# Was Beethoven more Classical or Romantic?



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Beethoven is usually seen as a transition between the two; but which one was more pronounced in his music? I personally really feel the two combining in his music, so I have a hard time deciding...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven's style evolved too far for a simple answer to be possible. We have to look at particular phases of his output, as well as individual works. After two Classical symphonies, the "Eroica" still utilizes inherited forms, but the "story" they're made to tell represents something new in the world. Beethoven gradually remolded old bottles to accommodate new wine.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven's style evolved too far for a simple answer to be possible. We have to look at particular phases of his output, as well as individual works. After two Classical symphonies, the "Eroica" still utilizes inherited forms, but the "story" they're made to tell represents something new in the world. Beethoven gradually remolded old bottles to accommodate new wine.


So earlier compositions were mostly Classical while later were mostly Romantic? Is that's what you're trying to say?


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

Beethoven...Classical? Romantic?. difficult issue. May you define what´s classicism?romanticism?:angel:


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Agamenon said:


> Beethoven...Classical? Romantic?. difficult issue. May you define what´s classicism?romanticism?:angel:


By composers?
Mozart, Haydn-Classical
Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn-Romantic
More or less...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There is the further complication of whether to call the new expressive territory Beethoven was exploring "Romantic." Might some of his work be neither Classical nor Romantic? And in what way? What are our definitions of Classicism and Romanticism, and how well do they fit? Maybe Beethoven is just Beethoven. 

I don't think it hurts to wade into this cautiously.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> There is the further complication of whether to call the new expressive territory Beethoven was exploring "Romantic." Might some of his work be neither Classical nor Romantic? And in what way? What are our definitions of Classicism and Romanticism, and how well do they fit? Maybe Beethoven is just Beethoven.
> 
> I don't think it hurts to wade into this cautiously.


As a whole I agree, but obviously periods don't change in the blink of an eye, which is why I (As I already said) can feel the transition...yet the questions remains-more of what in general?


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Beethoven, even in his late work, has a clarity and transparency which to me is emblematic of the classical period.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Gallus said:


> Beethoven, even in his late work, has a clarity and transparency which to me is emblematic of the classical period.


Who would be the "first" Romantic composer if so? Would there be a difference in times between Germany/Austria and Russia? Tchaikovsky (for example) is considered one of the most important composers of the Romanic period (and rightly so); is there a major difference between western and eastern Europe regarding musical periods?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

In general, Classical period music is more tightly proportioned between the established form and expression (form is more integral to the expression itself, each expression or passage is more "compartmentalized"), while Romantic music usually still adheres to the general form, but given less priority and individual expression is given higher priority, and usually longer in discourse, with more concessions, recurring themes and side ideas. So generally Beethoven, Weber, and Schubert are classified under the Classical period. The expressions are contained well within and reinforcing the structure.

I should probably add the rhythms, metre were also more consistent and regular in the Classical period.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> In general, Classical period music is more tightly proportioned between the established form and expression (form is more integral to the expression itself, each expression or passage is more "compartmentalized"), while Romantic music usually still adheres to the general form, but given less priority and individual expression is given higher priority, and usually longer in discourse, with more concessions, recurring themes and side ideas. So generally Beethoven, Weber, and Schubert are classified under the Classical period. The expressions are contained well within and reinforcing the structure.
> 
> I should probably add the rhythms, metre were also more consistent and regular in the Classical period.


Who was the first Romantic composer if so?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Who was the first Romantic composer if so?


I have understood that Schubert was the first romantic composer but this contradicts with Phil loves classical 's comment. Schubert's 8th symphony is considered as the first romantic symphony. Maybe I'm mistaken...


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Very 'trustworthy' khm khm information from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony
"Of the symphonies of Franz Schubert, two are core repertory items and are frequently performed. Of the Eighth Symphony (1822), Schubert completed only the first two movements; this highly Romantic work is usually called by its nickname "The Unfinished". His last completed symphony, the Ninth (1826) is a massive work in the Classical idiom."

I have no idea if this can be trusted or not


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Beethoven was a Romantic composer to me. Right from the start. I don't think he was transitional because you don't get a sense of his feeling his way. He knows what he wants and he delivers it. His concern seems to me to be about expression rather than form. Some of his early works use devices that we know from the Classical era but these are superficial similarities with what went before. I think Schubert was also a Romantic through and through. I can't hear either of them as at all Classical.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Hmm...try this. With what frequency do you wear a powdered wig while performing? And /or a long, many-buttoned coat in bright colors? I'm serious. Perhaps we need to be looking at times, seasons, and social expectations rather than simply at the music per se.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Gallus said:


> Beethoven, even in his late work, has a clarity and transparency which to me is emblematic of the classical period.


 Yes, It was for his 2 major /principle *sons* to take Beethoven's ideas into more lush romantic forms, Brahms, Dvorak. 
Beethoven had many more *sons* than did Mozart, due to his improvisational style of writing. 
Beethoven was more rigidly structured, and so others could easily pick up where he left off.

Not sure which is Beethoven's greatest *son*, Brahms or Dvorak...that is MOST liked the father....I'd say Dvoark is most like Beethoven, but Brahms is the greater composer..but I am not so sure....as its been yrs(decades) since I last heard anything from Dvorak.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> By composers?
> Mozart, Haydn-Classical
> Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn-Romantic
> More or less...


Very good summation.

with one tiny adjustment, Mozart to me is classical-improvisational , but only his late works, His early works are pure classical forms. 
Hayden is 100% pure classical structure, I never cared, nor ever listen to Hayden. Mozart's early works offer much more than Hayden's late *great* works. 
For me , Hayden is just a name in the catalogues.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

On one level the Romantic era could be described as the multi-faceted failure to assimilate Beethoven musically or intellectually.  And he far transcended the constraints of the Classical style and the aesthetic foundations from which it grew. Beethoven's mature style doesn't fit either category very well. This doesn't mean that trying to link stylistic traits of his music to one or both categories isn't a useful and rewarding exercise. But if one has to saw off limbs and remove organs to get him into one box or the other, it might be time to rethink the binary model. Neither fish nor fowl, a crypto-zoological marvel.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

WEll then take Beethoven's 8th sym. If anyone in the world, walks by a concert in progress, what is the 1st thought that comes to mind?
*oh there is a CLASSICAL concert* taking place.
Beethoven's 8th is pure classicism. You can not find a more perfect portrayal of the classic classical model. 
Tchaikovsky took Beethoven's music and romanticized it. . 

Whereas Mozart certainly offers the classical structures, yet woven in the fabric are embellishments , nuances, poetic improvisations , his late works in reference.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

paulbest said:


> WEll then take Beethoven's 8th sym. If anyone in the world, walks by a concert in progress, what is the 1st thought that comes to mind?
> *oh there is a CLASSICAL concert* taking place.
> Beethoven's 8th is pure classicism. You can not find a more perfect portrayal of the classic classical model.
> Tchaikovsky took Beethoven's music and romanticized it. .
> ...


Tchaikovsky wasn't definitely the first one to romanticize Beethoven's music though.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

annaw said:


> Tchaikovsky wasn't definitely the first one to romanticize Beethoven's music though.


I agree, But could we say other than Chopin in his piano concerto, that it was Tchaikovsky who offered the most beautiful, lush romantic embellishments of the Beethoven classical model? Like the Crown Jewel of Beethoven's sound world.


----------



## infracave (May 14, 2019)

paulbest said:


> WEll then take Beethoven's 8th sym. If anyone in the world, walks by a concert in progress, what is the 1st thought that comes to mind?
> *oh there is a CLASSICAL concert* taking place.


To be fair, if anyone in the world walked into a concert hall and heard some violin music, they would think it's a classical concert.



> Beethoven's 8th is pure classicism. You can not find a more perfect portrayal of the classic classical model.
> Tchaikovsky took Beethoven's music and romanticized it. .
> 
> Whereas Mozart certainly offers the classical structures, yet woven in the fabric are embellishments , nuances, poetic improvisations , his late works in reference.


Poetic improvisations ? Could you give an example please ?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Infracave,,I'll respond later,
1st I have a ost to make 

Although Brahms was Beethoven's *1st born son*, perhaps his greatest, most famous son, with Dvorak as 2nd greatest...I'd say it was Tchaikovsky, especially in his glorious grand masterpiece, the heavily loaded with thick ozzing emotional content, The Sixth Symphony, is where we can hear *post Beethoven romanticism* kicking in. Tchaikovsky has scored passages in his 6th, which Brahms could never even dream of, even if Brahms had lived to be 1000 yrs old.
It was the Russian impulses with its lush, dramatic emotional depths which surpass the strict Beethoven classical form. With Tchaikovsky, something all new is taking formation,,,leaving the old Beethovenesque models behind and breaking new ground. 
Wagner as well needs to be mentioned here,,although Miester Singer is still the old classical formation. 


Tchaikovsky 's 6th destroys Brahms ,,for the most part,,,the only Brahms work to survive Tchaikovsky's onslaught, is his Violin Concerto with David Oistrakh, Alaxander Gauk conducting, 1954.
Tchai's 6th crushes all Brahms symphonies.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

infracave said:


> To be fair, if anyone in the world walked into a concert hall and heard some violin music, they would think it's a classical concert.
> 
> Poetic improvisations ? Could you give an example please ?


 I understand, *classical* indeed is generic. I agree, 
Yet what I am saying is the Beethoven 8th, is just so *classic* classical, none finer example.

On your 2nd Q sure, , recently someone on TC posteda link to a YT vid featuring Horowitz ina interview/performance of Mozart's 23rd.

There he is asked about how best to approach's Mozart's music on piano...He chuckles as he quips, *someone long ago said, Play Mozart as you would Chopin and play Chopin as you would Mozart*.

It is from this quip, that I gather the idea that Mozart is more of poeticism and less of a rigid Beethovenian model. Beethoven according to Lenny Bernstein , is structured not very complex, nor very interesting (refer to his YT interview while at the piano).

Examples?
The entire last 6 piano concertos. 
Ask Uchida is you think I am making all this up,,,,,as I go. .
She could explain what I am saying a whole lot better. 
maybe we have a member here who has musical training , that can afford to help me out , giving me back support.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

paulbest said:


> I agree, But could we say other than Chopin in his piano concerto, that it was Tchaikovsky who offered the most beautiful, lush romantic embellishments of the Beethoven classical model? Like the Crown Jewel of Beethoven's sound world.


I love Tchaikovsky, but I have to mention that 'the war of the romantics' had already begun when Tchaikovsky was ~10 years old - he was definitely influenced by the earlier romantics himself. I find Brahms, Schumann and Wagner at least as romantic as Tchaikovsky if not more so, but I think it's also up to personal preferences.


----------



## infracave (May 14, 2019)

@paulbest

Well, I'd say that Mozart's 40th symphony is the piece most people associate with the classical style. But I don't know.

Oh yes, you're refering to the 23rd PC Adagio. It's indeed beautiful.
But it's not as liberal in term of form as you may think, it follows a ternary form.

But what I think you're trying to express is that Mozart (and Chopin) is more poetic because of his influence from italian opera which makes him compose these expansive and beautifully ornate melodic lines.
Beethoven on the other hand, tends to use banal, almost pedestrian melodies, and then chop them up, transform them to create a whole movement (or a whole piece) out of simple thematic material.
But it doesn't mean that Beethoven can't be moving. Try listening to the Adagio of the Hammerklavier sonata. Out of this world beauty, yet composed on the same chain of falling thirds that constitute the backbone of the entire piece.






And while I see why you'd see how Beethoven and Brahms are cut from the same cloth (both make use motivic tranformation to make their music - Brahms would call it motivführung), I don't really see how Tchai fits in this tradition. I think his compositional style was much more Mozartian, with a continuous flow of melodic ideas.

On another note, I'm sorry but Bernstein's video on Beethoven is just laughably bad :
- "He was a bad melodist" Okay, I kinda agree with that one as he had a very different compositional technique than Mozart's, chopping up melodies, transforming them to build up a piece
- "He couldn't write a fugue" Yes, but only because he wasn't really interested in replicating Bach's fugues or Haydn's developmental fugato sections. Late beethoven works show that he was obsessed with fugue, trying to reconcile this form with the classical style sonata form in different ways.
- "He had bad harmonies" Bernstein uses the example of the finale of the 5th symphony where beethoven spams dominant chords to make us believe that the symphony is finished, just to see the scherzo theme reappear. that's just compositional trickery

And so why was Beethoven a great composer according to Bernstein ? "because he had a direct line with God and knew exactly what the following note should be"
C'mon now, lenny...


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

annaw said:


> I love Tchaikovsky, but I have to mention that 'the war of the romantics' had already begun when Tchaikovsky was ~10 years old - he was definitely influenced by the earlier romantics himself. I find Brahms, Schumann and Wagner at least as romantic as Tchaikovsky if not more so, but I think it's also up to personal preferences.


Agree, you obviously know the history of classical music. whereas I was only making it up as I go along....


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

infracave said:


> @paulbest
> 
> Well, I'd say that Mozart's 40th symphony is the piece most people associate with the classical style. But I don't know.
> 
> ...


 Great, excellent post, Really spot on.

You see, I wish so very much, that I had some of this visionary hearing and to grasp the tech aspects. 
I am too old now and must just go on....but I hear what you are saying, and its correct. You said it perfectly as how I hear Beethoven. *banal, almost pedestrian melodies,,and then chops them up*..Yes exactly,,but of course you are speaking in generalities,,,as we know his music does havea flow,,but nothing like Mozart's wizardry. 
And so that's why I discount so much Beethoven's music all these yrs,
I hear Mozart and am thrilled, other solo piano from that era, is just,,well superfluous , Including all of Chopin.

'If I want solo piano, classical/romantic style, I will take Mozart,,,all else is just, ,well, hate to say this, ,,,but ,,not that interesting.

Lenny did go over board, exaggeration, ,,,others here feel the same as you.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Agree, you obviously know the history of classical music. whereas I was only making it up as I go along....


:lol: I like your style.

Beethoven is pure classical to me. I don't hear Romanticism at all. A better starting point for German Romanticism are Carl Maria von Weber and Schubert, both of whom were reacting to Beethoven to an extent with their music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Who was the first Romantic composer if so?


There was some overlap of periods, but one of the first that fit neatly into the Romantic category is Berlioz I think. His first groundbreaking symphony was composed only 6 years after Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Beethoven is usually seen as a transition between the two; but which one was more pronounced in his music? I personally really feel the two combining in his music, so I have a hard time deciding...


I think that it's hard to label Beethoven's music, for it uses Classical period techniques and forms that tend to be expanded and sometimes melded with Baroque ones such as counterpoint and fugue, and this usually for the sake of emphasizing intense, personal emotions, what is a trait of Romanticism. Beethoven was an innovator, and I understand that he opened possibilities in music that antecipate even compositions of the twentieth century. Look:

"Some analysts and musicians see the fugue [Beethoven's Grosse Fuge] as a first assault on the diatonic tonal system that prevailed in Classical music. Robert Kahn sees the main subject of the fugue as a precursor of the tone row, the basis of the twelve-tone system developed by Arnold Schoenberg. 'Your cradle was Beethoven's Grosse Fuge,' artist Oskar Kokoschka wrote to Schoenberg in a letter." 

"The closing Allegro con brio brings the [7th] Symphony to its last and highest pitch of jubilation. It is murder on the lips of the brass players, and its constant drive and the motivic repetition (as in the earlier movements, too) led the contemporary American composer John Adams to refer to it, only half jokingly, as the first minimalist symphony."

"Mitsuko Uchida has remarked that this variation [the third from the second movement of Beethoven's piano sonata No. 32, Op. 111], to a modern ear, has a striking resemblance to cheerful boogie-woogie, and the closeness of it to jazz and ragtime, which were still over 70 years into the future at the time, has often been pointed out. Jeremy Denk, for example, describes the second movement using terms like 'proto-jazz' and 'boogie-woogie'. From the fourth variation onwards the time signature returns to the original 9/16 but divided into constant triplet thirty-second notes, effectively creating a doubly compound meter (equivalent to 27/32)."

Considering all what was mentioned above, I would like to say that I do agree with the idea that "Beethoven is just Beethoven".

------------------------------------

Sources to the quotes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Große_Fuge
https://www.aspenmusicfestival.com/program_notes/view/beethoven-symphony-no.-7-in-a-major-op.-921
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No._32_(Beethoven)
http://aln3.albumlinernotes.com/Uchida_Piano_Sonatas.html


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> *Who would be the "first" Romantic composer if so?* Would there be a difference in times between Germany/Austria and Russia? Tchaikovsky (for example) is considered one of the most important composers of the Romanic period (and rightly so); is there a major difference between western and eastern Europe regarding musical periods?


There was a poll some weeks ago here at TC about who "started" the romantic period. The discussion that followed is quite interesting in my opinion and may suit your needs. You can find it *here*.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> :lol: I like your style.
> 
> Beethoven is pure classical to me. I don't hear Romanticism at all. A better starting point for German Romanticism are Carl Maria von Weber and Schubert, both of whom were reacting to Beethoven to an extent with their music.


Someone must have already mentioned , Weber, which is most likely the best candidate. Berlioz came later.
Read the 1st comment on the YT upload, who is in agreement with your vote.
Especially in his operas.

Yes Berlioz came long after Weber.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> "Some analysts and musicians see the fugue as a first assault on the diatonic tonal system that prevailed in Classical music. Robert Kahn sees the main subject of the fugue as *a precursor of the tone row*, the basis of the twelve-tone system developed by Arnold Schoenberg. 'Your cradle was Beethoven's Grosse Fuge,' artist Oskar Kokoschka wrote to Schoenberg in a letter."


It is true Beethoven created unique works involving tone rows, but one thing to note is that they weren't the first:
_though one has been identified in the A minor prelude from book II of The Well-Tempered Clavier (1742) by J. S. Bach, and by the late eighteenth century was a well-established technique, found in works such as Mozart's C major String Quartet, K. 157 (1772), String Quartet in E-flat major, K. 428, String Quintet in G minor, K. 516 (1790), and the Symphony in G minor, K. 550 (1788). Beethoven also used the technique but, on the whole, "Mozart seems to have employed serial technique far more often than Beethoven". Hans Keller claims that Schoenberg was aware of this serial practice in the classical period, and that "Schoenberg repressed his knowledge of classical serialism because it would have injured his narcissism."_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_row

Also, as people mentioned in the Schubert thread, Schubert wasn't "the only guy doing new stuff" in the early 19th century. Beethoven wasn't the only guy doing it either. So what truly I appreciate about Beethoven is not the style, but the skills and quality of his work. As in the case with Bach and others, I think the real quality of their work lies not in the style but the skills and craftsmanship.
Over the common practice period, musical styles were constantly changing and musical tastes changed more rapidly than we might think they did. People in late 18th century called early 18th century music "ancient". I don't think it's that big of a deal Beethoven sounds different from the late 18th century style. It's not the main focus of my appreciation for his music and it's not what makes him stand out from his contemporaries.



eugeneonagain said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> > Beethoven's occasional excursion into "romantic" territory, as with the Pastoral Symphony, are firmly based on classical compositional procedures. Schubert was "classical" in his early days but arguable made further advances into romanticism than did Beethoven.
> ...


_Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, *ancient* and modern." So music was the main object of these Kenner's interest - provided it was masterful. Occasionally, one of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillp Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn. Some of these were still among the living; the works Mozart and his colleagues examined were written for the most part in the first half of the eighteenth century. Nonetheless, some of the composers were already considered to be *"old," or, to put it another way, "not modern.*"
...
In the spring of 1783, when his father hesitated to send some of his own sacred compositions to Vienna, Mozart encouraged him to do so with the argument that Kenner knew full well, "that *musical taste is continually changing* and what is more, that this extends even to church music, which ought not to be the case..."_
http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I've come to the conclusion that we don't really know what Romantic music and Classical music are ... or at least we all use different "definitions". I wonder what telling qualities we use to recognise whether music is one or the other are.


----------



## Vasistha (May 20, 2019)

Quite a few good comments that recognize that there are several different spheres or senses in which to the initial question can be asked, and depending upon which sense the question is asked will anticipate a completely different answer. In the academic sense, say the sense in which Charles Rosen ("The Classical Style") uses the term Classical, that is one of form, three composers are themselves the very definition of the period known as Classical Music. However, few people speak of music in the academic sense, since most people are not even cognizant of music forms. That's also equally true when people speak of the "Romantic Music". I think there a lot of this going on here in the way folks are answering the question. 

If you can put down the duckies of the musical academy and bring your highly educated (educated not academically but through exposure to forms that came during and after Beethoven), you will hear in both the Beethoven late piano sonatas and the late quartets, as Mitsuko Uchida and Allerius have pointed out, striking resemblances to Jazz masters of the 1950 and 1960s. We can hear, if we listen to the late sonatas, Monk and others. You can hear something of the modern Jazz in Beethoven's later work; not because he was composing without being hear and was therefore not aware of departing from musical norms, but because he was not bound by a conventional mind, or by musical conventions. Rather he free enough to be ... himself defining them. 

In that sense, while academics might wince when they hear people say "Beethoven is just Beethoven", one has to admit it's far from a whacky statement.And while it's wrong to say that he's not Classical Music (since he along with Haydn and Mozart define the Classical style, he does, at the same time, defy style as bound by time and convention. Academics go nuts when they see non-academics ignore the definitions that make up identifications of styles. However, it seems equally crazy to ignore what Allerius points to here, that Beethoven while our definition of the classical style, also was free to explore beyond the known modes, and express musical ideas that are for us, reminescent of musical expression that we don't hear for more than century after his death.


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

To name him as classical is inherently wrong, to name him as romantic even more so.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> It is true Beethoven created unique works involving tone rows, but one thing to note is that they weren't the first:
> _though one has been identified in the A minor prelude from book II of The Well-Tempered Clavier (1742) by J. S. Bach, and by the late eighteenth century was a well-established technique, found in works such as Mozart's C major String Quartet, K. 157 (1772), String Quartet in E-flat major, K. 428, String Quintet in G minor, K. 516 (1790), and the Symphony in G minor, K. 550 (1788). Beethoven also used the technique but, on the whole, "Mozart seems to have employed serial technique far more often than Beethoven". Hans Keller claims that Schoenberg was aware of this serial practice in the classical period, and that "Schoenberg repressed his knowledge of classical serialism because it would have injured his narcissism."_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_row


Well, very unique indeed. I can't remember now any work by J.S. Bach or Mozart that has such harsh dissonances and harmonic clashes lasting for so long. I think that Beethoven had no fear of sacrificing melodic beauty for expression, and this makes the _grosse fuge_ sound more modern to my ears, more related to the expressionist movement of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern in my opinion, than anything made by his contemporaries. Considering this, I think that I can agree with Robert Kahn's comment.

I'm not saying that Mozart isn't influential nor that his music didn't make use of subtle dissonances though.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Well, very unique indeed. I can't remember now any work by J.S. Bach or Mozart that has such harsh dissonances and harmonic clashes lasting for so long. I think that Beethoven had no fear of sacrificing melodic beauty for expression, and this makes the _grosse fuge_ sound more modern to my ears, more related to the expressionist movement of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern in my opinion, than anything made by his contemporaries. Considering this, I think that I can agree with Robert Kahn's comment.


But isn't that what _you think_? Not what the 'greats' themselves had actually thought?
I'm not suggesting Beethoven was any less influential, I'm just challenging the idea Beethoven's work was more relevant to later music than his predecessors'.










"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"





"When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it."





"The idea for the recapitulation in the first movement of Schönberg's Fourth String Quartet follows exactly the execution of Mozart's G minor Symphony KV 550 and Jupiter Symphony KV 551."

https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135
"But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Going by the piano sonatas, we have five groups: 

A. Early classical op.2-22 and op. 49 1 & 2 (13 works)
B. Seven "experimental" sonatas op. 26 - op. 31
C. Three "post Hellgenstadt" sonatas op. 54-54-57
D. Three "compressed" sonatas, op. 78, 79, and 81a
E. Final "transcendent" sonatas, op. 90, 101, 106, 109, 110, and 111

From this, I see Beethoven as the first modernist.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> But isn't that what _you think_? Not what the 'greats' themselves had actually thought?
> I'm not suggesting Beethoven was any less influential, I'm just challenging the idea Beethoven's work was more relevant to later music than his predecessors'.
> 
> 
> ...


Not all greats loved Mozart unconditionally: Berlioz prefered Gluck over him; Boulez called his music "trivial"; Ives though of him as effeminate; Glenn Gould said once that "Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early" etc. The famous critic Norman Lebrecht went as far as to write an article called "Why I'm sick of Mozart", writing things like:

"One Mozart opus, decently played, is the limit of human endurance. Four is like drowning in sherry. The artists in Florida were all excellent; one was the exquisite Piotr Andrszewski, who has since won the coveted Gilmore Award. But as Sinfonia Concertante (K364) gave way to Köchel numbers 453, 271 and the hackneyed 467, ruined for ever by its treacly role in the Swedish film Elvira Madigan, my entire cerebellum rebelled.

No more Mozart, I swore. Not for a whole year, maybe for life. It took an emergency infusion of Boulez and bottled water to restore my moral equilibrium and musical appetite. I am still in recovery. When the opening of the G minor symphony (K550) seeps from some-one's mobile phone on the bus, I get the shakes and have to hum an atonal snatch of early Birtwistle. It is no surprise that Mozart tops the ring-tone pops. His music was made to tinkle."

I find some of these commentaries rather aggressive and disrespectful, and am citing them here only because they work as a counterexample to show you that not everybody hold Mozart in such a high esteem as myself and you. And yes, I have my own thoughs on music, like everybody else.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Going by the piano sonatas, we have five groups:
> 
> A. Early classical op.2-22 and op. 49 1 & 2 (13 works)
> B. Seven "experimental" sonatas op. 26 - op. 31
> ...


An interesting classification!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> But isn't that what _you think_? Not what the 'greats' themselves had actually thought?
> I'm not suggesting Beethoven was any less influential, I'm just challenging the idea Beethoven's work was more relevant to later music than his predecessors'.


I think there is truth to this. I think Beethoven was a little too big in form to be looked at as a Modernist. The Modernists were largely reacting against the excesses of the Romantic era. So in this sense I think one could look at Bach and Mozart as being at least equally influential on Modernism.

I see Beethoven as a transitional composer that was essentially Classical, but was highly influential on the Romantic era.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Debussy was the first Modernist, and out of the big 3, Bach was the composer that had the most influence on him. 

Of the big names in the Modern era the one that I think Beethoven had the most influence on was Bartok (particularly the String Quartets). Bartok's biggest influences were Bach, Beethoven and Debussy.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Not all greats loved Mozart unconditionally: Berlioz prefered Gluck over him; Boulez called his music "trivial"; Ives though of him as effeminate; Glenn Gould said once that "Mozart was a bad composer who died too late rather than too early" etc. The famous critic Norman Lebrecht went as far as to write an article called "Why I'm sick of Mozart", writing things like:


I don't get why you're citing various people hating a great, and what is it that you're finding so difficult to accept. The fact that Schoenberg considered Bach and Mozart to be among his most important influences? 



I cited Brahms as he didn't simply express hatred or bias against Beethoven, (he never hated Beethoven) he simply described what he thought was a little 'fallible' about Beethoven in comparison with his predecessors in a reasonable, logical way. As you know, Tchaikovsky, Spohr and many others disliked late Beethoven. Ravel thought much of Beethoven 'exasperating'. https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3RtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123 By your logic, late Beethoven would be bad works?
Glenn Gould was a pianist who was also a minor composer, by no means a 'great' in music. He had very queer opinions in music, (condemning certain expressions in music as 'theatrical gestures') he even said disparaging remarks about Beethoven and many Romantics also. So by citing him, you're actually taking his opinions in music seriously, including the one on Beethoven as well? (_"Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip. The middle Beethoven represents a supreme example of a composer on an ego trip."_)
Interestingly he actually admired the Mozart work I mentioned in my previous post, Adagio and Fugue K546: 



Norman Lebrecht, again, a random critic who doesn't hold any place in music. He stopped writing about Mozart once people destroyed him with facts in his blog. Later he gave Mozart credit by saying the tone row of Don Giovanni anticipated Schoenberg.
Boulez and Ives - I don't consider them 'greats' of the same tier as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Schoenberg. (And as I said in another thread, some contemporary composers driven by their extreme ideals of modernism, go radically against the classical canon. For example, there is a quote by John Cage that Mozart and Beethoven are "noise", which I don't give a damn) 
Anybody else you want to cite?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...z-and-mozart/D120367758977FD742477965EAD04FB5
_""J'adore Mozart" wrote Berlioz in 1856. Ten years later, at a time when he took pleasure in not going to operas any more, he attended eight performances of Don Giovanni at the Théâtre Lyrique, where he was seen to "cover his face and cry like a child." Yet neither Berlioz himself nor his biographers are ever inclined to include Mozart among the select pantheon of historical figures who inspired him most deeply, the names being more usually Shakespeare, Goethe, Virgil, and among musicians Gluck, Beethoven, sometimes Weber, sometimes Spontini. Mozart never displaced Gluck in Berlioz's mind as the greatest of eighteenth-century composers, a preference which very few would admit to in the present century when an admiration for Mozart has been a solid donné among professionals and amateurs alike. Where did Mozart stand in his critical perspectives, and what part did Mozart play in his work as conductor and composer?
The matter was admirably summed up by Berlioz himself in chapter 17 of the Mémoires, which is devoted entirely to his regard for Mozart. Written probably in 1848, or soon after, it describes the fiery passions of his student years: "I have said that […] I was taken up exclusively with the study of great dramatic music. I should rather have said, of lyric tragedy; and it was for this reason that I regarded Mozart with a certain coolness." Gluck was performed in French at the Opéra while Mozart was sung in Italian at the Théâtre Italien, and that was sufficient to assign him to the enemy camp."_

http://www.hberlioz.com/Photos/BerliozPhotos8.html
_"According to David Cairns Mozart's opera Idomeneo may be seen as an influence on Berlioz, not only because of its Gluckian affinities, but in its almost 19th-century use of colour."_


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't get why you're citing various people hating a great, and what is it that you're finding so difficult to accept.





hammeredklavier said:


> But isn't that what _you think_? Not what the 'greats' themselves had actually thought?


I admit I may have missed the mark, but the idea was to show you that not even Mozart (or Beethoven, or Bach, etc) is beyond criticism, what I mistakenly though was your point after a fast read in the post where you said that "not what the 'greats' themselves had actually thought."

I also admit that I'm no musicologist nor expert nor one of the "greats", and thus can't really properly measure who had the most lasting influence in the music of the twentieth century out of the "big three" (as _tdc_ put it). My point with the quotes of post #31 was that there are experienced people who believe that Beethoven's music was quite ahead of it's time, and that it's possible to note it's influence even many decades after it was composed, what suggests that it's more than just Classical or Romantic to me.

Regarding post #38: "Expressionism", the style usually related to the Second Viennese School, is defined by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as:

"Expressionism, artistic style in which the artist seeks to depict not objective reality but rather the subjective emotions and responses that objects and events arouse within a person. *The artist accomplishes this aim through distortion, exaggeration, primitivism, and fantasy and through the vivid, jarring, violent, or dynamic application of formal elements.*"

What is in bold seems much more like a description of the _Grosse Fuge_ to me than anything I know by Mozart. I'm not saying that Schoenberg didn't admire the austrian nor that his use of tone rows wasn't influential on him, but that in an aesthetic sense it seems to me that the Second Viennese School is more related to the Beethoven work. It's an opinion and, again, I'm no expert.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> It is true Beethoven created unique works involving tone rows, but one thing to note is that they weren't the first...


When I think of precursors to chromatic music, I always think of the Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor, which has 11 of the 12 notes. Even so, this is chromatic use, so it's firmly tonal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Vasistha said:


> If you can put down the *duckies* of the musical academy and bring your highly educated (educated not academically but through exposure to forms that came during and after Beethoven), you will hear in both the Beethoven late piano sonatas and the late quartets, as Mitsuko Uchida and Allerius have pointed out, striking resemblances to Jazz masters of the 1950 and 1960s. We can hear, if we listen to the late sonatas, Monk and others. You can hear something of the modern Jazz in Beethoven's later work; not because he was composing without being hear and was therefore not aware of departing from musical norms, but because *he was not bound by a conventional mind, or by musical conventions.* Rather he free enough to be ... himself defining them.
> 
> In that sense, while *academics* might wince when they hear people say "Beethoven is just Beethoven", one has to admit it's far from a whacky statement. And while it's wrong to say that he's not Classical Music (since he along with Haydn and Mozart define the Classical style, he does, at the same time, defy style as bound by time and convention. *Academics go nuts when they see non-academics ignore the definitions that make up identifications of styles.* However, it seems equally crazy to ignore what Allerius points to here, that Beethoven while our definition of the classical style, also was free to explore beyond the known modes, and express musical ideas that are for us, reminescent of musical expression that we don't hear for more than century after his death.


I fully agree, that "Beethoven is just Beethoven," and this transcends styles and eras.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Beethoven in a classicist that became a romantic. Brahms, who followed his style and was humbled by his shadow, is also a classicist writing in the romantic 19th century.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

larold said:


> Brahms, who followed his style and was humbled by his shadow, is also a classicist writing in the romantic 19th century.


Or a Romantic clinging to Classical models, protecting himself from Romanticism's threat of chaos...


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Clouds Weep Snowflakes said:


> Beethoven is usually seen as a transition between the two; but which one was more pronounced in his music? I personally really feel the two combining in his music, so I have a hard time deciding...


Beethoven was classical 2.0, a superior kind of music misunderstood by many after him! ;-)

Brahms took some of his monumentalism, Liszt took some of his abstract thought and tension, Schumann took some of his agitated excitement, Mendelssohn took some of his musical language but none of them brought it together like Beethoven did.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Razumovskymas said:


> Beethoven was classical 2.0, a superior kind of music misunderstood by many after him! ;-)
> 
> Brahms took some of his monumentalism, Liszt took some of his abstract thought and tension, Schumann took some of his agitated excitement, Mendelssohn took some of his musical language but none of them brought it together like Beethoven did.


If later composers had brought all of Beethoven's traits together they would have been Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I admit I may have missed the mark, but the idea was to show you that not even Mozart (or Beethoven, or Bach, etc) is beyond criticism, what I mistakenly though was your point after a fast read in the post where you said that "not what the 'greats' themselves had actually thought."


You keep emphasizing Grosse Fuge contains dissonances, but doesn't it seem a bit odd to one guy writes a long work containing dissonances, he's considered the greatest master of innovation far surpassing anything that came before him in influence and impact. I would also assess the way in which he builds the dissonances and controls them under logic, and how much inspiring was it to later artists. Sure, Grosse Fuge sounds very unique, but at the same time I tend to think (compared to his predecessors) Beethoven is generally more analogous to an athlete who prefers brute force over intricate technique. It's Beethoven's demonstration of how he could write different from Bach but at the same time how he couldn't write like Bach.





On the first glance, it may not be apparent Schoenberg based a lot of his composition technique on 'classical procedures of restraint, order, control', but as he confirmed himself, he actually did model a good deal of it on Bach, Haydn, Mozart. I often get the impression people tend to focus too much on Beethoven's influence on later music they overlook his predecessors.

Also, some members are fine categorizing everything (ie. Romantic and Classical) except one artist - Beethoven - "who is so special that he doesn't belong in either of those categories". People make a huge deal about a lot of stuff, but with late Beethoven, it's a little puzzling sometimes. There's not that much convincing analysis or explanation why Beethoven's fugue is so special it stands out from fugues by his predecessors, for example, but people keep saying things that sound a bit like 'propaganda' and 'image-building' to me.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=0wp2CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA64
_"(Mozart's K546(K426)), hair-raising dissonances that would not have been allowed in strict style" _

https://books.google.ca/books?id=2MPXSVcdzPUC&pg=PA99
_'He (Spohr) is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'_ -LVB


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A) Is this important?

B) Beethoven always considered form. As a compulsive experimenter he often stretched it, compressed it, distorted it as if in a funhouse mirror, but the Classicist in him was always there.

On the other hand he vastly increased the expressive power of (especially) instrumental music, more than any predessor.

Candy mint? Breath mint? Take your choice.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> If later composers had brought all of Beethoven's traits together they would have been Beethoven.


Exactly! I wouldn't mind that! :lol:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> You keep emphasizing Grosse Fuge contains dissonances, but doesn't it seem a bit odd to one guy writes a long work containing dissonances, *he's considered the greatest master of innovation far surpassing anything that came before him in influence and impact*. I would also assess the way in which he builds the dissonances and controls them under logic, and how much inspiring was it to later artists. Sure, Grosse Fuge sounds very unique, but at the same time I tend to think (compared to his predecessors) Beethoven is generally more analogous to an athlete who prefers brute force over intricate technique. It's Beethoven's demonstration of how he could write different from Bach but at the same time how he couldn't write like Bach.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a full article on wikipedia that already explains many details of the composition and that shows the impact that it caused in the musical scene since it's creation. People can love or hate the _Grosse Fuge_, but cannot deny it's uniqueness in the history of music.

Perhaps Beethoven couldn't write a fugue like those of J.S. Bach, like you said, but then, who can/could? And yet, people like Glenn Gould, famously associated with the latter, despite his dislike for Middle period Beethoven, said that "for me, the 'Grosse Fuge' is not only the greatest work Beethoven ever wrote but just about the most astonishing piece in musical literature."

Now, about what is in bold: that's what _you_ are saying, for I didn't write that.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Or a Romantic *clinging to Classical models*, protecting himself from Romanticism's threat of chaos...


Hey now, by that logic was Beethoven too then 'clinging to Classical models?', too afraid to venture too far astray into chaos? Those models were/are much more flexible than many have come to perceive. On the surface many compare Brahms 1st symphony to Beethoven, yet Jan Swafford has pointed out it was actually one of the most innovative works of the late 19th century and (in his words):

"In sheer ambition, tenacity of purpose, and power of expression, what Brahms achieved in the forty-four minutes of the _C minor Symphony_ rivals Wagner's achievements in the twelve hours of _The Ring_."

Much of Brahms innovation comes down to what he did with rhythm, meter and displacement of the downbeat, his use of counterpoint in a Romantic context and his adaptations of traditional form. In the 19th century there was unprecedented interest in music theory and analysis yet despite this for whatever reason showed little concern with rhythm, therefore lacked theoretical concepts to apply to what Brahms was doing, and scarcely even had the language to analyze it. It has been speculated that some of these ideas may have been a result of Brahms studies of Renaissance and Baroque music which tend to treat the barline more flexibly than later music.

Brahms also did things like "fusing" formal elements together like "Hungarian style" to rondo form, and in creating his first Symphony reconceptualised formal design itself. Beethoven's symphonic finale in the 9th is associated with joy and the heroic, Brahms by contrast ends on a tone of the gentle and the noble. The fact is Brahms was innovative with form and drew ideas from a multitude of places outside of just Classicism.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My view is that Beethoven’s earlier music had elements of both classical and, starting about 1799, romantic music. Within a few years he pretty much abandoned both and became, simply, Beethoven.

I have never considered him a “transitional” composer because that suggests he started out a classical composer and became a romantic one. And that IMO is quite wrong.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, if Beethoven had really bought-in to Romanticism, he would have been Chopin.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Razumovskymas said:


> Beethoven was classical 2.0, a superior kind of music misunderstood by many after him! ;-)
> 
> Brahms took some of his monumentalism, Liszt took some of his abstract thought and tension, Schumann took some of his agitated excitement, Mendelssohn took some of his musical language but none of them brought it together like Beethoven did.


I hope he didn't catch something from Schumann!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

MarkW said:


> A) Is this important?
> 
> B) Beethoven always considered form. As a compulsive experimenter he often stretched it, compressed it, distorted it as if in a funhouse mirror, but the Classicist in him was always there.
> 
> ...


great post. 
*vastly increased the expressive power of instrumental music*.., no one can argue with that.

But as for melodic, highly embellished passages, Mozart ranks supreme.

It is for this reason I always prefer Mozart and can never come around to Beethoven. His music has never won me over...Except the 4th, in my first few years in The High Arts. 
Just heard a few opening moments of the 4th,,,yes I think it is his finest sym. 
has anyone figured out who has the superior performance, Walter/Columbia or Bohn/Vienna?
Walter I think has the finest 4th. 
His Columbia SO is par excellence in both Beethoven and Mozart. untouchable


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> Hey now, by that logic was Beethoven too then 'clinging to Classical models?', too afraid to venture too far astray into chaos? Those models were/are much more flexible than many have come to perceive. On the surface many compare Brahms 1st symphony to Beethoven, yet Jan Swafford has pointed out it was actually one of the most innovative works of the late 19th century and (in his words):
> 
> "In sheer ambition, tenacity of purpose, and power of expression, what Brahms achieved in the forty-four minutes of the _C minor Symphony_ rivals Wagner's achievements in the twelve hours of _The Ring_."
> 
> ...


I wasn't disparaging or minimizing Brahms. I don't question his originality. It was more a comment on what I perceive to be an ambivalence, a friction, a frustration, or a contradiction in his personality. Sometimes I think I hear it in his music, and it isn't something I ever hear in Mozart or Haydn (and Beethoven, late Beethoven at any rate, is something else entirely). But I grant that such things are rather intangible and subjective.

That quote from Swafford is just silly, isn't it? It does, though, bring up Brahms's ambivalence toward Wagner, which contained a hefty dose of appreciation to balance his wariness. There's a story about his hearing a performance of the _Siegfried Idyll_; after the concert he was very quiet and withdrawn, and finally said, "Yes, but one can't have music like that all the time." Meanwhile he acquired the full score of _Siegfried_ and studied it assiduously, and said he would have attended _Parsifal_ but was afraid that people seeing him would make a scene.

I actually hear quite a bit of the "new music" in Brahms. The dramatic final movement of the third symphony, for example, with its feel almost of a play being enacted and its dreamy reminiscence of the symphony's beginning, is very unlike any Classical model. But even at his most freewheeling, Brahms still conveys the sense that he's keeping an iron grip on things. His work is a powerful act of stylistic brinksmanship.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

paulbest said:


> great post.
> *vastly increased the expressive power of instrumental music*.., no one can argue with that.
> 
> But as for melodic, highly embellished passages, Mozart ranks supreme.


(Clears throat) Diabelli Variations. *No. 31*.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Ok Agree
Beethoven had incredible music for violin and piano.






superior to Mozart's less developed scores,. Beethoven lived longer, and built upon Mozart's legacy.

Same as Elliott Carter finishing what Varese began.






but for some reasons which remain a mystery I find Mozart more appealing.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

But now take Beethoven's greatest piano concerto,\






and now Mozart's best






See what I mean. Beethoven took prize in the violin/piano sonata, 
But in the piano concerto,,,well Beethoven is not even close.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

paulbest said:


> But now take Beethoven's greatest piano concerto, . . .See what I mean. Beethoven took prize in the violin/piano sonata,
> But in the piano concerto,,,well Beethoven is not even close.


Unless, of course, you consider his "greatest" to be No 4 in G.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

paulbest said:


> But now take Beethoven's greatest piano concerto,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally, I like Beethoven's _Emperor_ concerto and his Op. 58 more than I like any Mozart piano concerto. It's just a matter of personal taste I suppose.

You say of Mozart's PC #25 as his "greatest"... but have you ever heard his #20? Many people here at TC seem to name this as their favorite Mozart piano concerto. *Look:*

There's a poll on Mozart's "greatest" piano concertos *here*.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Beethoven's 4th (can not recall how it goes), might edge out his 5th, seems there are 245 recordings in each. So lets assume both are very popular.

Allerius is not arguing, he thinks the 5th is Beethoven's finest. 

Mozart's 20th ,,,hummm, personally I think Mozart's best of his best is at the coda, Syms 40/41, piano concertos 24/25. 
I seriously doubt the 20th is his best,,,but not having herad the 20th is sucha long time,,,I will visit it now...
i'm hanging on to the 25th as his most developed and fullest expression in the concerto for piano and orchestra,,,I'd bet I can finda link online backing my hunch up.

Someone go ck if the Uchida notes, has something to say.

Someone here on TC who really knows Mzoart's concertos, may chime in and back up my hunch, You just watch and see.
OK,l over to YT for the 20th.


The 25th has the coda /last movement, that sounds ELECTRIFYING....btw there are only 92 recordings of the Mozart 25th, more records of the other concertos. 
Why?
The difficulity of it, thats why.
Mozart almost always conquers the pianists, 
The one who has survived Mozart will flying colors is Uchida. Uchida is the finest pianist in Mozart.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Even Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto was compared with Mozart's best, and not to its disadvantage. From an 1805 review:

"This concerto is among the most important works published by this genial master in recent years. In certain aspects it may even excel above all others. In none of his latest works does the reviewer find so many beautiful and noble ideas, such a thorough execution that does not tend to the bombastic or contrived, such a firm character without excesses, or such unity. Wherever it can be performed well, it will have the greatest and most beautiful effect. Even in Leipzig, where one is used to hearing the greater Mozart concertos performed well and where one views them with justifiable preference, this will be and has already been the case.

"…Thus I repeat here again two lines: with respect to its effect on the mind and its impact, this concerto is one of the most excellent among all that have ever been written."


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Level of difficulty, the 25th takes Gold,,,best Mozart,,has to go to his 20th.
Yes I agree with general consensus. 
So back to Beethoven's 4th,,,and what Mozart scored in his 20th....,,,I need to revisit the 4th,,,can't recall how it goes....be back later...…...


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Now you want me to hear the 3rd,,,,can not recall that one either,,,although I had several on LP....let me see which is his best, 3 or 4,,,be right back in less than 5 minutes...….


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

OK , just heard clips of each,,,NO, I ____(fill in the blank) both!
Comapred to Mozart's least of his 20-27, neither hold a candle to Mozart's blazing sunshine. 
I take the 5th constitutional amendment right,,and refuse to make incriminating comments which may have me thrown off TC for ever banned.

However,,,I will also say, I am not at all impressed with Mozart's miniature violin concertos,, all 5. He scored those while half asleep.

But in his 20,21,22,23,24,25,,I even go as far as his last 2, 26,27, all , far more developed than Beethoven's tiddle-winks 3rd,4th. 

Those 2 concertos are just silly nonsense. 
There you made me say it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

paulbest said:


> Now you want me to hear the 3rd,,,,can not recall that one either,,,although I had several on LP....let me see which is his best, 3 or 4,,,be right back in less than 5 minutes...….


LvB's 3rd is generally considered to have been inspired by Mozart's C-minor, which Beethoven admired greatly. But most now probably consider Mozart's the greater work.

Among Beethoven's piano concerti, No. 4 is often considered the best. Some obviously prefer No. 5, though.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

paulbest said:


> But in his 20,21,22,23,24,25,,I even go as far as his last 2, 26,27, all , far more developed than Beethoven's tiddle-winks 3rd,4th.
> 
> Those 2 concertos are just silly nonsense.
> There you made me say it.


What powers of musical discernment you must have to draw these profound conclusions from "clips," and within five minutes! I am (to use a word encountered often here recently) gobsmacked.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> What powers of musical discernment you must have to draw these profound conclusions from "clips," and within five minutes! I am (to use a word encountered often here recently) gobsmacked.


Is that "smacked in the gob" or "smacked by a gob"?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

KenOC said:


> What powers of musical discernment you must have to draw these profound conclusions from "clips," and within five minutes! I am (to use a word encountered often here recently) gobsmacked.


No, you see I know all Beethoven's music from my LP days. Just after a 1 minute, ,,well I carrired on,,,and arrived at sections,,,,which brought back the memory , the experience I had to endure,,,as it was *required listening* back in the LP days, one HAD to pass through composer XYZ to get to Schoenberg, Berg, Webern,,,,,,I gave up on Beethoven and stayed with Mozart, Rachmaninov, Sibelius.

ell, fro my experience his 5th has some redeeming value...
But I am amazed at how serious Uchida takes the concertos. 
She has championed and EVEN conquered Mozart, a rare feat only duplicated by Horowitz. 
All others,,sadly, regretfully,,fall somewhat short,,,Well it just ain't their fault,,,Mozart has done his job, create master-difficult-pieces.

Zimerman in Mozart,,,ahh I dou8bt it,,not even sure he made the attempt, Its not in his range of skills. \,,,He is a Beethovenian, no one plays them better.

But his Mozart,,,THIS I just got to hear,,,be back,,going off to YT to ck,,,lets see if he was brave enough to make the attempt....be right back….


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

No, I did recall, never previously seena YT vid with Zimerman in Mozart's PC;s.,,,let me ck arkiv,,,be right back....

No, Zimerman made a good decision to stay away from The Mozart Challenge.
Great pianist, who has given us the very finest ravel G concerto/Boulez. 
I hold nothing against his decision to avoid Mozart', Wise man.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> My view is that Beethoven's earlier music had elements of both classical and, starting about 1799, romantic music. Within a few years he pretty much abandoned both and became, simply, Beethoven.
> 
> I have never considered him a "transitional" composer because that suggests he started out a classical composer and became a romantic one. And that IMO is quite wrong.


That is not the way I meant "transitional", I think transitional composers are composers who exist between one era and another, therefore stylistically are more difficult to define. I don't see them as being in one category and then the other, in which case it would be easier to simply state the early works are one era and the later works another, but music development rarely (if ever) works smoothly along a straight line that way, there are pretty much always grey areas, and elements that are harder to define along the way. This was the case with Dufay, Monteverdi, CPE Bach, Beethoven etc.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> That is not the way I meant "transitional", I think transitional composers are composers who exist between one era and another, therefore stylistically are more difficult to define. I don't see them as being in one category and then the other, in which case it would be easier to simply state the early works are one era and the later works another, but music development rarely (if ever) works smoothly along a straight line that way, there are pretty much always grey areas, and elements that are harder to define along the way. This was the case with Dufay, Monteverdi, CPE Bach, Beethoven etc.


Can't argue with that! My rejection of the label "transitional" was based on seeing it used many times and on my interpretation of it. That has little to do with your view, which seems quite properly taken.


----------

