# Pretentious statement about Beethoven



## Aramis

Beethoven is emperor of all music because even if all virtue and nobility would be banished from this world, his music alone would have the strenght to plant it's seeds in human spirits again.

THANK YOU 

PS. I think this pretentious statement about Beethoven is either as good or even better than Robert Schumann's altarnative pretentious statement about Beethoven, the one with hundred years old trees and great statue.

Feel free to post your own pretentious statements about Beethoven.


----------



## Polednice

Beethoven is the mere valet, the footman, the caretaker, the servant to the far greater Brahms who, more than any other person who has lived, captured the essence of humanity in his sublime music.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> Beethoven is the mere valet, the footman, the caretaker, the servant to the far greater Brahms who, more than any other person who has lived, captured the essence of humanity in his sublime music.


 s
SORRY PAL BUT THIS WAS MORE PREDICTABLE THAN TAPKAARA MENTIONING SIBELIUS


----------



## Curiosity

Beethoven is the best


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

John Cage said: "If you listen to Beethoven or to Mozart, you see they are always the same but if you listen to traffic, you'll see it's always different ...". (Traffic meaning cars and general road noise).


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Beethoven was alright I think and I do enjoy some of his music.

Am I doing it right?


----------



## Rasa

Everyone knows that Beethoven is just the copyist that copied out Brahms' first 9 symphonies.


----------



## Sid James

Aramis said:


> Beethoven is emperor of all music because even if all virtue and nobility would be banished from this world, his music alone would have the strenght to plant it's *seeds* in human spirits again.


Talking of seeds, here's what I can think of now -

Haydn was the seed for Beethoven, Beethoven was the seed for Brahms, Brahms was the seed for Schoenberg, Schoenberg was the seed for Berg, Webern, Eisler & John Cage (Schoenberg taught them all), & those guys were the seeds of many things in classical music today. Voila!

(Does this "chain" gain your apporval, Aramis? I think Harpsichord Concerto may have something to say re the Cage connection!)



> PS. I think this pretentious statement about Beethoven is either as good or even better than Robert Schumann's altarnative pretentious statement about Beethoven, the one with hundred years old trees and great statue.


Is that an actual quote by Schumann you're referring to? If so, can you please post it here? That would be interesting.


----------



## violadude

Sid James said:


> Is that an actual quote by Schumann you're referring to? If so, can you please post it here? That would be interesting.


It certainly wouldn't be surprising. Beethoven was a hero of god-like proportions to the early/middle romantics around Robert Schumann's time.


----------



## Aramis

> (Does this "chain" gain your apporval, Aramis? I think Harpsichord Concerto may have something to say re the Cage connection!)


I don't really think that Beethoven had any true continuator, character of his music is unique.



> Is that an actual quote by Schumann you're referring to? If so, can you please post it here? That would be interesting.


Take a hundred of century-old oaks and write his name on their trunks. Carve a figure in stone as great as saint Borromeo at Lake Maggiore, so he will look over mountain peaks, just as he did during his life - and so when the people from foreign ships sailing through the Rhine will ask who is this giant, every child could answer: "This is Beethoven "- after which they shall think it's the name of German emperor.


----------



## Polednice

aramis said:


> s
> sorry pal but this was more predictable than tapkaara mentioning sibelius


It's predictable because it's true.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> It's predictable because it's true.


Yes, your delusive obsession is certainly true HO HO HO


----------



## World Violist

This one's my favorite so far, by Michael Bakunin whoever he is.



> Everything will pass, and the world will perish but the Ninth Symphony will remain.


So pretentious it deserves its own quote bubble! How about that?


----------



## Manxfeeder

"It is the peculiarity of Beethoven's imagination that again and again he lifts us to a height from which we re-evaluate not only all music but all life, all emotion, and all thought." (Ernest Newman)

Wow, that's a mouthful.


----------



## Curiosity

"Beethoven was wrong"

-John Cage

Most pretentious statement from the king of pretentiousness.


----------



## kv466

Outcomposing him by at least over fifty works, Beethoven was not only more efficient at composing works than Brahms but left him in the dust. Far more universal in scope, he not only wrote more but wrote: better. Sure, Brahms is right up there with Ludwig van,...but only because the classical music section goes in alphbetical order; even then, he's after...if it went by sheer composition, well...let's say you have to ask for some help in finding his tiny, inginificant section.

The contents of this post may or may not reflect the writer's true opinion...only Aramis knows.


----------



## Amfibius

Curiosity said:


> "Beethoven was wrong"
> 
> -John Cage
> 
> Most pretentious statement from the king of pretentiousness.


Interesting quote ... do you have the context of that quote, and why Cage thought that Beethoven was wrong?


----------



## Polednice

kv466 said:


> Outcomposing him by at least over fifty works, Beethoven was not only more efficient at composing works than Brahms but left him in the dust. Far more universal in scope, he not only wrote more but wrote: better. Sure, Brahms is right up there with Ludwig van,...but only because the classical music section goes in alphbetical order; even then, he's after...if it went by sheer composition, well...let's say you have to ask for some help in finding his tiny, inginificant section.
> 
> The contents of this post may or may not reflect the writer's true opinion...only Aramis knows.


You're coming dangerously close to a fight with this vampire pig!


----------



## Curiosity

Amfibius said:


> Interesting quote ... do you have the context of that quote, and why Cage thought that Beethoven was wrong?


_"Beethoven was wrong!" So exclaimed John Cage in 1952, in his obsession that Beethoven had misled music by creating goal-oriented harmonic structures, instead of letting it play out, gesture by gesture. _

http://www.stgeorgesbristol.co.uk/event.php?pid=1079

Cage also stated: " I answer immediately and unequivocally, Beethoven was in error, and his influence. which has been as extensive as it is lamentable, has been deadening to the art of music."

What a clown.


----------



## Aramis

I oficially forbid any further discussions about Cage in my thread. It's so annoying, I present my new resplendent thought and you people come out with same old stuff. Am I to belive that you are not worthy of me sharing my ideas? PERHAPS I SHOULD TALK TO FLOCK OF SHEEPS INSTEAD, THEY WOULD REPEAT "MEEE", "MEEE" JUST LIKE YOU REPEAT YOUR STUFF WITH NOT MUCH MORE CREATIVITY THAN THEM!


----------



## Amfibius

Thanks for the link, Curiosity


----------



## Ukko

Aramis said:


> I oficially forbid any further discussions about Cage in my thread. It's so annoying, I present my new resplendent thought and you people come out with same old stuff. Am I to belive that you are not worthy of me sharing my ideas? PERHAPS I SHOULD TALK TO FLOCK OF SHEEPS INSTEAD, THEY WOULD REPEAT "MEEE", "MEEE" JUST LIKE YOU REPEAT YOUR STUFF WITH NOT MUCH MORE CREATIVITY THAN THEM!


Must be Polish sheep. The ones I've heard tend to repeat maah, unless they are being harassed, when it's more like eh-eh-eh. Both utterances are of great philosophical import.
So, _Aramis_, you have further polluted your own thread.]


----------



## Aramis

I still prefer it to be polluted with cute sheeps than with corrupted Cage cake.


----------



## Sid James

Well, Cage's generation had Beethoven, Beethoven & more Beethoven rammed down their throats in the still conservative music schools of the first half of the 20th century. Our own Aussie composer Peter Sculthorpe has said that it happened here too, it made him actually hate Beethoven for a long while after (but he's gotten over that now, he's over eighty). I think people should find out about what happened in the history of music rather than babbling their own highly "pretentious," & may I add quite misinformed, babble (sorry Aramis, this wasn't necessarily about Cage, but about how people don't percieve the context he & others of his generation came from, etc.)...


----------



## violadude

Aramis said:


> I don't really think that Beethoven had any true continuator, character of his music is unique.
> 
> Take a hundred of century-old oaks and write his name on their trunks. Carve a figure in stone as great as saint Borromeo at Lake Maggiore, so he will look over mountain peaks, just as he did during his life - and so when the people from foreign ships sailing through the Rhine will ask who is this giant, every child could answer: "This is Beethoven "- after which they shall think it's the name of German emperor.


It seems that our dear Robert Schumann was a "level 70: hero-worshiper."


----------



## Sid James

Aramis said:


> I don't really think that Beethoven had any true continuator, character of his music is unique...


Well, I agree with that, but I think they're all unique in their own ways. But there's a "line" stretching back from music now back to Beethoven & beyond (probably or more accurately, several lines, but not all are connected to him).

Maurice Ravel was another composer who had opinions on Beethoven's music. You can judge their quality, whether pretentious or not. Ravel disliked Beethoven's music intensely, as this quote below from the cellist Gregor Piatigorsky's biography suggests. HERE on Google Books.


> "From what I heard," said Painleve, "Maurice Ravel liked your playing."
> "Ravel!" I exclaimed.
> "Yes, our great composer."
> "What was his question? Didn't he ask something before he left?" I was eager to know.
> "Yes, it was a question," said Painleve, smiling. "Ravel asked why you waste your talent on such abonimable music as you played tonight."
> "Abonimable? It was Beethoven!"
> Disturbed, I pondered how Ravel could say this. Yet, had he worshipped Beethoven, could he compose like Ravel? (page 59)


Mr Piatigorsky's last line is like gold, in terms of many things said on this forum.

So, are you people going to pull down the monumental Ravel for not liking your idol as you did John Cage? Get real, guys, seriously (double double standards?). In any case, Ravel sounded serious, Cage was always being flippant, irreverent, a "stirrer."

Some people should read something about music & musicians, maybe then they wouldn't talk ****?. As I said, for generations the music schools were highly conservative. Beethoven was considered "modern," the be all & end all, even say Liszt or Wagner were beyond the pale. If you are forced to eat ice-cream all the time, no matter how good it is, you'll quickly grow to hate it. Make what you will of that analogy...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Outcomposing him by at least over fifty works, Beethoven was not only more efficient at composing works than Brahms but left him in the dust. Far more universal in scope, he not only wrote more but wrote: better.

No need to dredge up Beethoven; Wagner kicks Brahms ***... Hanslick or no Hanslick.


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Outcomposing him by at least over fifty works, Beethoven was not only more efficient at composing works than Brahms but left him in the dust. Far more universal in scope, he not only wrote more but wrote: better.
> 
> No need to dredge up Beethoven; Wagner kicks Brahms ***... Hanslick or no Hanslick.


You're all just trying to make me cry! Stop bullying me! :'(


----------



## mmsbls

@Andre: I understand your point, but...

Of course Beethoven was not wrong.
Of course, Beethoven did not write abominable music.

Worshiping Beethoven is a long way from thinking his music is abominable, but certainly Ravel could have written great new music and still thought Beethoven was the greatest composer ever. I suspect Ravel was just frustrated about the lack of attention to new music. Maybe he was serious. That would be too bad.


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> I understand your point, but...
> Of course Beethoven was not wrong.
> Of course, Beethoven did not write abominable music.


I agree. & neither were Cage & Ravel wrong for their views, esp. if one tries to understand "where they were coming from," their context, etc., which is what you kind of speak to here -



> ...I suspect Ravel was just frustrated about the lack of attention to new music...


Well, this kind of negativity, call it frustration or whatever, stemmed from many things like this in relation to new music. It was a similar situation of some people's attitudes to newer trends in Ravel's time as today. "Hard" conservatives tended to dominate the agenda. Before 1945, if you wanted to be trained in the modern techniques, you probably wouldn't go to a conservatorium - all you would be taught there, or virtually, would've been music up until Beethoven - you would go to a private teacher, eg. like Busoni, Schoenberg, Nadia Boulanger. I think the first two did at some stages got to hold tenure in conservatoriums, but they still had to fight for that & the right to stay there, with the conservatives who would pull them down at every opportunity. Times have changed now in relation to higher institutions in musical learning, people I know who have studied in these here have been taught all manner of techniques, from ancient to contemporary. Unfortunately, some members on forums like this don't seem to be aware of these histories, these issues, etc. As a result, they just make things up as they go along...


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> @Andre: I understand your point, but...
> 
> Of course Beethoven was not wrong.
> Of course, Beethoven did not write abominable music.
> 
> Worshiping Beethoven is a long way from thinking his music is abominable, but certainly Ravel could have written great new music and still thought Beethoven was the greatest composer ever. I suspect Ravel was just frustrated about the lack of attention to new music. Maybe he was serious. That would be too bad.


Seems like there was considerable attention paid to new music in Europe, at least in the 20s and 30s, and even before WW1 in France. Maybe not in the academies, but are music schools ever into 'modern'?


----------



## World Violist

Hilltroll72 said:


> Maybe not in the academies, but are music schools ever into 'modern'?


Yes, they are.


----------



## violadude

Hilltroll72 said:


> Seems like there was considerable attention paid to new music in Europe, at least in the 20s and 30s, and even before WW1 in France. Maybe not in the academies, but are music schools ever into 'modern'?


Mine is! Although, my school once had John Cage as one of their employed teachers. Must be why I spend so much time defending his music.


----------



## Weston

Beethoven very nearly skipped over the entire romantic period and went directly from classical to echoes of "modern," i.e. early 20th century music, while remaining firmly anchored to classical form. Thus he occupies a branch all his own in the great evolutionary tree of music with others merely trying to grow in parallel directions.


----------



## graaf

Aramis said:


> s
> SORRY PAL BUT THIS WAS MORE PREDICTABLE THAN TAPKAARA MENTIONING SIBELIUS


You mean as predictable as Aramis opening yet another thread about yet another Polish composer no one ever heard of and couldn't care less about?
In that case, yea, even more predictable than me being annoyed by snobbish teenager desperate to sound intellectual...


----------



## Aramis

graaf said:


> You mean as predictable as Aramis opening yet another thread about yet another Polish composer no one ever heard of and couldn't care less about?
> In that case, yea, even more predictable than me being annoyed by snobbish teenager desperate to sound intellectual...


I think someone doesn't like me.


----------



## tdc

I don't have any pretentious statements about Beethoven. Don't get me wrong I do love the guy's music and I think he was a genius, but somehow more of an everyday man 'worldly' genius. I save my pretentious comments for Bach's music.


----------



## graaf

Aramis said:


> I think someone doesn't like me.


Nope, I was just testing if you really changed after the hiatus you took from the forums. From this reply, and another reaction in some other thread, it seems you've genuinely changed. I also remember saying that your humour was (more than) bordering with BS, but I've seen lately that you've polished it and I'm glad to see that.

best regards, 
graaf


----------



## Polednice

graaf said:


> You mean as predictable as Aramis opening yet another thread about yet another Polish composer no one ever heard of and couldn't care less about?


OMG, Beethoven was Polish?! Why didn't I know this?!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

OMG, Beethoven was Polish?! Why didn't I know this?!

Don't let that get around or we'll have Robert Newman showing up next.


----------



## Couchie

Take Beethoven's music.

Subtract the transcendental late works.

Douse the profound testament to human struggle and triumph.

Get rid of the inspired motives and their brilliant development.

Delete the best piano sonatas ever written.

Soak everything remaining with a sappy high-fructose pansy-*** mouldy romantic syrup. Sprinkle lightly with wannabe and mediocrity.

Now you have Brahm's music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

How much of Brahms have you actually listened to? (Says the sworn Wagnerian)


----------



## Sid James

:lol: *Couchie* - I had an acquaintance who thought the same about Brahms (& Bruckner), except for their symphonies. Their chamber music was described by this guy as kind of like a syrupy rehash of Beethoven, Schubert or Haydn. I could hear what he was getting at, but I love them pretty much all the same...


----------



## Couchie

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How much of Brahms have you actually listened to? (Says the sworn Wagnerian)


Enough to wish I'd listened to less.


----------



## Sid James

tdc said:


> I don't have any pretentious statements about Beethoven... I save my pretentious comments for Bach's music.


Yeah, this thing about deifying composers, building monuments to them, just gives me the absolute sh*ts, to tell you the truth! Same with musicians or conductors. I mean they all vary about their "high points," middling things, & some "low points" (but not many or maybe even any total duds, I admit, for the "greats.")...


----------



## tdc

Sid James said:


> Yeah, this thing about deifying composers, building monuments to them, just gives me the absolute sh*ts, to tell you the truth! Same with musicians or conductors. I mean they all vary about their "high points," middling things, & some "low points" (but not many or maybe even any total duds, I admit, for the "greats.")...


For the most part I agree with you, I also think there is a difference between kind of 'deifying' the music and the actual person. I try to avoid the latter. Even someone whose record seems as pure as Bach - the truth remains, who Bach really was is shrouded in mystery. I don't claim to know those things, when I make grand statements about Bach or whomever I make them in reference to the art, not the artist.


----------



## Curiosity

StlukesguildOhio said:


> OMG, Beethoven was Polish?! Why didn't I know this?!
> 
> Don't let that get around or we'll have Robert Newman showing up next.


Oddly enough, Newman is actually calling Beethoven a fraud now, too.

http://musicalrevisionism.info/

:lol:


----------



## Ukko

Curiosity said:


> Oddly enough, Newman is actually calling Beethoven a fraud now, too.
> 
> http://musicalrevisionism.info/
> 
> :lol:


Interesting link. Newman producing his own '*Buy this revelatory, shocking, iconoclastic book'* blurb.


----------



## Webernite

Couchie said:


> Take Beethoven's music.
> 
> Subtract the transcendental late works.
> 
> Douse the profound testament to human struggle and triumph.
> 
> Get rid of the inspired motives and their brilliant development.
> 
> Delete the best piano sonatas ever written.
> 
> Soak everything remaining with a sappy high-fructose pansy-*** mouldy romantic syrup. Sprinkle lightly with wannabe and mediocrity.
> 
> Now you have Brahm's music.


Who's Brahm?!


----------



## regressivetransphobe

He probably meant Brahms, but because there's an S at the end, he accidental-OHH HO HO, I GET IT, YOU ALREADY KNOW WHAT HE MEANT :lol:


----------



## Aramis

Webernite said:


> Who's Brahm?!


German cartographer, engineer and mystic. Brahm, derided by contemporaries, never managed to gain many followers to his religious thought. His criticism of dynastic politics and the aggression of nation-states as well as his anti-imperialist position was not well-received in the intellectual climate of the early American Republic.


----------



## Couchie

Webernite said:


> Who's Brahm?!


Concerned about technical mundanity over meaning and content, I can see why you're a _Brahms_ fan.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Webernite said:


> Who's Brahm?!


Dunno, but he's gotta be better than Brahms.  (Sorry, I don't usually bash composers, but I couldn't resist that one)


----------



## Webernite

Couchie said:


> Concerned about technical mundanity over meaning and content, I can see why you're a _Brahms_ fan.





Couchie said:


> Take Beethoven's music.
> 
> Subtract the transcendental late works.
> 
> Douse the profound testament to human struggle and triumph.
> 
> Get rid of the inspired motives and their brilliant development.
> 
> Delete the best piano sonatas ever written.
> 
> Soak everything remaining with a sappy high-fructose pansy-*** mouldy romantic syrup. Sprinkle lightly with wannabe and mediocrity.
> 
> Now you have Brahm's music.


What you say is very reminiscent of something Tchaikovsky said about Brahms in one his letters:



> Isn't Brahms, at bottom, just a caricature of Beethoven? Isn't all his pretension to depth, power, and strength loathsome when the content he pours into the Beethovenian forms is lamentable and insignificant?


Both of you assume that Brahms was trying to imitate Beethoven, and then you say, "Well, it's not a very good imitation." I think that's the wrong way of looking at things. No piece by Brahms could be mistaken for a piece by Beethoven, but it's not because Brahms was a bad imitator, it's because he wasn't _trying_ to imitate Beethoven. Brahms was his own man, with his own ideas about music, and his own strengths and weaknesses. His favorite composer was Mozart, not Beethoven; he spent years conducting Baroque and Renaissance music; he edited editions of Chopin, Couperin and Schubert; he owned the manuscripts of Haydn's _Sun_ Quartets. Obviously, he was heavily influenced by Beethoven, but so were Wagner, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky - and nobody ever complains that they didn't write transcendental piano sonatas.

:tiphat:


----------



## tdc

I think what works against Brahms is similar to what works against Tchaikovsky, both are good but 'in my opinion' a little over rated. If Brahms was less well known he would probably be the kind of composer I'd rave about, and try to get people to notice. Its when people start placing him on the level of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart etc. that I think other people feel the need to step in and say 'woah, he wasn't THAT good!'.
I do anyway :lol: but of course that is just my opinion, and I respect the opinions of those who feel otherwise.


----------



## Aramis

Webernite said:


> Obviously, he was heavily influenced by Beethoven, but so were Wagner, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky - and nobody ever complains that they didn't write transcendental piano sonatas


I actually prefer Wagner's piano sonatas over those by Brahms. Not to mention op. 118. They aren't great and groundbreaking works but at least they make good use of the piano.


----------



## Webernite

Aramis said:


> I actually prefer Wagner's piano sonatas over those by Brahms. Not to mention op. 118. They aren't great and groundbreaking works but *at least they make good use of the piano*.


You live in an alternate universe where Krystian Zimerman's Steinway was the kind of piano 19th-century composers had in mind when writing their works.


----------



## Aramis

Webernite said:


> You live in an alternate universe where Krystian Zimerman's Steinway was the kind of piano 19th-century composers had in mind when writing their works.


No, I've heard HIP piano recordings (even on pianos earlier than those Brahms was used to) and I see the difference quite clearly. But I don't see relation between this matter and what you're referring to.


----------



## Webernite

Aramis said:


> No, I've heard HIP piano recordings (even on pianos earlier than those Brahms was used to) and I see the difference quite clearly. But I don't see relation between this matter and what you're referring to.


Fair enough. But I think Brahms's piano pieces are written quite well for the pianos of the time. The main reason is that the bass notes sound more separate from each other, so it's feasible to write music in the lower regions of the piano (as Brahms does) without it becoming a blur.


----------



## Aramis

That would make big difference in the opening of... yyy... I think it was 3rd sonata. 

But I'm not biased against his piano music because of such details, it's that his writing for piano is littely idiomatic, like he wouldn't "feel" the instrument, it's character. He was accomplished pianist but I don't think the piano was "his" instrument just like it was with Chopin or Liszt. His piano music could be transcribed for any ensamble without loosing much of it's merits. For some it may be good thing but when I reach for piano music, ESPECIALLY romantic piano music, I expect pianism and I find very little of it in music for solo piano by Brahms and to tell the truth, as much as I adore his piano concertos, I think they lack it as well.


----------



## Webernite

Aramis said:


> That would make big difference in the opening of... yyy... I think it was 3rd sonata.
> 
> But I'm not biased against his piano music because of such details, it's that his writing for piano is littely idiomatic, like he wouldn't "feel" the instrument, it's character. He was accomplished pianist but I don't think the piano was "his" instrument just like it was with Chopin or Liszt. His piano music could be transcribed for any ensamble without loosing much of it's merits. For some it may be good thing but when I reach for piano music, ESPECIALLY romantic piano music, I expect pianism and I find very little of it in music for solo piano by Brahms and to tell the truth, as much as I adore his piano concertos, I think they lack it as well.


Yeah, but I think it's at least partly deliberate. Brahms disliked Lisztian virtuosity and tried to make his works difficult to play but sound easy, so that the pianist couldn't show off. I'm mainly referring to the piano concertos and the late works (you mentioned Op. 118), though. I don't like the piano sonatas either.

Edit: So, for example, instead of octaves and scales, he made the fingerings difficult, used polyrhythm, made the trills difficult, etc.


----------



## Ukko

tdc said:


> I think what works against Brahms is similar to what works against Tchaikovsky, both are good but 'in my opinion' a little over rated. If Brahms was less well known he would probably be the kind of composer I'd rave about, and try to get people to notice. Its when people start placing him on the level of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart etc. that I think other people feel the need to step in and say 'woah, he wasn't THAT good!'.
> I do anyway :lol: but of course that is just my opinion, and I respect the opinions of those who feel otherwise.


You, _tdc_, have produced here one of the more understated examples of 'self-respected opinion' on the subject. Not re Brahms per se, but of several highly appreciated composers. As part of my constant effort to understand what's going on out there, I'm hoping you will help me out here. How do you balance the strength of co-members opinions with your own? It feels like I can't go into more detail without running the risk of insult - and that would be counter-productive, aye verily.


----------



## tdc

Hilltroll72 said:


> You, _tdc_, have produced here one of the more understated examples of 'self-respected opinion' on the subject. Not re Brahms per se, but of several highly appreciated composers. As part of my constant effort to understand what's going on out there, I'm hoping you will help me out here. How do you balance the strength of co-members opinions with your own? It feels like I can't go into more detail without running the risk of insult - and that would be counter-productive, aye verily.


Well, I think my main point was that some composers get quite popular, and if there isn't as much 'unanimity' in their popularity as in other composers (for example Bach or Beethoven), it can at times seem to 'work against' those composers to an extent ie - create some backlash, perhaps in some kind of a societal effort to ascertain where a particular composer stands among others? etc.

Mahler, I think is another good example of a composer like this - very popular among certain 'circles', while others seem to at times want to 'bring him down a notch' so to speak. I just happen to be on the side that doesn't think Mahler is really too over-rated, but its a similar type of situation I think. In this instance I was definitely speaking more from the subjective side of things though as the end of my post suggests.


----------



## Polednice

Why are you all picking on poor, cuddly Brahmsy?  You make me sick.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> cuddly Brahmsy?


NICE SOFT CUDDLY FLUFFY BRAHMS

HOW ABOUT WE SHARE HIM

SHARE

SHAAAAAAAAARE

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS

SHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE
s
IT MEANS YOU TAKE HALF AND I TAKE HALF

HAUVAT


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> NICE SOFT CUDDLY FLUFFY BRAHMS
> 
> HOW ABOUT WE SHARE HIM


I asked him - he's hesitant, but willing. He's a little shy, but there's enough of him to go around! If you treat him nice, he'll give you sweets like he did to all those little children on the streets of Germany in a totally non-grooming way at all.


----------



## Ukko

tdc said:


> Well, I think my main point was that some composers get quite popular, and if there isn't as much 'unanimity' in their popularity as in other composers (for example Bach or Beethoven), it can at times seem to 'work against' those composers to an extent ie - create some backlash, perhaps in some kind of a societal effort to ascertain where a particular composer stands among others? etc.
> 
> Mahler, I think is another good example of a composer like this - very popular among certain 'circles', while others seem to at times want to 'bring him down a notch' so to speak. I just happen to be on the side that doesn't think Mahler is really too over-rated, but its a similar type of situation I think. In this instance I was definitely speaking more from the subjective side of things though as the end of my post suggests.


OK. You are making judgements of relative worth, with perhaps rather fine gradations. All very well, but it means that I have addressed my question to the wrong person. Rats.

Note to _polednice_: J.S.Bach qualifies as a _sacred cow_. Brahms is not a sacred cow, so people do not feel obligated to 'reach an understanding' with his music. Personally, I admit to not fully embracing German Baroque music in general, including Bach's.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

If I was stranded on a desert island with 1,000 Brahms CDs, I would construct a boat out of them to sail to an island with one Bach CD.


----------



## Polednice

Hilltroll72 said:


> Note to _polednice_: J.S.Bach qualifies as a _sacred cow_. Brahms is not a sacred cow, so people do not feel obligated to 'reach an understanding' with his music. Personally, I admit to not fully embracing German Baroque music in general, including Bach's.


J. S. Bach qualifies as a turd in a wig. I feel no obligation whatsoever to understand his drivel. No joke!


----------



## Ukko

regressivetransphobe said:


> If I was stranded on a desert island with 1,000 Brahms CDs, I would construct a boat out of them to sail to an island with one Bach CD.


Your destination island would harbor just one mechanism - one designed to play Edison cylinders. Several Brahms recordings are on cylinders in the same box. You forgot your Walkman on the island you just left - which is now upwind of you - and your primitive boat cannot tack. Woe is you.

:devil:


----------



## Couchie

Webernite said:


> What you say is very reminiscent of something Tchaikovsky said about Brahms in one his letters:
> 
> Both of you assume that Brahms was trying to imitate Beethoven, and then you say, "Well, it's not a very good imitation." I think that's the wrong way of looking at things. No piece by Brahms could be mistaken for a piece by Beethoven, but it's not because Brahms was a bad imitator, it's because he wasn't _trying_ to imitate Beethoven. Brahms was his own man, with his own ideas about music, and his own strengths and weaknesses. His favorite composer was Mozart, not Beethoven; he spent years conducting Baroque and Renaissance music; he edited editions of Chopin, Couperin and Schubert; he owned the manuscripts of Haydn's _Sun_ Quartets. Obviously, he was heavily influenced by Beethoven, but so were Wagner, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky - and nobody ever complains that they didn't write transcendental piano sonatas.
> 
> :tiphat:


I actually have little against Brahms, but needed to douse the evil Polednice was spreading in this thread with a bit of holy water. And how often in life are you invited to be pretentious? I couldn't pass that up.


----------



## Polednice

Couchie said:


> I actually have little against Brahms, but needed to douse the evil Polednice was spreading in this thread with a bit of holy water. And how often in life are you invited to be pretentious? I couldn't pass that up.


How dare you?!?! My Brahms proselytising is the only holy water on this forum! You are the devil!!


----------

