pointed the way to philosophical composing Liszt and others would utilize down the road. 

Would the century have been same without him? No one can say but clearly composers that were influenced by him -- Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Bruckner and Mahler to name a few -- may have produced differently without Beethoven.

I don't think any other century of classical music was so dependent on a single composer to lead the way that came after him than the 19th century and Beethoven. So how can he possibly be too greatly considered?


----------



## Woodduck

larold said:


> Since he's been dead about 250 years, and no one has hired a publicist to hype him in the interim, I'd say it isn't possible for him to be overhyped.
> 
> If you mean considered too greatly or talked about or played too much, I'm sure the answer is no. Aside from J.S. Bach and Mozart no other composer deserves to be discussed, played or heard as much as Beethoven.
> 
> He was clearly one of the greatest composers in history and, because of his revolutionary nature and the products he left us, he is probably one of the 2 or 3 most important and infuential artists in history. I can only think of Da Vinci and Michelangelo who made imprints on their art forms as drastically as did Beethoven.
> 
> For one, Beethoven started the romantic 19th century with Eroica, a symphony whose scale was more than twice any symphony written before it. His late music, the string quartets and piano sonatas chief among them, pointed the way to philosophical composing Liszt and others would utilize down the road.
> 
> Would the century have been same without him? No one can say but clearly composers that were influenced by him -- Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Bruckner and Mahler to name a few -- may have produced differently without Beethoven.
> 
> I don't think any other century of classical music was so dependent on a single composer to lead the way that came after him than the 19th century and Beethoven. So how can he possibly be too greatly considered?


I agree that Beethoven is not "overhyped" and that his influence on subsequent composers can hardly be calculated or overstated. The only composer whose influence was probably comparable - and greater, if we look at his impact on art and culture beyond music - was Wagner, and Wagner never failed to acknowledge that it was Beethoven who, more than any other, inspired his chosen course. I think, though, that Beethoven's influence was more on the Romantics' _idea_ of music than on the actual sound of what they wrote.

Beethoven, riding the first great wave of Romantic aspiration, understood music as an articulate language for speaking both the most intimate secrets of the artist and the highest ideals of humanity. That sense of music's mission both determined and transcended his specific musical innovations. He inherited Classical forms and expanded and enriched them enormously, but did so under the pressure of the need to say things never said before. In doing so he left the Classical insistence on beauty and balance behind, opening the field for subsequent music to test the outermost limits of what could and should be expressed in sound.

The title of the 1929 book by Robert Haven Schauffler, "Beethoven: The Man Who Freed Music," may strike us as hyperbolic, corny, or unfair to earlier composers, but it expressed the view of Romantics like Berlioz and Wagner, who saw Beethoven as a spiritual father. The actual influence of the sound of his music on the sound of theirs, however, is less specific than the influence their own music was to exert on that of their successors. The revolutionary fervor and sheer force of Beethoven's middle period symphonies, sonatas, overtures and opera made them, like no other music, the voice of a revolutionary age: they proclaimed irresistibly the importance of the human individual. But that very focus on the individual quickly led music down roads Beethoven himself chose not to follow. The "Eroica" signaled a partial shift, in a traditional musical form, from abstract beauty to personal expression, but the implications of that for the future of music needed time to unfold. The "Symphonie Fantastique," only a few years after Beethoven's death, nearly fulfilled, in one explosive stroke of the imagination, the Romantic ideal of music as a mode of infinite expression, capable of dissolving the barriers between the mind, emotions, and senses. And yet, it's fascinating to find E. T. A. Hoffmann writing, already in 1910, that "Beethoven's music wields the lever of fear, awe, horror, and pain, and it awakens that eternal longing that is the essence of the romantic. Thus he is a purely romantic composer..."


----------



## Dimace

Red Terror said:


> _"Mozart is a garden, Schubert is a forest in light and shade, but Beethoven is a mountain range,"_
> 
> -Artur Schnabel


Bruckner was looking for the God.
Mahler has found him.

...and the God was the German. Period.

*my one and only musical God is the Hungarian Stallion. But I have to admit that the German is the Greatest. (together with Bach) Because what he accomplished isn't subject to my personal FFF taste, but of human history.


----------



## Dimace

Woodduck said:


> I agree that Beethoven is not "overhyped" and that his influence on subsequent composers can hardly be calculated or overstated. The only composer whose influence was probably comparable - and greater, if we look at his impact on art and culture beyond music - was Wagner, and Wagner never failed to acknowledge that it was Beethoven who, more than any other, inspired his chosen course. I think, though, that Beethoven's influence was more on the Romantics' _idea_ of music than on the actual sound of what they wrote.
> 
> Beethoven, riding the first great wave of Romantic aspiration, understood music as an articulate language for speaking both the most intimate secrets of the artist and the highest ideals of humanity. That sense of music's mission both determined and transcended his specific musical innovations. He inherited Classical forms and expanded and enriched them enormously, but did so under the pressure of the need to say things never said before. In doing so he left the Classical insistence on beauty and balance behind, opening the field for subsequent music to test the outermost limits of what could and should be expressed in sound.
> 
> The title of the 1929 book by Robert Haven Schauffler, "Beethoven: The Man Who Freed Music," may strike us as hyperbolic, corny, or unfair to earlier composers, but it expressed the view of Romantics like Berlioz and Wagner, who saw Beethoven as a spiritual father. The actual influence of the sound of his music on the sound of theirs, however, is less specific than the influence their own music was to exert on that of their successors. The revolutionary fervor and sheer force of Beethoven's middle period symphonies, sonatas, overtures and opera made them, like no other music, the voice of a revolutionary age: they proclaimed irresistibly the importance of the human individual. But that very focus on the individual quickly led music down roads Beethoven himself chose not to follow. The "Eroica" signaled a partial shift, in a traditional musical form, from abstract beauty to personal expression, but the implications of that for the future of music needed time to unfold. The "Symphonie Fantastique," only a few years after Beethoven's death, nearly fulfilled, in one explosive stroke of the imagination, the Romantic ideal of music as a mode of infinite expression, capable of dissolving the barriers between the mind, emotions, and senses. And yet, it's fascinating to find E. T. A. Hoffmann writing, already in 1910, that "Beethoven's music wields the lever of fear, awe, horror, and pain, and it awakens that eternal longing that is the essence of the romantic. Thus he is a purely romantic composer..."


You can put many Germans - Beethoven's experts - in shame, with your knowledges, my friend. :tiphat:


----------



## Xisten267

Agamemnon said:


> The thing that can bother me while listening to Beethoven is that I sometimes wonder if Beethoven enjoyed his music or that we are allowed to enjoy his music. *Because he is so serious!* I guess he believed that music can change the world so music becomes some kind of moral obligation.


Only to complement the examples already mentioned, I would like to say that for me his second piano sonata, particularly it's final movement, is quite fun! The man was a genius at bringing out varius kinds of emotions into his music in my opinion. Listen:


----------



## Woodduck

Dimace said:


> You can put many Germans - Beethoven's experts - in shame, with your knowledges, my friend. :tiphat:


Aw shucks! T'ain't so!


----------



## KenOC

Allerius said:


> Only to complement the examples already mentioned, I would like to say that for me his second piano sonata, particularly it's final movement, is quite fun! The man was a genius at bringing out varius kinds of emotions into his music in my opinion.


I love this movement -- sheer genius! And Richard Goode does an extra-great job here. Thanks for posting!


----------



## Xisten267

KenOC said:


> I love this movement -- sheer genius! And Richard Goode does an extra-great job here. Thanks for posting!


Thank you for the kind reply.


----------



## Zofia

Dimace said:


> You can put many Germans - Beethoven's experts - in shame, with your knowledges, my friend. :tiphat:











wuuut? -_-


----------



## Woodduck

Zofia said:


> View attachment 112326
> 
> 
> wuuut? -_-


I don't think she got them listening to Beethoven. More likely listening to Trump.

Oh, right... Nobody listens to Trump.


----------



## Zofia

Woodduck said:


> I don't think she got them listening to Beethoven. More likely listening to Trump.
> 
> Oh, right... Nobody listens to Trump.


I heard it was bar fight over people saying they had more knowledge than her on Beethoven.

No one listens to her much she is much hated here. I understand Trump hate but at least he wants to keep people out. Maybe also I like Trump memes even if I don't like him.









Goddess Nico!


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Is Beethoven overhyped? *

Yes. But he also deserves to be!


----------



## Woodduck

Zofia said:


> I understand Trump hate but at least he wants to keep people out. Maybe also I like Trump memes even if I don't like him.
> 
> View attachment 112331


No comment ...............


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> saying "[???] is overrated simply because I don't like his music" (without giving plausible reasons; analysis on the structure or its influence on music history) seems shallow to me. I believe there's more to art than aesthetic relativism and subjective beauty. It's what sets classical art apart from modern pop culture.
> 
> Glenn Gould disliked 'theatrical gestures' in music. He disliked much of the Romantic era even more than Beethoven for that reason. He had queer tastes and I tend to not take his opinions very seriously.


I can see what Glenn Gould means by that statement.

Beethoven's _'musical personality-style'_ and sense of drama is what is over-hyped, not the musical ideas themselves per se.

Beethoven uses a lot of dramatic gestures in his music, and I can see how he influenced composers like Carl Stalling (who did all the Warner Brothers cartoon music). Beethoven's music is often a series of abrupt dramatic gestures and changes of dynamics and rhythm. 
That his early works sound like 'another person' is not surprising, since the early stuff is more Mozartian, less Carl Stalling. The late String Quartet in F op. 135 is good evidence of the 'cat-and mouse' and 'hide and seek' nature of his aesthetic; definitely cartoon music of abrupt change.

Beethoven is a cartoon; that's why people like the music.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *I can see what Glenn Gould means by that statement.
> *
> Beethoven's _'musical personality-style'_ and sense of drama is what is over-hyped, not the musical ideas themselves per se.
> 
> *Beethoven uses a lot of dramatic gestures in his music, and I can see how he influenced composers like Carl Stalling (who did all the Warner Brothers cartoon music).* Beethoven's music is often a series of abrupt dramatic gestures and changes of dynamics and rhythm.
> That his early works sound like 'another person' is not surprising, since the early stuff is more Mozartian, less Carl Stalling. The late String Quartet in F op. 135 is good evidence of the 'cat-and mouse' and 'hide and seek' nature of his aesthetic; definitely cartoon music of abrupt change.
> 
> *Beethoven is a cartoon; that's why people like the music.*


The statement you're referring to is by hammeredklavier _about_ Glenn Gould and his supposed tastes. You can't claim to see what Glenn Gould meant by any statement here, because there is no statement by Glenn Gould here.

Hammeredklavier may be correct in saying that Glenn Gould claimed to dislike 'theatrical gestures' in music. But Glenn Gould also claimed to like Richard Strauss and Mahler's 8th. Clearly, Glenn Gould has some splainin' to do, and until he does, we'd better not presume to know what he means by statements attributed to him.

Everyone knows that Beethoven uses a lot of dramatic gestures in his music. Whether he has exerted any perceptible influence on any composer of music for animated cartoons is less clear. Didn't enough time, and enough music, infinite in its variety, intervene between the time of Beethoven and the time of Bugs Bunny to make it far more likely that the sources of cartoon music lie elsewhere? Clue: in cartoons, the music follows the action closely, even more closely than in live-action films. Its gestures are determined by characters bopping each other on the noggin and falling off cliffs, not by long-term musical thinking and the form-shaping imperatives of artistic expression. That's a rather fundamental distinction, wouldn't you say?

People can't like Beethoven's music for being a cartoon, because it isn't a cartoon. Your mockery of his music may be the real cartoon, but that sure doesn't make me like the mockery.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I agree that Beethoven's (and most other) quartets sound wrong played by a string orchestra, but I think the same is true of Mozart's K546. The adagio has a certain baroquey grandeur and works well enough with a large ensemble, but the fugue becomes thick and ponderous, its intricacies obscured by the homogeneous fuzz of multiple strings. Moreover, its subject is militantly square, and while solo players can de-emphasize this and compensate with varied inflections, a string orchestra only exaggerates its annoying rigidity, especially at Klemperer's tempo. I find the result pretty hard to take, and can't imagine Mozart liking it.





janxharris said:


> We are all just voicing opinions are't we? Nobody needs to master string quartet writing - it's an arbitrary group after all. Any particular arrangement will require particular skills and will evince a certain sonic effect that will be different to an alternative arrangement. Bernstein on his recording of the orchestral string arrangement of 131: "This is my personal favourite record I've ever made in my life, if you'd really like to know."


I was listening to the orchestral version of Beethoven Op.131 the other day, wondering if any of the composers themselves really intended any of these supposedly 'string quartet' pieces playable by string orchestra. Remembering the discussion we had here, I found stuff you might find intriguing:

http://classicalopera.intelligenthe...8/2012-05-Ruhe-sanft-press-release.pdf#page=2
_"Little is known about its first performance, but the presence of an independent double-bass part in the fugue has led scholars to suggest that it was intended for string orchestra rather than single strings."_

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Chris_Darwin/WebProgNotes/pdfs/MozartAdagioFugueK546.pdf
_"The arrangement was probably intended for string orchestra since the bass line has plural
violoncelli and contra bassi, but it is now usually performed by string quartet."_

Op.131 however, I couldn't find any scholarly note suggesting Beethoven might have intended it for string orchestra, although I still think string orchestra can do a reasonable job pulling off a plausible interpretation of the first movement.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Is Beethoven over hyped? Short answer: No. Less short answer: Noooooo.

Long Answer: There is a reason Beethoven's name is carved over the entry way of major orchestra halls around the world, and a reason his music was pressed onto the gold record that has left our solar system (unfortunately in a turgid Klemperer reading, but I digress).

Beethoven's music just grabs people and doesn't let go. Does it grab everyone? No. But does it grab more than anyone else? Probably yes.

When I started my deep dive, I had heard very little Beethoven outside snippets of 5 and 9, like most people. I bought a Karajan box set that included a Beethoven cycle. I listened to most of it, but found a melody in my head I couldn't shake. It was Beethoven 5 movement 4, the triumphant brass. I had to listen to it over and over again. I started buying half a dozen additional cycles to find the best reading (I haven't done this with anyone else except Brahms, and not to this extent).

The symphonies are endlessly absorbing. I take breaks, listen to other composers, thinking "I don't want Beethoven to get stale." But then I pop a symphony on again and I'm absorbed all over again. The level of craft is just so high.

There is a reason practically every composer for two hundred years afterward measured themselves against Beethoven.


----------



## haydnguy

No, but I think Haydn is under-hyped.


----------



## Haydn70

haydnguy said:


> No, but I think Haydn is under-hyped.


Exactly! It is amazing and sad that Haydn is still underrated. During 2009, the bicentennial of his death, the response by performing ensembles and soloists was, in my opinion, anemic. As I recall the Los Angeles Philharmonic hardly did anything to celebrate it. There is much more being done for the centennial of Leonard's Bernstein's birth...and I don't care how great an all-around music Bernstein was, he can't come close to matching Haydn in importance.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

No way! He is one of my favorites since I can't even remember, His Symphonies and Moonlight Sonata capture me every time again!


----------



## haydnguy

Haydn70 said:


> Exactly! It is amazing and sad that Haydn is still underrated. During 2009, the bicentennial of his death, the response by performing ensembles and soloists was, in my opinion, anemic. As I recall the Los Angeles Philharmonic hardly did anything to celebrate it. There is much more being done for the centennial of Leonard's Bernstein's birth...and I don't care how great an all-around music Bernstein was, he can't come close to matching Haydn in importance.


I agree. I saw Bernstein and can't image him coming close to Haydn.


----------



## haydnguy

Zofia said:


> I heard it was bar fight over people saying they had more knowledge than her on Beethoven.
> 
> No one listens to her much she is much hated here.  I understand Trump hate but at least he wants to keep people out. Maybe also I like Trump memes even if I don't like him.
> 
> View attachment 112331
> 
> 
> Goddess Nico!


But he didn't say when America was great. I'm trying to think about that.


----------



## Artran

Beethoven is one of the greatest composers, but that doesn't mean everyone likes him. I can't stand for example his urge to fight with things. His music can be too egocentric and pathetic to my ears. I usually avoid his orchestral works. On the other hand he composed one of the most beautiful, gentle and intimate chaber works.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

haydnguy said:


> No, but I think Haydn is under-hyped.


I wonder if part of Haydn's issue in the 20th-21st centuries is that his music is hard to market? Beethoven has nine symphonies. You can buy a box set and listen to 5.5 hours of music and be "done" with it. With Haydn and his 104 symphonies, it's like "where do I even start?"


----------



## pickybear

Only a true snob would consider Beethoven over-hyped. Perhaps his personal reputation was built partly on myth, but his music is the stuff of gods. 

Beethoven put enormous effort, and desperate feeling into his work, and to me this stands out, versus somebody for whom composing came more easily. And to do so much of it whilst deaf - come on.


----------



## Anna Strobl

His music reeks of superhuman striving and suffering. He was not able to put to score what he felt or imagined. He toiled endlessly over each note, each bar. His works are monumental, completely imaginative and incredible. 

That said, I am not a huge fan.


----------



## KenOC

Anna Strobl said:


> His music reeks of superhuman striving and suffering. He was not able to put to score what he felt or imagined. He toiled endlessly over each note, each bar. His works are monumental, completely imaginative and incredible.


To some extent, the popular image of Beethoven struggling endlessly over each note and generating voluminous sketches for every bar is exaggerated. In fact, during a single decade, Beethoven wrote a very large volume of varied and complex music that is often considered the center of the classical repertoire.

I count 6 symphonies, 2 piano concertos, some whiz-bang overtures, 5 great string quartets, 3 great cello sonatas, a couple of really good violin sonatas, a major opera still on the boards, one of the greatest violin concertos, a triple concerto of note, 3 piano trios (including 2 of the greatest ever written), a generous handful of first-drawer piano sonatas, and…well, I'll stop there. But during that period at least, the music was pouring out of Beethoven in a broad a vigorous current!


----------



## Anna Strobl

KenOC said:


> To some extent, the popular image of Beethoven struggling endlessly over each note and generating voluminous sketches for every bar is exaggerated. In fact, during a single decade, Beethoven wrote a very large volume of varied and complex music that is often considered the center of the classical repertoire.


Okay, yes, true, that. But. He WAS an endless reviser. And probably much too much of the perfectionist. He did live on his output and make a living and WAS very popular in his day.

Edited to add : Plus a virtuosic pianist.


----------



## KenOC

Anna Strobl said:


> Okay, yes, true, that. But. He WAS an endless reviser. And probably much too much of the perfectionist. He did live on his output and make a living and WAS very popular in his day.
> 
> Edited to add : Plus a virtuosic pianist.


I have to comment on that last bit! Yes, Beethoven was known as a great pianist, more so than a composer at the beginning of his Vienna career. But he had to give up that career ~1809 due to failing hearing and the Emperor Concerto was his first that he himself didn't premier. I suspect many people think that Beethoven and his like lived on nectar and ambrosia, but in fact they liked their fish dinners, beer and wine, and had to pay the rent. The loss of his income from performing was a major blow and may have led to his decision to accept a Kapellmeister post from Napoleon's brother (a decision he later reversed).


----------



## Bill Shakespeare

All classical works are under-hyped. However, it’s a misconception one is supposed to like music, or any art. Art should displease you until you enjoy its displeasure. Never like though. If you like something, you’re ignoring its truth.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bill Shakespeare said:


> All classical works are under-hyped. However, it's a misconception one is supposed to like music, or any art. Art should displease you until you enjoy its displeasure. Never like though. If you like something, you're ignoring its truth.


Welcome... to... TC???


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> To some extent, the popular image of Beethoven struggling endlessly over each note and generating voluminous sketches for every bar is exaggerated. In fact, during a single decade, Beethoven wrote a very large volume of varied and complex music that is often considered the center of the classical repertoire.
> 
> I count 6 symphonies, 2 piano concertos, some whiz-bang overtures, 5 great string quartets, 3 great cello sonatas, a couple of really good violin sonatas, a major opera still on the boards, one of the greatest violin concertos, a triple concerto of note, 3 piano trios (including 2 of the greatest ever written), a generous handful of first-drawer piano sonatas, and…well, I'll stop there. But during that period at least, the music was pouring out of Beethoven in a broad a vigorous current!







People often overlook Beethoven's sense for 'elegance and melody' (which I'm also guilty of doing myself).
Like how they often fail to see Haydn and Mozart's 'tragic emotional struggle'


----------



## janxharris

Bill Shakespeare said:


> All classical works are under-hyped. However, it's a misconception one is supposed to like music, or any art. Art should displease you until you enjoy its displeasure. Never like though. If you like something, you're ignoring its truth.


An extraordinary assertion. Perhaps you could explain?


----------



## Larkenfield

Beethoven’s life continues to fascinate because he was a remarkable composer who had a number of physical challenges to overcome. There’s been a rumor that I had problems with his hearing.  The combination of such polar opposites, a virtually deaf musician being a great composer, at least later in life when he wrote some of his greatest compositions, was highly usual and there’s never been another example of this on the scale of this magnitude of talent. He had a fascinating life with his share of major disappoints, and yet his music remained incredible.


----------



## EdwardBast

Bill Shakespeare said:


> All classical works are under-hyped. However, it's a misconception one is supposed to like music, or any art. Art should displease you until you enjoy its displeasure. Never like though. If you like something, you're ignoring its truth.


It's a good thing you showed up to enlighten us! Hundreds of people on this forum have been mistakenly liking and enjoying - dare I say it, even loving - music and art for years. How could we have been so misguided? Had you not appeared on the scene we might have gone on wasting our lives pursuing pleasure and beauty when clearly all human beings must revel in displeasure. Yes, the path is clear now. No more aesthetic pleasure and joy! Let us all seek the truth of aesthetic suffering.

And don't be discouraged by any naysayers who pretend not to appreciate your wisdom. Although we might try to hide it, all of our hearts are warmed by the cryptic pontificating of strangers.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, Beethoven is over-hyped for the wrong reasons (bombast of the Fifth, that scowling face, dramatic gestures). Nobody seems to appreciate his more subtle innovations, like the transition chord-travels in the Ninth, which are stated quietly and are easy to miss, as they fly by pretty quickly.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, Beethoven is over-hyped for the wrong reasons (bombast of the Fifth, that scowling face, dramatic gestures). Nobody seems to appreciate his more subtle innovations, like the transition chord-travels in the Ninth, which are stated quietly and are easy to miss, as they fly by pretty quickly.


A transition chord-*travel* is what?


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> A transition chord-*travel* is what?


I'm using this made-up term to indicate chord changes which go by so quickly that they can't be called modulations. It can be called a "sequence" of chords. After that obstacle is conquered, maybe the substance of what I'm saying can be considered, instead of my sloppy, made-up terms.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I'm using this made-up term to indicate chord changes which go by so quickly that they can't be called modulations. It can be called a "sequence" of chords. After that obstacle is conquered, maybe the substance of what I'm saying can be considered, instead of my sloppy, made-up terms.


Ok - so where are we talking in the ninth?


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Ok - so where are we talking in the ninth?


Let me go hunt it down.


----------



## millionrainbows

My post # 56 in the thread "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

What I really find fascinating about the Ninth is the little transition sections, which modulate by major thirds into new key areas, then the winds come in, playing that 'march of the trolls' theme. The last movement's drama is moving, and I love it, but it does not fascinate me for harmonic reasons, like the more obscure parts with all the harmonic movement do. So when the Ninth is touted as 'the greatest work,' I wonder if I am on the same page.

The Second Movement (Scherzo) of Beethoven's Ninth has some transitional material right before the modulation to E minor that involves root movement in thirds. The movement starts in D minor. Then, the transition: (1) CMaj-Amin-FMaj-Dmin...(2) Dmin-BbMaj-Gmin-EbMaj...(3) Ebmaj-Cmin-AbMaj-Fmin...(4) DbMaj (F bass)-Bbmin (Db bass)-GbMaj (Bb bass)-Ebmin (Gb bass)...(5) BMaj-G#min-EMaj-C#min- Then (in octaves, not triads):[A-Bb-B]...into E minor. Does that ring a bell? They fly by pretty quick.

This chord sequence, in which different key areas are briefly touched on, goes by as quickly as a bebop chord sequence. I hesitate to call these brief resting points "key centers", as they have not settled down into the key area yet, as finally happens in the E minor section which follows, so I would characterize the sequence as "transitional" material.

Notice how Beethoven is playing with both major thirds and minor thirds. The minor third root movements could be seen as I-vi, as in the first CMaj-Amin. The movement from Amin to Fmaj could be seen as a iii min-I Maj. This allows him to quickly establish new "tonic" chords (also, chords are constructed using major and minor thirds). Would anyone classify these as true modulations? If so, they are very compact.

BTW, root movement by thirds is the quickest way to go to distant key areas.

The root movement of these chords in minor and major thirds also outlines chords, like a

(1)D minor seventh, outlined by C-A-F-D, and 
(2)Eb major seventh, outlined by D-Bb-G-Eb, 
(3)Fmin7 outlined by Eb-C-Ab-F,
(4)GbMaj7, outlined by F-Db-Bb-Gb, 
(5)C#min7, outlined by B-G#-E-C#

...then the C#min7 is seen as iii min of A Major, then a chromatic climb to B (V of V in A), which is the V of the new key, E minor.

Could this "outlining of chords" also be seen as a "root movement" in its own right?

If so, we start out in D minor, which is then seen as the ii minor of C Maj, through G7. Then we have C major-D minor (seen now as a iii minor in Bb major)-Eb major(IV in Bb)-F minor(v minor in Bb)-Gb major(b vi in Bb and V in Db minor (C#)-C#minor(iii in A)-A major-(Bb)-B, finally to E minor.

If so, look how brilliant the "double meaning" of chords outlining other chords by their predominant note is.

P.S. I also alluded to Wagner's use of outlining the Tristan chord to move to new root station. Woodcut never bothered to comment on this. What do you think?


----------

