# Help me enjoy Beethoven and the Romantic Era!



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

I enjoy the "big dogs" of the Baroque and Classical periods of music. I say this to illustrate that I do enjoy "old" classical music.

I have yet to truly grasp the greatness of the "big dog" of the Romantic period:

Beethoven.

If so many persons whom I respect are able to enjoy his music as deeply as they do, I can assume that there is something there for me to enjoy as well.

I find that this stands true with all art. If people rave about something, then it must be good, regardless of how I feel about it. In other words, I always am waiting for music to click. I generally do not write anything off, ever. I will always return again in the future to see if I feel differently.

that said:

My feelings on Beethoven's music are this:

I enjoy listening to some of it, a bit. But generally I begin to feel irritated and let down. I don't enjoy the bombast of works like the 9th Symphony. I don't enjoy the melodies and harmonies in his piano music (the sonatas are strangely unenjoyable to me - though I would appreciate a recommendation of a specific one I should listen to). I don't like the theme of his 5th Symphony.

My favorite creation of his is the opening to the second movement of his 7th Symphony:





But then I find that the buildup is devoid of any sort of emotion that I can relate to. All I can hear in it is that it grows louder as it repeats, after which it goes into the next part.

Part of my problem is that I have trouble hearing too much of a difference between Mozart and Beethoven. And what is it about Beethoven that so strongly sets him apart? The way I understand it is that Beethoven brought a new sort of tension and emotional complexity to music.

Where Mozart's music strived on perfection, Beethoven's music adds a hint of humanity and imperfection. Perhaps my life isn't dramatic enough. Certainly there is the intricacy of the interlocking strings and such, etc, but the added dimension of "intense emotion" seems to go over my head and distract me. I cannot relate to it.

I do hear most of Beethoven's music as being melodramatic.

I greatly prefer Tchaikovsky's melodic sense. It makes sense to me on the emotional level. It can make me cry.

Beethoven's music, to me, is too classical, yet not classical enough (if that makes sense).

For the record, my favorite Romantic composer is either Chopin or Tchaikovsky. Chopin to me is an update on Classical Era piano music, while Tchaikovsky seems to represent the full on Romantic Era sound.

I have tried and failed to get into composers such as Schumann, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, and Mahler. I expected to enjoy the first three for their piano work, as that is my preferred area of classical, and Mahler for his orchestral work, but I found most of it to contain the same traits of Beethoven's music which I discussed above.

So yes, a Beethoven/Romantic Era thread!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I cannot reply at length as I would like at the moment, but I do have a few points to make.

1. Thank you for trying to enjoy Beethoven, even though you don't yet. You must have a lot of eclecticism and curiosity.

2. Beethoven was not really Romantic in my opinion (and several others' as well). This argument has been tossed back and forth a lot and is probably not worth the effort, but to my mind he is firmly in the classical period - indeed the very apex of it.

3. You may enjoy these lectures by Andras Schiff in which he descibes in detail exactly what is going on in each of the piano sonatas. I liked Beethoven before - but I didn't really appreciate solo piano much before hearing these lectures. Schiff's gentle voice explains eveything so clearly, it opened up a whole new universe for me.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/page/0,,1943867,00.html

Good luck in your quest!


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

Weston said:


> 3. You may enjoy these lectures by Andras Schiff in which he descibes in detail exactly what is going on in each of the piano sonatas. I liked Beethoven before - but I didn't really appreciate solo piano much before hearing these lectures. Schiff's gentle voice explains eveything so clearly, it opened up a whole new universe for me.
> http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/page/0,,1943867,00.html


this is unreal. thank you so much.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

You seem to have a genuine willingness to appreciate Beethoven vamos (showing good-will towards the music is the most important step I think!) so it would seem like just a matter of time before you come to like his music on a deeper level, probably when you have listened more and gotten used to his idiom .
Other Beethoven works to try - from the Symphonies you may appreciate the 3rd or perhaps the 6th Symphonies more?. I also think you may like the later PS's better so perhaps try No. 28 onwards?. You could also give the String Quartets a try - I think the early ones are particularly "classical" and they develop nicely in style so another starting point?.
Beethoven is one of my favourite composers and I did like a lot of his stuff immediately upon listening but there were works (including the Piano Sonatas) were I had to put in a bit more listening time to appreciate - enjoy! .


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

vamos said:


> Beethoven's music, to me, is too classical, yet not classical enough (if that makes sense).


Some of Beethoven's large scale works can indeed sound a little bombastic to first time listeners, such as parts of the last two symphonies or parts of the _Missa Solemnis_, Op.123. His vocal works tended to sound more instrumental rather than "truely vocal". Many of these late pieces were Romantic pieces, although Beethoven considered himself a late classicist, musically speaking. So you're probably not far off the mark.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This thread just reminds me how difficult it is for us (mainly) laymen to put the difference between composers into words. You say you hear little difference between Mozart & Beethoven & I can see why. There's many overlaps between them, and also Haydn. You probably know this already, and Conor has noted this already, but many of Beethoven's early chamber works in particular have a kind of "classical era" feel about them, much more than his middle or later works. Maybe a good idea is to slowly (I'm talking over a period of years perhaps) work your way through Beethoven's major works, from the earliest to the latest. Two major chamber works that I know from early on which are readily available on recordings are his _Septet_ and _Octet_. The former was actually much more popular than any of his symphonies during his lifetime (much to Beethoven's chagrin, apparently). Audiences just loved it. I think these are really enjoyable works, even for a guy like me, who is not majorly into music of that era. It may also be a good idea, if you have some time & money, to attend a live performance of such a piece, especially if you've familiarised yourself with the recording. I often gain added insights into a piece after seeing it live (if I know it). These kind of concerts inevitably also feature the other Viennese guys music - such as Mozart, Haydn, Schubert. So you shouldn't be disappointed if you make the effort to go. & I'm always surprised when I see this type of music live that it has much more dissonance and (basically) 'loudness' than you would think just listening to recordings. Recordings seem to iron out and homogenise all of the sounds, with live performance I get this added 'bang' which just draws me in to the music...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Being quite familiar with his works, I think I can contribute some here...

One of the most important things to understand about Beethoven is that he was first and foremost a follower of the classical tradition, meaning he more or less followed standard sonata-form format throughout his life. He differs from Haydn, Mozart, Clementi, and others of his time in that he really expanded the sonata-form rules and pushed the boundaries about as far as they would go.. for example, the Symphony No. 3 'Eroica' is still in the traditional sonata-form, but its development and coda sections are very very extended and elaborate. Most of his symphonies are written in this manner, but I believe the only piano sonata featuring extension of this type is the 'Hammerklavier.' Beethoven also liked to play with conventional orderings of sonata movements, sometimes beginning or ending with a slow movement.

Aside from that, Beethoven was very classical and wrote a great deal of Mozart/Haydn-ish works in the major key that are upbeat and in good humor. His 'Pathetique', 'Appassionata', and 'Moonlight' sonatas are fairly uncommon exceptions. They simply represent the basic classical style of composition infused with his fiery, bombastic personality. His very late works, including the chorale finale of the Symphony No. 9 and the 'jazzy' second movement of the piano sonata No. 32, are quite unique and I do not think should be compared to the rest of his work.

Also, it seems that a common misconception of Beethoven is that he 'ushered in' the Romantic era by the end of his life. Almost nobody tried to expand sonata-form the way Beethoven did, and those who tried to often had embarrassing results (see the Schumann symphonies). Rather, the Romantic era was built off of short, melodic pieces, comparatively simpler form structures, and with far more harmonic freedom than what sonata-form allowed. Thus, far more representative of the early Romantic era was Schubert with his lieder, the Field Nocturnes, and of course Chopin, none of whose music sounds anything like Beethoven.

So, to enjoy Beethoven.. I find it's helpful and fun to begin with a little Haydn or Mozart, who kept within the very conventional rules most of the time, then move on to Beethoven to see how far he could stretch them. I confess I am not very familiar with his string quartets, so I'm not sure how these pieces affect his overall output.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Also, it seems that a common misconception of Beethoven is that he 'ushered in' the Romantic era by the end of his life.


I happen to agree with you. However, this is a recurrent theme on this Board. The various issues have been discussed repeatedly. For example, have a look at post # 46 in this thread to see one recent example of where the opposite viewpoint was expressed.

Whether or not Beethoven ushered in the Romantic era or remained largely Classical, it would seem to be a very strong leap forward from that to conjecture that Beethoven was the "big dog" of the Romantic era, as alleged in the OP. I would have thought that this latter suggestion is just plain wrong, and possibly suggests a degree of basic misunderstanding of the history of classical music. It's names like Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky who are normally put forward as contenders for the greatest/favourite 19th C Romantic, not Beethoven.

In fact, the whole of the OP strikes me as having been written by someone who has very little experience of classical music generally. If this is correct it's not surprising that they find it difficult to digest big chunks of it outside of the area where they first started. I would have thought that most people would be happy to take their time in letting their tastes develop as their experience levels increase through age. To raise a thread asking how to appreciate Beethoven, of all composers, strikes me as somewhat peculiar. If one doesn't "get it" by dint of their own savvy, I wouldn't have thought that anyone can help.

Hence, to coin a phrase from "Dragon's Den", I would love to help you in your search for advice on how to improve your appreciation of Beethoven but since you probably wouldn't have the slightest clue about what I'd be talking about, I'm out.


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

People like you represent everything I truly detest about music related message boards. 

If you want to get a short lecture from a person who's probably at least 10 years younger than you about why you are a bozo, I'd be glad to give it.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

Heh. Good answer.

*Opal wrote:*



> Whether or not Beethoven ushered in the Romantic era or remained largely Classical, it would seem to be a very strong leap forward from that to conjecture that Beethoven was the "big dog" of the Romantic era, as alleged in the OP. I would have thought that this latter suggestion is just plain wrong, and possibly suggests a degree of basic misunderstanding of the history of classical music.


and:



> In fact, the whole of the OP strikes me as having been written by someone who has very little experience of classical music generally.


Whilst that might well be true of me, as I'd happily agree that I'm very ignorant about 19th C music, it is a manifestly fallacious viewpoint.

1. Beethoven was regarded as the 'big dog' of Romantic music by the vast majority of music scholars for over a hundred years. Did all those supposed experts have 'little experience of classical music generally'? Sure, contemporary scholarship may largely take a different view but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily right. Both viewpoints are ones that have been held to be true by very distinguished music scholars.

2. Beethoven was regarded as a Romantic within his own lifetime, indeed well within his 'heroic phase'. Whether this view was correct or not Romanticism was already identified as existing in music. Whilst Romanticism was never what you'd call a 'movement, it was a strain that was recognized in the arts during this era. Yet according to your view these people who essentially created th conception of Romanticism had got it wrong, had in fact jumped the gun, and were merely waiting for Romanticism which hadn't actually been invented yet! One imagines people lounging in salons saying, ''well I thought Beethoven was Romantic but then I realised the error of my ways as Romanticism hasn't arrived yet -it's going to be terribly exciting when it gets here. I wonder what it'll sound like''.

This is patently ludicrous. Whether Beethoven as an individual is seen as Romantic or not, to say that Romanticism couldn't exist when the public had already conceived of it and identified it in the field of music is an unsustainable argument. To make this on the basis that the major technical features which characterize mid-19th C music hadn't yet been developed is for contemporary scholarship to redefine the meaning of Romanticism to suit its' own predelictions. It's an obvious anchronism. I commonly see the view stated that older scholarship on this was 'naive'. I suspect that it is the modern scholarship which is actually naive.

I think scholars need to seriously re-examine these conceptions and the same is true for Classicism (it strikes me as odd that by at least some views the supposedly 'transitional' galant period actually lasts longer and takes in a much larger stylistic range than the Classical era that it's theorized to have been paving the way for).

Vamos, I can't really help you with 'learning to like' Beethoven. He always had an immediate appeal to me. I can see why some of his late works might be 'challenging', but not otherwise. My advice would be not to try and force it. I think everyone takes a journey in music via different paths so that they are 'ready' to hear different things at different times -maybe you're just not 'there' yet where Beethoven's concerned. Some modernist music I'd say is challenging in a way that you may need to 'force it' in a way that shatters your preconceptions. With Beethoven, for the most part, I think you should just wait until you find that it appeals to you -it's really not something that should be painful or a 'duty'.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

hocket, the meaning of words changes over time. Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were all referred to as "romantic" in their day, by Hoffman and other writers. In this way the word 'romantic' could be synonymous with 'modern' or 'progressive thinking.' 

As far as the historical timelines go, however, those three composers, including Beethoven, are all fully attached to the Classical tradition and generally do not follow the Romantic style, especially with their lack of chromaticisms and full adherence to sonata-form. As far as I know, the only reason 19th century writers considered Beethoven a "romantic" was because he was seen as the ultimate archetype of the struggling artist, who triumphed through personal difficulties to make glorious music. In musical terms, however, the only artist who really composed "like Beethoven" and on the same artistic level would be Brahms, with his symphonies.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm kind of with vamos in this one: I try to "get" Beethoven, but his music doesn't move me. I can listen to Mozart and feel everything, but Beethoven's music seems pompous, or maybe just too personal to the composer, but it doesn't involve me. I listened a lot recently to the Hammerklavier and Gross Fugue and they're tremendous, but they strike me as being ego-centric. There were a lot of sentiments and effects, but I didn't warm to them. 

I understand the fault lies with me, because Beethoven is a genuine giant in music, and I suppose I should be sorry if I'm like the dude described above, who wouldn't understand these things anyhow. It doesn't matter if I do or don't. I don't understand how my car works, either...


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Ravellian wrote:*



> hocket, the meaning of words changes over time... In this way the word 'romantic' could be synonymous with 'modern' or 'progressive thinking.'


The meaning of words can change but this isn't a valid example of that. Romanticism was not characterized primarily as 'progressive thinking' at that time (though it was associated with those ideas). As now, Romanticism was seen as having a number of identifying, if vague, characteristics. These included a a more direct emotionalism, greater emphasis on the artist as an individual, an emphasis on the power of nature etc. etc. I'm sure you know all this. Romanticism was identified as an identifiable strain in the arts for some or all of these reasons. This is not something that can be changed -it's a historical and cultural fact. To redefine Romanticism to suit the areas of focus of modern criticism is obviously unhelpful and a completely inappropriate approach.

Leaving aside music (where the use of the terminology is almost entirely arbitrary) have the terms Renaissance and Baroque changed their meaning? Obviously not. Even more than those Romanticism is defined by how it was perceived at its' inception because it was clearly seen as a development in the arts and one that occurred across the board in literature, music and the visual arts. Defining it has always proven tricky if not impossible but it has nonetheless been acknowledged as something that occureed ever since.



> Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were all referred to as "romantic" in their day, by Hoffman and other writers.


Yes I know. Actually, I mentioned it in the thread that Opal linked to. Personally I think this is probably indicative. Whilst I don't think that Haydn and Mozart were full blown Romantics I do think that they were 'on the way' there. Romanticism didn't happen over night and the cult of the sublime in the second half of the 18th C was a major part of the transition. Composers like Beck, Dittersdorf and particularly Kraus strike me as having rather Romantic tendencies too. That's just my personal perspective though and some of this stuff isn't part of the common cultural inheritance/baggage in the way that Beethoven, Hayd and Mozart are.



> As far as the historical timelines go, however, those three composers, including Beethoven, are all fully attached to the Classical tradition and generally do not follow the Romantic style, especially with their lack of chromaticisms and full adherence to sonata-form.


This is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. It strikes me as a particularly backward form of logic. Taking some of the characteristic features of mid 19th C music and deciding that they define Romanticism in order to prove that people who composed before those techniques had developed weren't Romantics is a chronically false perspective. Those techniques may well be features of Romanticism but they aren't necessarily defining ones. Is it possible to express some or all of the concepts associated with Romanticism through other techniques? The real question is whether or not Beethoven's music expresses the ideas associated with Romanticism and then whether it does so more than his predecessors (and whether or not they in turn do moreso than their respective predecessors). If Beethoven does express those things then we should be able to find technical reasons why he does/is able to, but they needn't necessarily be the same as those of later Romantic composers. What they expres are the defining features of Romanticism, not necessarily the techniques used to do so.

In this sense the technical reasons that you cite strike me as just another failed attempt to define Romanticism (in a very large field). It is no better than Meyer Abrams 'mirror and lamp' theory. That fell down epecially on its' failure to encompass Byron. Personally, IMO it should've been obvious that the technical reasons you cite were inadequate to define Romanticism when they failed to encompass Beethoven -someone I'd consider one of the mopst obvious examples of the Romantic artist (and certainly not just because of his life). If one can't be both Classical and Romantic then why did Shelley spend the latter part of his career writing largely in Classical Greek forms? Yet he never sounds remotely like Dryden or Pope. Nearly all the English Romantic poets wrote in Renaissance forms most of the time -it was one of the characteristic features. There seems to be a lot of woolly thinking on this subject IMHO.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Kieran wrote:*



> Beethoven's music seems pompous, or maybe just too personal to the composer


and:



> I listened a lot recently to the Hammerklavier and Gross Fugue and they're tremendous, but they strike me as being ego-centric.


Sorry to hear you're not enjoying Beethoven, but I just thought I'd isolate those quotes as they strike me as making some very significant points showing that Beethoven expresses some Romantic particularly traits as I was arguing.

So, thanks, even though I realise that wasn't the primary point of your post.


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2010)

To vamos:
Not meaning this as criticism, but the question you pose to us is kind of silly. Unless you have a technical knowledge of music and how it is composed (which I don't), then you are probably like the rest of us - you like what you hear, or you don't. If you have an in depth knowledge of musical composition, then perhaps you could have someone give you a suitable lesson on the unique contributions that Beethoven brought, and you could learn to appreciate him at a cerebral level. But without that, I'm willing to bet most of your musical preference is rooted in how it makes you feel, which is entirely subjective, and nobody can "teach" you differently.

I am no musicologist, but as I have understood it, Beethoven is a giant to the Romantic period, but more in the sense that his music, particularly his later works, gave a lot of inspiration to those that would later become the backbone of the Romantic period. His works foreshadowed the Romantic period, but did not define it or anchor it. 

For me, Beethoven has never been difficult to appreciate - except for his late string quartets, which took some time, but were well worth it! To my ear, I can find no significant similarities between Beethoven and Mozart once you get past his first 2 symphonies, his early piano sonatas, and his early string quartets. Once you hit his middle "heroic" period, it is new ground. Incidentally, this period is also the one that I have always found the easiest to appreciate - the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th symphonies, the Razumovsky quartets, the piano sonatas. These, to me, have incredible depth, and yet also have many inherent qualities right at the surface, allowing for both immediate and long-lasting enjoyment. The late period works - the 9th symphony, the Missa Solemnis (to me, one of the most heavenly choral works devised by the mind of man), the late piano sonatas, and the late string quartets - have for me less immediate appeal, but yield even greater satisfaction once given sufficient attention. I think his 15th String Quartet is one of the most beautiful of the genre.

My only recommendation would be to change the type of recording you are listening to. For so long, Beethoven has been played from the lens of a late Romantic mentality. Very big sound, big orchestras, etc. And don't get me wrong, there is much that is good there. I enjoy Karajan's interpretations of his works, as well as Klemperer. I think Beethoven's works translate more to this performance style than do those of Haydn or Mozart. But look at him more from the lens of a classical composer. Try a period performance. For starters, listen to Gardiner's recordings of the symphonies and piano concertos with a fortepiano. The leaner sound puts the music, to my ear, more in a classical setting than a romantic one. Additionally, Jos van Immerseel/Anima Eterna's recordings of the symphonies have gotten high praise - much faster tempos are taken than you normally hear, and the music is much leaner. Somebody here described it as Beethoven speeding down the road on a motorcycle. If you don't like period instruments, try Vanska's or Jarvi's new cycles of the symphonies - not exactly HIP, no period instruments, but using HIP performance practices. The best of both worlds. I love Vanska's recordings. 

With me, whenever I can't initially get into a conductor or a work, before abandoning it, I look for a different recording, or a different interpretation. I had similar feelings regarding Haydn - too dry, boring, monotonous. Then I tried HIP recordings of Haydn, and a whole new world opened up. That is the only advice I can give here. If you can come to appreciate Beethoven, all the better. The high position and immense praise he regularly receives are not given lightly. But if not, don't worry. There are plenty of other composers to spend your money collecting.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

hocket said:


> If Beethoven does express those things then we should be able to find technical reasons why he does/is able to, but they needn't necessarily be the same as those of later Romantic composers. What they expres are the defining features of Romanticism, not necessarily the techniques used to do so.


That may be so, on the grander scale..



hocket said:


> In this sense the technical reasons that you cite strike me as just another failed attempt to define Romanticism (in a very large field). It is no better than Meyer Abrams 'mirror and lamp' theory. That fell down epecially on its' failure to encompass Byron. Personally, IMO it should've been obvious that the technical reasons you cite were inadequate to define Romanticism when they failed to encompass Beethoven -someone I'd consider one of the mopst obvious examples of the Romantic artist (and certainly not just because of his life). If one can't be both Classical and Romantic then why did Shelley spend the latter part of his career writing largely in Classical Greek forms? Yet he never sounds remotely like Dryden or Pope. Nearly all the English Romantic poets wrote in Renaissance forms most of the time -it was one of the characteristic features. There seems to be a lot of woolly thinking on this subject IMHO.


It seems to me you're referring to the entire Romantic movement- the entire school of thought, including literature and the visual arts. I am not overly familiar with poetry or painting of the period. I am speaking about trends in music, and how ways of music composition and theory 'progressed' in the 19th century. And the bottom line is that, for the most part, composers did not (could not) compose in the grand logic of Beethoven's expanded sonata form in the 19th century and tended to favor smaller forms and structures. Moreover, music for Romantic composers was, on the whole, supposed to be descriptive, biographical, sentimental... not music conceived for the sake of working with an abstract structure such as sonata-form (as Beethoven did). Yes, Beethoven encompassed the Romantic idea that the individual voice is the most important thing in the arts and that to be unique is the ideal, but _despite_ that, his musical compositions represent the highest point of development of the CLASSICAL era. Hence why I consider Beethoven to be first and foremost a 'classical' composer. I don't think we'll get much further along this line of argument.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

There are two early works which really illustrate Beethoven's charms and show his later ethos in embryo:
The Septet (Op. 20) and the Serenade for flute trio (Op. 25).

'Get' those, and you'll be on the way to 'getting' the 'real' Beethoven.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

hocket said:


> Sorry to hear you're not enjoying Beethoven, but I just thought I'd isolate those quotes as they strike me as making some very significant points showing that Beethoven expresses some Romantic particularly traits as I was arguing.
> 
> So, thanks, even though I realise that wasn't the primary point of your post.


Thanks Hocket,

I realise the loss is mine - and it's immense - and I'll continue to listen, because I love so much of Beethoven's work, it has the virtue of being lively and expressive and challenging and so much more, but right now, I just can't relate to the dude!


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Ravellian wrote:*



> It seems to me you're referring to the entire Romantic movement- the entire school of thought, including literature and the visual arts.


Yes, absolutely. I don't see that they are separable when talking about Romanticism conceptually. This is another reason why I think that 'the meaning of the word has changed' argument can't hold water. It amounts to 'Romanticism is whatever we say it is' ('we' being contemporary music scholars in this instance). You just can't shift the goalposts like that on purely technical musical grounds when the concept stretches across to the other arts and even into socio-eonomic features of the period.



> I am speaking about trends in music, and how ways of music composition and theory 'progressed' in the 19th century.


...and I'm certainly not denying that things progressed in that way. What I am suggesting is that whilst those things may be features of much Romantic music they do not adequately define Romanticism itself within music as a whole. I fear that music scholarsip has led itself up a blind alley here due to its' excessive focus on the technical. They want Romanticism to be a homogenous body that fits neatly under a technical label -but there's no reason that it should be. Romanticism was/is a diverse confluence of concepts and there's every reason to suppose that there should be a wide variety of ways to express them. As I was trying to point out wth reference to Shelley (and I could just as easily have used Keats as an example), I don't see any reason why Beethoven cannot be a classicist without being any less of a Romantic. Whilst that's true I don't think there's any doubt that there are fairly obvious differences between his music and that of Mozart and Haydn -both in technique and tone. Sure, he may favour sonata form, but that doesn't tell the whole story.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> To vamos:
> Not meaning this as criticism, *but the question you pose to us is kind of silly*. Unless you have a technical knowledge of music and how it is composed (which I don't), then you are probably like the rest of us - you like what you hear, or you don't. If you have an in depth knowledge of musical composition, then perhaps you could have someone give you a suitable lesson on the unique contributions that Beethoven brought, and you could learn to appreciate him at a cerebral level. But without that, I'm willing to bet most of your musical preference is rooted in how it makes you feel, which is entirely subjective, and nobody can "teach" you differently.


This is very much the same point I was making in my previous post.

It seems ludicrous to me that anyone could go to the trouble of raising a thread asking for help in appreciating Beethoven, when all they have to do is listen to it and decide whether or not they like it.

It would have been a different matter altogether if a novice had heard one or two Beethoven pieces they liked, and wanted recommendations for other works. But to state that they generally don't like Beethoven except for one movement of one symphony and then expect other members to educate them in how to enjoy the rest of Beethoven's output is just plain daft.

Perhaps if I had prefaced my comment with something like "Not intending to imply that you are probably a [some suitably derogatory term] ..." my post might not have attracted the comment that I am a "bozo".


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

Sorry for calling you a bozo.

Yes I will have to agree that this thread is not very good. Not good at all.

Sometimes my head tells me to do things for no reason. For instance, the 9th symphony was one of the first classical pieces that hit me. I don't know why I forgot that.

Well I listened to it last night after thinking about this...

Furtwangler 1954?

It's only become more astounding over the past year or so. And that is in part because of some of the things said in this thread ... I've been thinking about "progression." It's very interesting to hear the new, more complex structures in comparison to Mozart etc.

Mindblowing. I'll be in this phase for some time now. I don't know where to go next.

In addition, I never have been the person who cares much about who is conducting my piece. I just want to hear it. Well I think I finally understand why people care. It completely changes the music.


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

After listening to some of that I put on Mahler and found that I was able to enjoy that as well. Sometimes you have to shift the way you look at things to enjoy them.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

ha ha.. this thread is the opposite of this one , http://www.talkclassical.com/10180-sounds-similar-beethoven-brahms.html , welcome new member!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

vamos said:


> Furtwangler 1954?


 Still stuck in the 1950s with these heavily Romaticised versions of Beethoven's symphonies? No wonder some listeners think Beethoven was as Romantic a composer as a Berlioz or a Wagner.


----------



## djmomo17 (Aug 12, 2010)

Wow quite a raucous thread. I can only add to the OP's question that Beethoven has an incredible variety of faces, not just "bombastic" or whatever. For humor, I would suggest the Opus 31 piano sonatas. For whimsy or intimacy try the Bagatelles like Opus 33 or Opus 119. The slow movement to String Quartet Opus 132 ("Heiliger Dankgesang") is basically a prayer of healing and thanksgiving. The cello sonatas are beyond easy categorization, but I don't think they are bombastic at least. For groovy, try String quartet Opus 59 No. 1. I suppose his orchestral works can be considered bombastic, but the 6th Symphony (Pastoral) is pretty rustic, almost an early sample of minimalism in the 19th century (or at least the 1st movement). Oh yeah, listen to the piano Fantasia in G minor Opus 77 - very Chopin-esque IMHO. 

From my own experience I had always heard Beethoven was great but didn't love him because I knew only his "famous" pieces. Once I heard his non-melodramatic work, I realized his vision is not easily categorized. The Diabelli Variations has some Rite of Spring in it (sort of : var 21). Hope this is of some help...B is my favorite composer as a matter of fact!


----------

