# Why does Beethoven fill the house?



## KenOC

From an article decrying the Pittsburg SO's declining ticket sales and half-empty houses: "The closest the symphony came this season to a sold-out house was 97 percent for the June 7 performance of the final Beethovenfest series, a concert featuring Ludwig van Beethoven's Violin Concerto and Symphony No. 9... The last sold-out concerts were in February 2013 for Honeck's program featuring Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 and Beethoven's Symphony No. 7. Both performances sold 101 percent, with standing-room admissions."

So what is it about this Beethoven guy? What's his secret? Should struggling orchestras play his music all the time?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

surely it is no surprise that Beethoven fills concert halls? Its top quality music and it pleases large numbers of people.

Should an orchestra play Beethoven all the time - well, no - there is a huge quantity of other top class music as well (and in adition there is an even larger body of music that deserves to be played too).


----------



## KenOC

Headphone Hermit said:


> surely it is no surprise that Beethoven fills concert halls? Its top quality music and it pleases large numbers of people.


But...why? More than other music?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^^ as Fr Jack said in one episode of Father Ted (when he was instructed to block any question that was asked to him) .... "Ah! That would be an ecumenical question!"

I can't answer that question. I can't even answer why I like Beethoven so much. Sorry!


----------



## ArtMusic

KenOC said:


> From an article decrying the Pittsburg SO's declining ticket sales and half-empty houses: "The closest the symphony came this season to a sold-out house was 97 percent for the June 7 performance of the final Beethovenfest series, a concert featuring Ludwig van Beethoven's Violin Concerto and Symphony No. 9... The last sold-out concerts were in February 2013 for Honeck's program featuring Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 and Beethoven's Symphony No. 7. Both performances sold 101 percent, with standing-room admissions."
> 
> So what is it about this Beethoven guy? What's his secret? Should *struggling orchestras* play his music all the time?


You used a set of keywords: *struggling orchestras*. If these struggling orchestras want to continue, then they need to play what their audiences want - supply and demand as my Dad says. I don't want to see professional, good orchestras go under and musicians go out of jobs. So yes, Beethoven should be played if that's what audiences want, maybe mixed in with some other composers.


----------



## Crudblud

I don't think it has as much to do with the music as one might hope, rather I would suggest that the mythologising of Beethoven is what does it. It may have started with the music, but today he is a larger than life figure, no mere composer, but a symbol of struggle and the triumph of the human spirit; a tormented, brooding figure who looked deep into the soul of man, and a writer of great masterpieces who had to wrestle with his deafness over every note. Beethoven's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard precisely because he has been remade in the public consciousness as a paragon of will and determination, to embody the "I can" in all of us, a towering inspirational figure who also has the human flaws that allow us to recognise him as one of us — he's in the gutter with the rest of us, but he is looking up at the stars. He's got it all, not even the grossly romanticised Mahler or Shostakovich or Tchaikovsky have had so much nonsense lavished upon them in popular analysis, there is no other composer who has been made into a myth on the same level as Beethoven.


----------



## Saintbert

If you've never listened to classical music, Beethoven's major works will still most likely be familiar to you, thanks to the frequency they are used in films, commercials, elevators and so on. Yet it is serious, heavy-weight music you can feel smart about knowing.


----------



## BrokenFingers

Saintbert said:


> If you've never listened to classical music, Beethoven's major works will still most likely be familiar to you, thanks to the frequency they are used in films, commercials, elevators and so on. Yet it is serious, heavy-weight music you can feel smart about knowing.


Exactly. Almost everybody has heard about Beethoven and is familiar with "Für Elise", for example. Not everybody is familiar with Stravinsky or Ravel, even though their music is arguably more formidable and fascinating from an aesthetic point of view.


----------



## Guest

Because he wrote damn fine music. Whatever it is in the human mind that connects with music, and makes it a pleasurable thing to listen to, Beethoven had a gift for writing music in a way that triggered that response in a LOT of people. His melodies, from the Ode to Joy, to the Moonlight Sonata, produce a pleasurable response in a whole lot more people than, say, the Helicopter Quartet. And so he is always going to be one of those composers that draws more listeners. And that is a good thing. 

Yes, struggling orchestras should use this. By all means, include something else in the program as well, and hopefully people will stay and listen, but if you want butts in seats and income coming in, Beethoven is a no-brainer - especially his most popular works - the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th symphonies, the Emperor Concerto, the Violin Concerto, etc.


----------



## Don Fatale

As a listening experience, the Fifth symphony needs no further recommendation from anyone.

However (I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet) seeing it live with a good view of the orchestra is a marvellous and fascinating experience as the melody moves between the sections. You see the music as well as hear it and that gives a greater appreciation.

Is there not a thread _best symphonies to see live_? Many are quite engrossing to watch as well as listen to.


----------



## breakup

KenOC said:


> From an article decrying the Pittsburg SO's declining ticket sales and half-empty houses: "The closest the symphony came this season to a sold-out house was 97 percent for the June 7 performance of the final Beethovenfest series, a concert featuring Ludwig van Beethoven's Violin Concerto and Symphony No. 9... The last sold-out concerts were in February 2013 for Honeck's program featuring Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 and Beethoven's Symphony No. 7. Both performances sold 101 percent, with standing-room admissions."
> 
> So what is it about this Beethoven guy? What's his secret? Should struggling orchestras play his music all the time?


Exactly where is this city *"Pittsburg"* you refer to, is it large enough to support a symphony orchestra?


----------



## tdc

BrokenFingers said:


> Exactly. Almost everybody has heard about Beethoven and is familiar with "Für Elise", for example. *Not everybody is familiar with Stravinsky or Ravel, even though their music is arguably more formidable and fascinating from an aesthetic point of view.*


:clap:

Bravo, I agree.


----------



## Blancrocher

DrMike said:


> By all means, include something else in the program as well, and hopefully people will stay and listen, but if you want butts in seats and income coming in, Beethoven is a no-brainer - especially his most popular works - the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th symphonies, the Emperor Concerto, the Violin Concerto, etc.


Incidentally, I've been to standing-room-only concerts featuring the 1st Symphony. Lots of young people on dates, by the looks of them. I suspect a lot of them were waiting for Tum-Tum-tu-TUM! Bored faces all around.


----------



## breakup

BrokenFingers said:


> Exactly. Almost everybody has heard about Beethoven and is familiar with "Für Elise", for example. Not everybody is familiar with Stravinsky or Ravel, even though their music is arguably more formidable and fascinating from an aesthetic point of view.


Actually many people are more familiar with classical music than they realize, they just can't name the piece or the composer. 50 years ago many movies and TV shows used classical music as background or themes. The Loan Ranger theme. I played the whole Rossini piece for my wife and she didn't recognize it till it got to the last section.

In one music store I get into on occasion where they sell pianos, the one sales person said that 2 pieces they would not allow people to play were "Chop Sticks" and "Fur Elise", because they hear them so often, she did say she was joking, then I started to play "Fur Elise" just to get her going. I also played the middle of Chopin's "Trauermarsch", which she claimed to have never heard before, but thought it was very nice.

The musician at our church teaches contemporary music history at the college level, has played on cruse ships, and in the lounge of one of the better hotels in the area, but when we start talking classical music, I'm always 'one upping' her with my knowledge. She acknowledges her ignorance on the subject, because that is not where she makes her money.


----------



## starthrower

People like famous brand names. And they'll pay high tickets prices for them. I'd rather pay 15-20 dollars to go to a modern chamber music concert in a small venue.


----------



## Albert7

It is because Beeethoven is a huge marketed brand like Mickey D's. This is the mere simulacrum of the original composer.


----------



## Guest

Another one o' them there based on an unstated assumption questions.

But before we can answer "Why does Beethoven fill the house?" we have to ask one or two other questions.

Does Beethoven fill the house? To what, exactly, does "the house" refer? (How big is this house, too?)

So here's an attempt at some answers, even though logically it should be Ken giving these:

Does Beethoven fill the house? Well, he seems to fill some houses. Others I doubt he would fill at all. Houses that Deep Purple can fill, or Madonna, or Mariah Carey.

To what, exactly, does "the house" refer? Well, it seems to refer here to symphony halls, particularly those of struggling orchestras, though that's only how it seems. In actual fact, all we've got here is two concerts in one town that included some Beethoven pieces. And one of those concerts was almost assuredly sold out because of the Rachmaninoff, not the Beethoven--and not even the Rachmaninoff, necessarily (it's being the #2 and not the famous one in that movie--you remember that movie, don't you dear, about that nice Australian man?) but maybe that nice Matsuev boy who did so well in Moscow in '98. You remember!

Well, this is embarrassing. Now that we've answered the heretofore unasked questions, we find that there's nothing much left of the question we were preparing to answer. Now we don't really need to answer it at all.

Oh well!

Yeah, big star names, big and starry for all sorts of reasons, some maybe even having to do with art, will always be a draw. This is, I would say, neither mysterious nor interesting.

In the world I inhabit, it's Phill Niblock who fills the house. You want people in this world to pay attention to the latest thing by Lucia Vitkova? Well, you invite Phill to come along, too. It's easy!


----------



## Albert7

This season for the Utah Symphony is going to start with them playing all nine symphonies in a row. As much as I love Beethoven I am more excited by the Muhly premiere and Pintscher and Takemitsu pieces I get to hear live for the first time.

My dream is to see Lana Del Rey live. That would be one sweet sour treat.


----------



## Dim7

'coz his so fat


----------



## Mahlerian

Given that one of those concerts was the final one in a Beethoven series, and assuming you mentioned the only two concerts that were sold out, it seems clear that even Beethoven concerts can't always sell out the house.

Stockhausen's opera Mittwoch aus Licht [URL="http://www.gramophone.co.uk/blog/concerts-and-events/helicopters-and-camels-stockhausen-mittwoch-aus-licht-gets-staged-premiere]sold out four evenings[/URL], if you want random and less than meaningful statistics.


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> This season for the Utah Symphony is going to start with them playing all nine symphonies in a row.


I just hope it's not the row I'm sitting in.

But really, wouldn't playing the nine Wellesz symphonies in a row be more fun?

Even if they do seat me next to the cymbal player.


----------



## starthrower

That some guy always has to show up and take the fun out of these threads with his dry logic and statistics. And name drop his favorite avant garde noise composers to make us all feel like dinosaurs.


----------



## SixFootScowl

All the stuff about the familiarity of Beethoven with the general non-classical oriented public makes a lot of sense. And there was a movie about a dog named Beethoven. Never saw it, but perhaps it also has Beethoven's music and references to the composer. 

On the other hand, I would think that the movie, Amadeus, would have upped Mozart in the general public minds, but apparently not above Beethoven.


----------



## brotagonist

A lot of us classical listeners stay at home and listen to our recordings. So, who goes to concerts? Given the huge palette of entertainment possibilities, the average culturally interested consumer might take in a symphony concert every few years. These average persons have certainly heard of Beethoven, since, like others have said, he has been mythologized into a larger-than-life composer—deservedly so, for he wrote a heck of a lot of great music that appeals to many, the novices and the cognoscenti alike, and has done so for nearly two hundred years.


----------



## Faustian

From my experiences with local symphonies, it seems that while the average Beethoven piece like the Emperor Concerto or the Symphony No. 7 will possibly attract a slight larger crowd in general than works from other composers on any given night, its his Ninth symphony that is really the box office hit. That work has gained a kind of mythical status; there's a kind of buzz surrounding performances of it, and a lot of first timers to the concert hall always come out in force to see it. It's certainly an electrifying symphony to see live, and the Ode to Joy is just one of those themes that's ingrained in the popular psyche.


----------



## arpeggio

I do not know.

I am also tired of the "classical music is dying" crowd who constantly post articles from the Frostbite Falls Gazette concerning the declining ticket sales for the Frostbite Falls Symphonic Harmonica Ensemble.


----------



## Bulldog

some guy said:


> In the world I inhabit, it's Phill Niblock who fills the house.


Is that a two or three-bedroom home?


----------



## starthrower

Faustian said:


> It's certainly an electrifying symphony to see live, and the Ode to Joy is just one of those themes that's ingrained in the popular psyche.


I don't know? If I did go hear Beethoven's 9th in concert, I'd probably leave after the main theme of the final movement was stated. All the ecstatic choral exclamations of universal brotherhood makes me uncomfortable.


----------



## bharbeke

A lot of people like a sure thing when they go out to a concert. If I am going for a night out, I like to maximize the chances of it being a great one. Beethoven and Mozart are almost always winners. If I want to experiment with new music, buying a couple of CDs would be cheaper.


----------



## Albert7

Okay if they did a concert of all Stockhausen I would be there in a heartbeat.


----------



## Blancrocher

Florestan said:


> All the stuff about the familiarity of Beethoven with the general non-classical oriented public makes a lot of sense. And there was a movie about a dog named Beethoven. Never saw it, but perhaps it also has Beethoven's music and references to the composer.
> 
> On the other hand, I would think that the movie, Amadeus, would have upped Mozart in the general public minds, but apparently not above Beethoven.


I think this suggests that Beethoven's popularity isn't _just_ the result of his "mythic" stature or the quality of his music. There's also the fact that Beethoven composed music that was especially suited to the concert hall. He's always _needed_ professionals to play his music (himself included). I like several Mozart piano concertos just as much as any of LVB's, but there isn't the same drama between the virtuoso soloist and the orchestral mass (imo). And even simple things, such as starting a movement quietly and finishing it with the whole orchestra knocking themselves out so that the audience knows when to jump out of their seats and applaud. The Schuberts of the world, geniuses though they may be, will just have to settle for small venues and home listeners, I'm afraid.


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> Is that a two or three-bedroom home?


More likely a studio apartment.


----------



## starthrower

re: blancrocher
Beethoven was a commercial, emotional button pushing psychologist composer.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> Given that one of those concerts was the final one in a Beethoven series, and assuming you mentioned the only two concerts that were sold out, it seems clear that even Beethoven concerts can't always sell out the house.
> 
> Stockhausen's opera Mittwoch aus Licht [URL="http://www.gramophone.co.uk/blog/concerts-and-events/helicopters-and-camels-stockhausen-mittwoch-aus-licht-gets-staged-premiere]sold out four evenings[/URL], if you want random and less than meaningful statistics.


The real question is can Beethoven or composer X help a struggling orchestra? If audiences want mainly Stockhausen then that should be played to help a struggling orchestra. Why just a one off? Economics will decide what gets played, supply and demand.


----------



## Lord Lance

KenOC said:


> From an article decrying the Pittsburg SO's declining ticket sales and half-empty houses: "The closest the symphony came this season to a sold-out house was 97 percent for the June 7 performance of the final Beethovenfest series, a concert featuring Ludwig van Beethoven's Violin Concerto and Symphony No. 9... The last sold-out concerts were in February 2013 for Honeck's program featuring Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 and Beethoven's Symphony No. 7. Both performances sold 101 percent, with standing-room admissions."
> 
> So what is it about this Beethoven guy? What's his secret? Should struggling orchestras play his music all the time?


My best guess would be his inborn ability to produce melodies and works - even some works which were "difficult" for the average listener - that provoked emotional responses from the layman who just heard Fur Elise to the even the most anti-traditionalists like Boulez. It's rare. Tchaikovsky had melodic genius but he didn't necessarily provoke the intense emotions that Beethoven could. Why? Well, music expresses the inexpressible, correct? There's your answer.

Struggling orchestra would see it best to juxtapose populist pieces like Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto or Sinfonia Eroica with a lesser-known masterpiece like Raff's First Symphony [Yes, that's what propaganda looks like]. Just to be sure that the hall isn't half-empty, the Beethoven piece should be last. Force them to evolve their tastes.

Assuming, they don't know when the intermission is...


----------



## mmsbls

I'm sure orchestras have statistics on which works/composers sold the most tickets. I tried to find some more data but (without trying too hard) could not find anything that was directly applicable. Data from 21 major US orchestras from the 2014-2015 season show Beethoven, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky were by far the most programmed. Assuming that the orchestra programmers program what sells, perhaps these 3 are the highest draws. I was a bit surprised that Bach came in 4th given these are symphony orchestras, but maybe you just can't keep great music down. Of course, this data pertains only to orchestral sales in the US. (NOTE: roughly 11% of works were from living composers). It would be interesting to see more complete stats (and for Europe and other venues as well).


----------



## Lord Lance

some guy said:


> Another one o' them there based on an unstated assumption questions.
> 
> But before we can answer "Why does Beethoven fill the house?" we have to ask one or two other questions.
> 
> Does Beethoven fill the house? To what, exactly, does "the house" refer? (How big is this house, too?)
> 
> So here's an attempt at some answers, even though logically it should be Ken giving these:
> 
> Does Beethoven fill the house? Well, he seems to fill some houses. Others I doubt he would fill at all. Houses that Deep Purple can fill, or Madonna, or Mariah Carey.
> 
> To what, exactly, does "the house" refer? Well, it seems to refer here to symphony halls, particularly those of struggling orchestras, though that's only how it seems. In actual fact, all we've got here is two concerts in one town that included some Beethoven pieces. And one of those concerts was almost assuredly sold out because of the Rachmaninoff, not the Beethoven--and not even the Rachmaninoff, necessarily (it's being the #2 and not the famous one in that movie--you remember that movie, don't you dear, about that nice Australian man?) but maybe that nice Matsuev boy who did so well in Moscow in '98. You remember!
> 
> Well, this is embarrassing. Now that we've answered the heretofore unasked questions, we find that there's nothing much left of the question we were preparing to answer. Now we don't really need to answer it at all.
> 
> Oh well!
> 
> Yeah, big star names, big and starry for all sorts of reasons, some maybe even having to do with art, will always be a draw. This is, I would say, neither mysterious nor interesting.
> 
> In the world I inhabit, it's Phill Niblock who fills the house. You want people in this world to pay attention to the latest thing by Lucia Vitkova? Well, you invite Phill to come along, too. It's easy!


Hear, hear! The sort of blind faith people put in artists or composers is saddening. Amazon reviews stand a major testament to that.

Bernstein? Yeah, he did some mediocre work. Not very many but they were definitely there.
Karajan? With 400 plus discs of records, what do you think? He was no _God._
Barenboim? Um, he has more mediocre records than ^^.
Solti? He could get leaden. His second Beethoven symphony is no piece of gold.
Beethoven? Wellington's Victory if nothing else!
Jansons? Dreadful Bruckner.
Brahms? *thinks to himself* _It's there! _There must be... right?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Blancrocher said:


> Beethoven composed music that was especially suited to the concert hall. ...... The Schuberts of the world, geniuses though they may be, will just have to settle for small venues and home listeners, I'm afraid.


sigh! I guess that in general (as a broad generalisation) you're correct. At my local venue, a Beethoven symphony or concerto fills the place to the rafters whilst there's seldom much problem getting a ticket (in a much smaller seating plan) for a Beethoven String Quartet or a Beethoven piano recital

Pah!


----------



## Mahlerian

ArtMusic said:


> The real question is can Beethoven or composer X help a struggling orchestra? If audiences want mainly Stockhausen then that should be played to help a struggling orchestra. Why just a one off? Economics will decide what gets played, supply and demand.


You missed the point of my remark. Beethoven qua Beethoven does not fill houses. Specific, famous works by Beethoven _sometimes_ fill the house. I doubt an orchestra which played the same few warhorses repeatedly would do much better than one which plays a wider variety, including but not limited to the warhorses.

Stockhausen's Licht operas may be able to fill a house, but they are much more costly to perform than Beethoven, for any number of reasons.


----------



## Blancrocher

Headphone Hermit said:


> sigh! I guess that in general (as a broad generalisation) you're correct. At my local venue, a Beethoven symphony or concerto fills the place to the rafters whilst there's seldom much problem getting a ticket (in a much smaller seating plan) for a Beethoven String Quartet or a Beethoven piano recital
> 
> Pah!


Haha--however, from a selfish point of view that's not such a bad thing--I _like_ being able to sit a few rows away from the Takacs Quartet!


----------



## DaveM

Other reasons Beethoven fills the house:

1. His wide-ranging output appeals to all levels of musical sophistication: the less educated listener will be attracted to the usual suspects while the more advanced Beethoven listener will look forward to both the concertos & symphonies, but also the later quartets and sonatas.

2. The imagery in many Beethoven works is vivid, rich and appeals to a wide range of emotions in the common man/woman not only because of the composition itself, but because of historical context: eg. 3rd (Eroica) and 5th symphonies (for obvious reasons), 6th symphony (the storm and resolution that follows). 

3. Beethoven's music is particularly open to wide ranging interpretation: Works that one has heard hundreds of times can take on new life in the hands of a new performer (eg. for me more recently Trifonov playing the sonata 32). Listen to the adagios of the Beethoven #1 and #5 piano sonatas played by Barenboim & Gilels. They are played more slowly and thus, have more beauty and substance than if played quickly and dismissively as is true with many other performers. Point being that even those who have an extensive Beethoven library will still turn up at concerts to hear new conductors/performers.


----------



## Albert7

In fact my decision with Utah Symphony concerts has been to avoid anything on the programme with warhorses. If I heard it live before I am much more likely to avoid it.


----------



## KenOC

Quite a few years ago when I lived in Seattle, the symphony was closer than usual to bankruptcy. So they scheduled an all-Beethoven series, all the symphonies plus the Missa. This house was full for these concerts, and financially things got better -- for a while at least.

I agree, based on my own experience, that Beethoven isn't such a big draw at piano recitals and chamber music concerts. But who is?


----------



## Guest

Simone Donnerstein.


----------



## Albert7

some guy said:


> Simone Donnerstein.


Gimme Helene not of Troy and I promise that I will be there in a jiffy.


----------



## KenOC

Non-orchestral performances: Over the last couple of years I have seen Jeremy Denk, the Tokyo quartet (their last tour), the Takacs, and several other really excellent soloists and small groups. The venue was a newer and quite fine smaller hall with excellent acoustics, wooded suburban setting, reasonable tickets, free parking, etc. Everything you could want.

Usually there have only been 100-300 people in the seats, sometimes under a hundred. Very sad. I don't understand why these fine musicians continue coming here.


----------



## Guest

Well, ya still gotta play ya some Beethoven.

(How things change, eh? Why, was it only 1860 or thereabouts when a famous pianist was told not to bring any Beethoven to London for his recital there because it would empty the hall?

No, really. Was it 1860? I can't find my reference.)


----------



## Albert7

Actually I know that Steve Reich music does bring down the house as well recently.


----------



## Xaltotun

Some people seem to get upset because human beings apply non-Kantian evaluation methods of art, including mythological thinking. And historical thinking. And putting stuff in context. And making things refer to other things...

There is perception of Beethoven's art and there is Beethoven the cultural item and they may have some connection with each other but you cannot and should not even try to encounter the former without the latter. And if you really wish to do those Kantian evaluations (which is not so bad in itself), you'd be much more successful if you first embraced the context, all that surrounds the work of art, all the better to see the thing in itself.

So I guess this means you cannot see God until you see the Church first. Claiming otherwise is what it's always been called: heresy.
So I guess I wholeheartedly embrace BEETHOVEN THE TORMENTED PROMETHEAN ARTIST, yes!! and see no harm in others doing the same.


----------



## Autocrat

Sydney Symphony Orchestra, for the last half of the year, is doing Ravel, Mozart, Bach, Sibelius, Dvorak, Debussy, Berlioz, Brahms, Rach, Tchaik, Prokofiev, Schumann and others, including a couple of Beethoven ditties (Eroica and Missa Solemnis). 

Everything will be pretty much sold out even at the exorbitant prices in that dog of a venue.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> You missed the point of my remark. Beethoven qua Beethoven does not fill houses. Specific, famous works by Beethoven _sometimes_ fill the house. I doubt an orchestra which played the same few warhorses repeatedly would do much better than one which plays a wider variety, including but not limited to the warhorses.
> 
> Stockhausen's Licht operas may be able to fill a house, but they are much more costly to perform than Beethoven, for any number of reasons.


What I am saying is if Licht or any piece that fills the house then they should play it more often to keep struggling orchestras alive. Mozart's operas are played every year in all parts of the world's major opera houses. This is the premise to keep struggling orchestras alive. A one-off success with Licht adds to it. As for the cost to perform Licht, as a supporter of modernism you know any interpretation can almost be viable. Avant-garde staging of ancient operas also apply to even Monteverdi. Extravagant staging of Wagner's Ring cycle as well, whether 100% traditional (James Levine , The Met) or 100% avant-garde stage acrobats (Zubin Mehta version). Or just a plain concert version. It is what sells tickets.

I have never been to a live opera, I cannot afford the tickets but I am aware of the issues.


----------



## tdc

I've never paid a dime to see a Beethoven concert, I'm just not that interested in most of his music. I agree with those suggesting his music is so popular largely because of hype. 

This is not to suggest he is a bad composer. I just think he gets a lot of attention for non-musical reasons. 

Lets face it folks we live in a world where Looney Tunes and LoTR music is more interesting to most people than genuine classical music. Therefore I think any attempt to suggest Beethoven's popularity in this regard is because there is something inherently special about his music is dubious at best.


----------



## trazom

Blancrocher said:


> I like several Mozart piano concertos just as much as any of LVB's, but there isn't the same drama between the virtuoso soloist and the orchestral mass (imo). And even simple things, such as starting a movement quietly and finishing it with the whole orchestra knocking themselves out so that the audience knows when to jump out of their seats and applaud. The Schuberts of the world, geniuses though they may be, will just have to settle for small venues and home listeners, I'm afraid.


But the relationship between the soloist and orchestra is much more linear and simplified in Beethoven's piano concertos. There's certainly more virtuosity and volume, but his actual grasp of the form seems so much more crude than Mozart's, whose knack for dialogue and interplay--no doubt influenced by his operatic writing and enthusiasm for public music--between soloist and orchestra was unparalleled.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

tdc said:


> I've never paid a dime to see a Beethoven concert, I'm just not that interested in most of his music. I agree with those suggesting his music is so popular largely because of hype.
> 
> This is not to suggest he is a bad composer. I just think he gets a lot of attention for non-musical reasons.
> 
> Lets face it folks we live in a world where Looney Tunes and LoTR music is more interesting to most people than genuine classical music. Therefore I think any attempt to suggest Beethoven's popularity in this regard is because there is something inherently special about his music is dubious at best.


"...His music is so popular largely because of hype."

Yeah, that's must be it, surely it can't be the MUSIC.

Edit: Here's my personal backstory, I came to classical music fairly recently, I gravitated towards Beethoven's music because of the music. It spoke to me, I had no idea about the Beethoven "myth", I didn't know about the "indomitable individual", that didn't even enter the picture. Once again, it was the *music*. Why is the 19th century heroic image of Beethoven brought up today in 2015 as if it were relevant to his music?


----------



## papsrus

Here's a link to the article referenced by the OP.

Heinz Hall in Pittsburgh is a fairly large venue with 2,662 seats in a mid-sized city, so filling the place week after week of a fairly extensive concert season is going to be something of a challenge regardless of the program, I'd guess.

They had a particularly nasty winter this year also, I recall, so while that doesn't explain the overall trend in falling attendance, it may have exacerbated things a bit this year in places like Pittsburgh.

I notice they've been raising ticket prices in Pittsburgh for the past few years and, according to another article, the orchestra has also sharply curtailed its past practice of handing out complimentary tickets just to get people in the seats. (They came to the conclusion that folks were being conditioned not to purchase tickets, but rather wait for the freebees.)

In addition to offering full season subscriptions, where a meaningful number of patrons were buying the full package but picking and choosing what to attend, Pittsburgh is also offering smaller ticket packages now, too, of six or seven concerts. Makes sense.

One comment suggested in jest (I think) that the orchestra could attract more young people by inviting them to take selfies with the orchestra right in front of the stage. I recall reading the Detroit Symphony Orchestra did something like that a while ago, inviting people to record the concert and take pictures on their cell phones, in some kind of effort to break down that barrier of formality in the concert hall.


----------



## trazom

DiesIraeCX said:


> Why is the 19th century heroic image of Beethoven brought up today in 2015 as if it were relevant to his music?


Because the public conception of classical music and Beethoven(and his music) is still strongly influenced by 19th century views even in those who don't regularly listen to classical music. The distinction between high art and entertainment, the freelance composer, the composer expressing their own sentiments rather than portraying/affecting a generalized idea of an emotion, the composer as misunderstood artist writing for posterity and not for an audience or with the capabilities of musicians in mind are all concepts that came into prominence the same time that Beethoven did. Not that he was solely responsible for initiating all of these, but he was the most famous composer at that time, and his name and personal narrative became attached to these things in the minds of Romantic era audiences, musicians, and musicologists in a way that has stuck.


----------



## KenOC

There's a current of thought that Beethoven's popularity today is mostly a remnant of days when people, and tastes, were different -- that we still listen to his music mostly from habit, or because we're stuck with the tastes of a long-dead past. Lockwood has a response:

"To [Adorno's] pessimism there is no final response except that provided by listeners and musicians who seem to arise in every new generation and regard such works as the Eroica and the Emperor Concerto as among their most significant personal experiences. Listeners accept them not as antiquated expressions of a political idealism that has been cruelly banished by history, but as evocations of the human possibilities that might be realized in a better world. And by attending to the inner as well as the outer aspects of such works, such listeners still believe in the courage and beauty that they convey."


----------



## Albert7

trazom said:


> Because the public conception of classical music and Beethoven(and his music) is still strongly influenced by 19th century views even in those who don't regularly listen to classical music. The distinction between high art and entertainment, the freelance composer, the composer expressing their own sentiments rather than portraying/affecting a generalized idea of an emotion, the composer as misunderstood artist writing for posterity and not for an audience or with the capabilities of musicians in mind are all concepts that came into prominence the same time that Beethoven did. Not that he was solely responsible for initiating all of these, but he was the most famous composer at that time, and his name and personal narrative became attached to these things in the minds of Romantic era audiences, musicians, and musicologists in a way that has stuck.


Indeed and for me, this thread becomes moot because the OP could have claimed the same that Mozart filled up houses as well particularly after the Forman movie came out in 1984.


----------



## mtmailey

*One of the best.*

Well his music is great & wonderful.His music is very complexed & not dull& boring.Only few composers can match his music.Not to many composers have the same level of skill he has.


----------



## Woodduck

If Beethoven's historical image as Romantic culture hero survives, and if it brings people to classical music who would otherwise not encounter it, then I'm not going to worry about the accuracy of the image. The ideology may contain misconceptions, but after the encounter has done its work and the listener says "Wow, that was amazing!" the ideology will no longer matter much - and, really, I'm not convinced that it matters much now. We are two centuries out from Beethoven's time, the consensus remains that he wrote some of the best music there is, and people continue to feel that it has much to say to them.

Frankly, I'd be more worried about ideologies and misconceptions that keep people from realizing that great art and artists exist and deserve our attention and respect. The kinds of ideologies and misconceptions, for instance, that now regularly offer obscene "regietheater" travesties of operatic masterworks on the world's stages and allow critics to discuss them in pretentiously serious tones as if they were not aesthetic crimes. Maybe the heroism and nobility of the music of _Fidelio_, and what it says about the soul of a human being who can, while suffering the slings and arrows that flesh is heir to, create things capable of moving and inspiring people for centuries, is something worth contemplating after all. Maybe the image of the hero survives because humanity needs it. Getting people out to concerts could be a mere fringe benefit.


----------



## papsrus

*This*...................



KenOC said:


> (...)
> "Listeners accept them not as antiquated expressions of a political idealism that has been cruelly banished by history, but as evocations of the human possibilities that might be realized in a better world."
> (...)


----------



## Albert7

Woodduck said:


> If Beethoven's historical image as Romantic culture hero survives, and if it brings people to classical music who would otherwise not encounter it, then I'm not going to worry about the accuracy of the image. The ideology may contain misconceptions, but after the encounter has done its work and the listener says "Wow, that was amazing!" the ideology will no longer matter much - and, really, I'm not convinced that it matters much now. We are two centuries out from Beethoven's time, the consensus remains that he wrote some of the best music there is, and people continue to feel that it has much to say to them.
> 
> Frankly, I'd be more worried about ideologies and misconceptions that keep people from realizing that great art and artists exist and deserve our attention and respect. The kinds of ideologies and misconceptions, for instance, that now regularly offer obscene "regietheater" travesties of operatic masterworks on the world's stages and allow critics to discuss them in pretentiously serious tones as if they were not aesthetic crimes. Maybe the heroism and nobility of the music of _Fidelio_, and what it says about the soul of a human being who can, while suffering the slings and arrows that flesh is heir to, create things capable of moving and inspiring people for centuries, is something worth contemplating after all. Maybe the image of the hero survives because humanity needs it. Getting people out to concerts could be a mere fringe benefit.


Actually it is regietheater that helps to bring more people to the opera houses... people like me who would invest more in it if regietheater was something that American opera houses actually did.

http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/Article/302518,opera-column-in-defence-of-regietheater.aspx

"Personally, I'll take the worst Regietheater over a bland production or a recording any day. Like it or not, Regietheater mirrors our own culture, warts and all. The best theatre attempts to find contemporary meaning in works of the past; of necessity it mediates and negotiates different historical realities. At the end of the day we are all modern creatures who can't forget Wagner and his opera pit. All present operatic productions carry with them the ghosts of the past. Try as we might, we cannot exorcise them. And even if we could, I think that would be an unconscionable denial of who we are." - See more at: http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au...nce-of-regietheater.aspx#sthash.cvRZwlaQ.dpuf


----------



## Bulldog

tdc said:


> I've never paid a dime to see a Beethoven concert, I'm just not that interested in most of his music. I agree with those suggesting his music is so popular largely because of hype.
> 
> This is not to suggest he is a bad composer. I just think he gets a lot of attention for non-musical reasons.
> 
> Lets face it folks we live in a world where Looney Tunes and LoTR music is more interesting to most people than genuine classical music. Therefore I think any attempt to suggest Beethoven's popularity in this regard is because there is something inherently special about his music is dubious at best.


It's not dubious to me, and Beethoven is far from being my favorite composer.


----------



## Woodduck

Albert7 said:


> Actually it is regietheater that helps to bring more people to the opera houses... people like me who would invest more in it if regietheater was something that American opera houses actually did.
> 
> http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/Article/302518,opera-column-in-defence-of-regietheater.aspx
> 
> "Personally, I'll take the worst Regietheater over a bland production or a recording any day. Like it or not, Regietheater mirrors our own culture, warts and all. The best theatre attempts to find contemporary meaning in works of the past; of necessity it mediates and negotiates different historical realities. At the end of the day we are all modern creatures who can't forget Wagner and his opera pit. All present operatic productions carry with them the ghosts of the past. Try as we might, we cannot exorcise them. And even if we could, I think that would be an unconscionable denial of who we are." - See more at: http://www.limelightmagazine.com.au...nce-of-regietheater.aspx#sthash.cvRZwlaQ.dpuf


I was not discussing the merits of contemporary opera production. If you would like to do that, there are several threads dealing with it over on the opera forum.

However, this statement is remarkable: "Personally, I'll take the worst Regietheater over a bland production or a recording any day."

The person who will sanction atrocities against other people in order not to be bored is a psychopath. What is the person who will sanction them against great art?

Is he the culture hero for our time?


----------



## tdc

Bulldog said:


> It's not dubious to me, and Beethoven is far from being my favorite composer.


I'm not saying Beethoven didn't write any good music - clearly he has written some high quality and innovative pieces that have been very influential. I know a lot of important musicians and composers rate him highly just on his music. But I don't see why my logic is hard to follow here. I'm just pointing out that there can be other reasons for artists to become popular, and the mere fact some of his concerts have sold-out _in itself _does not mean there is anything superior about his music.

I remember speaking with an acquaintance a while back who had recently gone to see a Beethoven Symphony and she did not know the difference between the Beethoven work and the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto that preceded it - she thought they were the same piece. This is the kind of person who is often filling those extra seats. There is nothing wrong with that - I'm just pointing out these kinds of concert sales are clearly not necessarily an indicator of anything inherent in the actual music.

I think it is pretty clear that some non-musical factors have certainly influenced Beethoven's popularity in the general public to some extent.


----------



## Albert7

tdc said:


> I'm not saying Beethoven didn't write any good music - clearly he has written some high quality and innovative pieces that have been very influential. I know a lot of important musicians and composers rate him highly just on his music. But I don't see why my logic is hard to follow here. I'm just pointing out that there can be other reasons for artists to become popular, and the mere fact some of his concerts have sold-out _in itself _does not mean there is anything superior about his music.
> 
> I remember speaking with an acquaintance a while back who had recently gone to see a Beethoven Symphony and she did not know the difference between the Beethoven work and the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto that preceded it - she thought they were the same piece. This is the kind of person who is often filling those extra seats. There is nothing wrong with that - I'm just pointing out these kinds of concert sales are clearly not necessarily an indicator of anything inherent in the actual music.
> 
> I think it is pretty clear that some non-musical factors have certainly influenced Beethoven's popularity in the general public to some extent.












That's right. How can people binge 20 hours of Scandal but not make it through the whole Ring cycle?


----------



## papsrus

Woodduck said:


> I was not discussing the merits of contemporary opera production. If you would like to do that, there are several threads dealing with it over on the opera forum.
> 
> However, this statement is remarkable: "Personally, I'll take the worst Regietheater over a bland production or a recording any day."
> 
> The person who will sanction atrocities against other people in order not to be bored is a psychopath. What is the person who will sanction them against great art?
> 
> Is he the culture hero for our time?


This might not be the right thread for it, but it deserves a response.

I find Mac Donald's article "The Abduction of Opera" far more thoughtful than Helyard's attempted defense of Regietheater.

Enter the Straw Man:

First, he admits "a lot of (Regietheater) is garbage," then he says he'd take the "worst" Regietheater (presumably this falls in the "garbage" category) over a "bland production" any day, by implication characterizing with one sweeping gesture all classically staged opera as "bland" and elevating any old "garbage" above all of it. If this doesn't smack of intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what would.

Moving along. ...

Earlier he argues one cannot criticize Regietheater on the basis that it is interpretive because all opera staged today is interpretive; we are removed from the time the opera was written, you see, and so we "interpret" it by necessity. This is weak. Accepting this argument would lead to the conclusion that no one could ever stage any classic opera again because none would be to any extent faithful. These sorts of zero-sum arguments are just not persuasive, to say the least.

And tdc, I couldn't help but immediately think of the following as a caption for a New Yorker cartoon: "I'm not saying Beethoven didn't write any good music - clearly he has written some high quality and innovative pieces that have been very influential."

Well done.


----------



## tdc

papsrus said:


> And tdc, I couldn't help but immediately think of the following as a caption for a New Yorker cartoon: "I'm not saying Beethoven didn't write any good music - clearly he has written some high quality and innovative pieces that have been very influential."


Aaaand his music even comes with electrolytes. Its what plants crave.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> If Beethoven's historical image as Romantic culture hero survives, and if it brings people to classical music who would otherwise not encounter it, then I'm not going to worry about the accuracy of the image. The ideology may contain misconceptions, but after the encounter has done its work and the listener says "Wow, that was amazing!" the ideology will no longer matter much - and, really, I'm not convinced that it matters much now. We are two centuries out from Beethoven's time, the consensus remains that he wrote some of the best music there is, and people continue to feel that it has much to say to them.


I'm speaking out of my own experience here, fully aware that it is only my own experience. But if it's applicable, then by all means apply it!

I grew up among people who did not listen to classical music. Indeed, they were mostly suspicious of it, and viewed my interest in it as something to deprecate. Far as I've ever been able to see, Beethoven's image doesn't bring anyone to classical music. It doesn't even bring them to Beethoven. It might bring them to a concert just to see what all the fuss is about. And sometimes, rarely, I've seen an interest in a particular piece or two. My sister, for instance, was quite taken with Enescu's Romanian Rhapsodies, but when I very gingerly suggested that there were other pieces by Enescu, she quite firmly put her foot down.

Romanian Rhapsodies.

She also likes the second movement of Beethoven's seventh symphony.

Period. That is, full stop. There is nothing else beyond those things, because there is no desire for anything beyond those things.*

I've seen that scenario over and over again. Every once and awhile a friend or relative who does not listen to classical music will hear a piece or a bit of a piece that they really like. I have never seen it go anywhere. It stops right there, with that piece.

So my possibly hasty and unjustified reaction to things like this is dubiety.

*I think this may be related to a phenomenon on classical music boards of thread after thread after thread asking for more of the same. "I like X. What else out there is like X that I might like as much as I like X." Tentative suggestions that there might be things that are different from X that might also give pleasure meet with strong opprobrium.


----------



## Argos

Everyone recognizes the name 'Beethoven,' most people have heard his most famous symphonies (well at least 5 and 9) in movies, on television, etc. So if a couple is looking for a night out, they're more likely to choose Beethoven over, say, Bartok, because they've actually heard of him. So they'll probably choose a some other form of entertainment, one that doesn't require so much preparation to enjoy. 

If the Pittsburg SO's Beethoven programs attract the most attention, then perhaps they can use Beethoven as a lead, then move on to some other work by a name that a 'layperson' might know but perhaps not heard. This could help build a more consistent audience. People pay for big names, use them as a hook.


----------



## breakup

Argos said:


> Everyone recognizes the name 'Beethoven,' most people have heard his most famous symphonies (well at least 5 and 9) in movies, on television, etc. So if a couple is looking for a night out, they're more likely to choose Beethoven over, say, Bartok, because they've actually heard of him. So they'll probably choose a some other form of entertainment, one that doesn't require so much preparation to enjoy.
> 
> If the *Pittsburg SO's* Beethoven programs attract the most attention, then perhaps they can use Beethoven as a lead, then move on to some other work by a name that a 'layperson' might know but perhaps not heard. This could help build a more consistent audience. People pay for big names, use them as a hook.


Perhaps the* Pittsburg* SO is failing because people can't find a small town by that name, I know I can't find it on a map.


----------



## Arsakes

Don Fatale said:


> As a listening experience, the Fifth symphony needs no further recommendation from anyone.


The 5th symphony is like the obvious embodiment of classic music that can be seen from miles away!


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> I'm speaking out of my own experience here, fully aware that it is only my own experience. But if it's applicable, then by all means apply it!
> 
> I grew up among people who did not listen to classical music. Indeed, they were mostly suspicious of it, and viewed my interest in it as something to deprecate. *Far as I've ever been able to see, Beethoven's image doesn't bring anyone to classical music. **It doesn't even bring them to Beethoven.* It might bring them to a concert just to see what all the fuss is about. And sometimes, rarely, I've seen an interest in a particular piece or two. My sister, for instance, was quite taken with Enescu's Romanian Rhapsodies, but when I very gingerly suggested that there were other pieces by Enescu, she quite firmly put her foot down.
> 
> Romanian Rhapsodies.
> 
> She also likes the second movement of Beethoven's seventh symphony.
> 
> Period. That is, full stop. There is nothing else beyond those things, because there is no desire for anything beyond those things.*
> 
> I've seen that scenario over and over again. Every once and awhile a friend or relative who does not listen to classical music will hear a piece or a bit of a piece that they really like. I have never seen it go anywhere. It stops right there, with that piece.
> 
> So my possibly hasty and unjustified reaction to things like this is dubiety.


Actually, I agree with you on this. I was responding to the speculation here - tinged with disapproval - that if Beethoven "fills houses" it's his "image" as the archetypal Romantic artist-hero rather than, or in addition to, the qualities of his music, that's responsible. I really don't think that after two centuries there's much left of the mythology, or that it has much influence on people's concert-going or record-buying behavior. Which is why I said "after the encounter has done its work and the listener says 'Wow, that was amazing!' the ideology will no longer matter much - and, really, I'm not convinced that it matters much now. We are two centuries out from Beethoven's time, the consensus remains that he wrote some of the best music there is, and people continue to feel that it has much to say to them."

Certainly there is "name recognition" at work - there are no movies about dogs named Penderecki, charming as the notion might be ("Sit, Penderecki! Sit! Give me your paw! Good boy, Penderecki, good boy!") - but if people are more likely to want to listen to Beethoven than to Penderecki in 2015 I doubt it has much to do with the image of a scowling, ruddy-faced, deaf recluse shaking his fist at God.

I've observed the same thing about the classical tastes of people who basically don't know or care about classical music. I even heard of a guy whose interest in opera begins and ends with _Tannhauser._ Who can explain it?


----------



## Guest

My interest in opera at one time began and ended with Tannhauser.

I got better.


----------



## Bulldog

breakup said:


> Perhaps the* Pittsburg* SO is failing because people can't find a small town by that name, I know I can't find it on a map.


Finding Pittsburgh on a map is about as difficult as finding the sink in your kitchen.:tiphat:


----------



## bghill

breakup said:


> Perhaps the* Pittsburg* SO is failing because people can't find a small town by that name, I know I can't find it on a map.


They ought to be able to find at least _one_ -- there's something like thirty of them in the US, and a couple more in Canada.

But there must be some magic growth factor in the "h", since the city is the only one that spells it "Pittsburg*h*.



tdc said:


> Lets face it folks we live in a world where Looney Tunes and LoTR music is more interesting to most people than genuine classical music.


Don't be dissing Carl Stalling!  He wrote some brilliant (soundtrack) music. And Warner Brothers helped introduced an awful lot of people to classical music.


----------



## breakup

Bulldog said:


> Finding *Pittsburgh* on a map is about as difficult as finding the sink in your kitchen.:tiphat:


Perhaps the correct spelling would help, but the OP was referring to *Pittsburg*, maybe you just need to read a little closer to the screen. As far as finding *Pittsburg* or *Pittsburgh* on a map, perhaps you will let us know how many things you can find without help.


----------



## breakup

bghill said:


> They ought to be able to find at least _one_ -- there's something like thirty of them in the US, and a couple more in Canada.


Yes but how many of those have a Symphony Orchestra that's failing?


----------



## breakup

bghill said:


> But there must be some magic growth factor in the "h", since the city is the only one that spells it "Pittsburg*h*.


Since it's the only one, you would think that people would have a little respect and at least spell it right.


----------



## Woodduck

bghill said:


> Don't be dissing Carl Stalling!  He wrote some brilliant (soundtrack) music. And Warner Brothers helped introduced an awful lot of people to classical music.


Hand raised here! Cartoons weren't exactly my sole early exposure to classical music, but the Rossini and Wagner and J. Strauss in Looney Toons (sp.?) sure did make my cwazy wabbit ears stand up and take notice. I'm sure not every kid hears in that music what I heard, but it goes to show that there's no predicting what will make people (especially when young) aware that there are other possibilities out there.

Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-thanks, Bugs!


----------



## breakup

When my grandson was about 7 the musician at church played the Bach prelude as a Postlude for the service and I told my grandson to listen. His eyes lit up and he said "That's one that you play", I was just glad that he recognized and liked the music, even though he couldn't name it.


----------



## DebussyDoesDallas

Don Fatale said:


> As a listening experience, the Fifth symphony needs no further recommendation from anyone.
> 
> However (I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this yet) seeing it live with a good view of the orchestra is a marvellous and fascinating experience as the melody moves between the sections. You see the music as well as hear it and that gives a greater appreciation.
> 
> Is there not a thread _best symphonies to see live_? Many are quite engrossing to watch as well as listen to.


I'll agree--witnessing it live was a thrilling concert experience. Almost cinematic. It translates well to a modern entertainment setting. In contrast, I never listen to recordings of it all the way through--just doesn't do much for me on CD or record. Except the 1st movement sometimes, especially for the thrilling coda.


----------



## DebussyDoesDallas

Not to be overly cynical, but Beethoven is like one-stop shopping. You get your high art experience, your entertainment value, your history lesson, your impressive date night. The "brand" has both snob appeal and a cool factor for different audiences, from the connoisseur to the newbie to the curious.

Behind the brand, of course, is the music, which was timely when it was written and remains timeless today.


----------



## breakup

DebussyDoesDallas said:


> Not to be overly cynical, but Beethoven is like one-stop shopping. You get your high art experience, your entertainment value, your history lesson, your impressive date night. The "brand" has both snob appeal and a cool factor for different audiences, from the connoisseur to the newbie to the curious.
> 
> Behind the brand, of course, is the music, which was timely when it was written and remains timeless today.


On our first date, I found a piano and played the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata, My wife must have been impressed because we are still together after 39 years.


----------



## Woodduck

DebussyDoesDallas said:


> Not to be overly cynical, but *Beethoven is like one-stop shopping.* You get your high art experience, your entertainment value, your history lesson, your impressive date night. The "brand" has both snob appeal and a cool factor for different audiences, from the connoisseur to the newbie to the curious.
> 
> Behind the brand, of course, is the music, which was timely when it was written and remains timeless today.


I like the whimsy of that, but I think it contains truth.

Beethoven's music has something for almost everyone; it represents an artistic achievement of enormous breadth and richness, and speaks to a correspondingly great variety and depth of human experience. It embraces a tremendous range of formal variety and inventiveness, from simplicity and brevity to challenging complexity and grandeur of scale, and it exhibits a correspondingly huge expressive range: from violent intensity to gentle intimacy, from defiance to resignation, from despair to consolation, from vulgar earthiness to rarefied transcendence...

Beethoven bridges periods and styles and sensibilities. He did more than any other figure to take music into an era we can recognize as modern, in which rigid social structures and received dogmas finally made way for the autonomous individual as the center of his own reality. And just as he was pivotal in helping to create the modern world, he remains a meaningful voice in the midst of it, telling us where we've come from and who we are. I would venture to say that no composer in history has had so much to say to so many people, and so many different kinds of people.

Such claims are always arguable, I know. But if I have to choose any composer as the most ecumenical voice in the tradition of Western music, I have to choose Beethoven.


----------



## Bulldog

breakup said:


> Since it's the only one, you would think that people would have a little respect and at least spell it right.


There are probably a lot of folks who aren't quite aware that Pittsburgh ends with an 'h'.


----------



## Albert7

DebussyDoesDallas said:


> Not to be overly cynical, but Beethoven is like one-stop shopping. You get your high art experience, your entertainment value, your history lesson, your impressive date night. The "brand" has both snob appeal and a cool factor for different audiences, from the connoisseur to the newbie to the curious.
> 
> Behind the brand, of course, is the music, which was timely when it was written and remains timeless today.


Sorry but i never got any chicks excited by name dropping Beethoven.

On the other hand, 10,000 Maniacs...


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> There are probably a lot of folks who aren't quite aware that Pittsburgh ends with an 'h'.


Well, I am one who has always known that Pittsburgh ends with an "h." I also know that the city was once sooty and unliveable and that if I'd grown up there in those days I'd have gotten the "h" out as quickly as possible.


----------



## KenOC

Pittsburg certainly does not end with an "h". What sense would that make? The city is quite mistaken, and authorities that ape its spelling should be more careful.


----------



## breakup

KenOC said:


> Pittsburg certainly does not end with an "h". What sense would that make? The city is quite mistaken, and authorities that ape its spelling should be more careful.


Oh well, I guess there's always one who just can't get up to speed. It seems that the people who live there don't know how to spell the name of their own city.

Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> I like the whimsy of that, but I think it contains truth.
> 
> Beethoven's music has something for almost everyone; it represents an artistic achievement of enormous breadth and richness, and speaks to a correspondingly great variety and depth of human experience. It embraces a tremendous range of formal variety and inventiveness, from simplicity and brevity to challenging complexity and grandeur of scale, and it exhibits a correspondingly huge expressive range: from violent intensity to gentle intimacy, from defiance to resignation, from despair to consolation, from vulgar earthiness to rarefied transcendence...
> 
> Beethoven bridges periods and styles and sensibilities. He did more than any other figure to take music into an era we can recognize as modern, in which rigid social structures and received dogmas finally made way for the autonomous individual as the center of his own reality. And just as he was pivotal in helping to create the modern world, he remains a meaningful voice in the midst of it, telling us where we've come from and who we are. I would venture to say that no composer in history has had so much to say to so many people, and so many different kinds of people.
> 
> *Such claims are always arguable*, I know. But if I have to choose any composer as the most ecumenical voice in the tradition of Western music, I have to choose Beethoven.


I think much of this post is vague enough that it could apply to a large number of composers, and the rest I either completely disagree with or feel is highly exaggerated and/or romanticized.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I think much of this post is vague enough that it could apply to a large number of composers, and the rest I either completely disagree with or feel is highly exaggerated and/or romanticized.


Perhaps you could suggest some positive alternatives to my vague, exaggerated, romanticized and completely disagreeable notions?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps you could suggest some positive alternatives to my vague, exaggerated, romanticized and completely disagreeable notions?


I personally think that Haydn's music has enough for almost everyone as well. But that's just my subjective opinion. There's a certain mythology surrounding Beethoven - he is viewed as the ultimate uncompromising genius, a radical musical rebel who would never conform and who dedicated his whole life to music, despite an illness causing him to deafen. His persistence in continuing to compose even after turning deaf causes many to be in awe of his talent. Beethoven is often viewed as a musical 'warrior' and thus interests the public. Whether Beethoven's music is truly 'the best', cannot really be decided, imo, since there is a large number of other great composers - they just wrote great music in a different way than Beethoven did.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps you could suggest some positive alternatives to my vague, exaggerated, romanticized and completely disagreeable notions?


Ack. One fallacy per sentence please. I'm up to three already here. Too much. But let me catch my breath for a second. OK. I'm only going to mention one, onus probandi. There.

Having said that, I would like to go ahead and take up the burden that's been shifted to tdc and to say that the positive alternative to vagueness is specificity, the positive alternative to exaggeration is accuracy, the positive alternative to romanicizing is, oh this is a little awkward, accuracy.

The other one takes some special attention, for the "I disagree with x" in tdc's post has been transformed by the magic of equivocation to "disagreeable." So for this one, I would say that the positive alternative to equivocation is to address what has actually been said, without any transforming, though I confess that I responded positively to the cleverness of turning "I completely disagree" into "completely disagreeable." That is, while I deprecate it, it still made me grin.

So, are we ready now to address the issue that's been raised? These things that have been said about Beethoven could equally apply to many other composers, including Berlioz and Wagner and Debussy and Stravinsky and Cage, for starters. Not to mention.

That is, these thing may indeed be true about Beethoven, but if they are also true about other composers, then something else has to be said about Beethoven to distiinguish him from all these others. That was the point, originally, what is unique to Beethoven that makes this house-filling thing true? The answer that tdc objected to consists entirely of things that Beethoven has in common with other composers.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Perhaps you could suggest some positive alternatives to my vague, exaggerated, romanticized and completely disagreeable notions?


In addition to the points raised by someguy, I'll add that I think the idea that Beethoven represents a kind of radical individualist composer as opposed to the establishment or conformity is extremely exaggerated. I think all innovative composers before Beethoven were also pushing boundaries and going against accepted norms and following their own individual compositional voices in the same way Beethoven was. If Beethoven's life coincided with broader social changes, this is not something that was a direct result of his music. Like these other major composers Beethoven was a product of his time. Also the idea that Beethoven in some way heralded the modern age of classical music is as far as I can tell flat out wrong. The overall aesthetic of the "modern" era of classical music is actually quite far removed from the aesthetic of Beethoven. In many ways it was a reaction against that style of composition. Like other innovators before him (ie - Monteverdi, CPE Bach, Haydn etc) Beethoven's direct influence was on the composers that immediately followed after him - nothing more.

I think because Beethoven lacked the subtle harmonic sophistication of a Bach or Mozart he relied more on things like loudness and shock value (ie-Grosse Fuge) in his music. He did have strengths in other areas, he was highly innovative with form and certainly found a valid and innovative way forward, however I don't believe he was superior in too many areas to other major composers - just different. He _was_ an excellent and unique composer and one of many greats who managed to open up new ideas and paths to composers following him.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Bulldog said:


> There are probably a lot of folks who aren't quite aware that Pittsburgh ends with an 'h'.


It does!  That is weird.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> Ack. One fallacy per sentence please. I'm up to three already here. Too much. But let me catch my breath for a second. OK. I'm only going to mention one, onus probandi. There.
> 
> Having said that, I would like to go ahead and take up the burden that's been shifted to tdc and to say that the positive alternative to vagueness is specificity, the positive alternative to exaggeration is accuracy, the positive alternative to romanicizing is, oh this is a little awkward, accuracy.
> 
> The other one takes some special attention, for the "I disagree with x" in tdc's post has been transformed by the magic of equivocation to "disagreeable." So for this one, I would say that the positive alternative to equivocation is to address what has actually been said, without any transforming, though I confess that I responded positively to the cleverness of turning "I completely disagree" into "completely disagreeable." That is, while I deprecate it, it still made me grin.
> 
> So, are we ready now to address the issue that's been raised? These things that have been said about Beethoven could equally apply to many other composers, including Berlioz and Wagner and Debussy and Stravinsky and Cage, for starters. Not to mention.
> 
> That is, these thing may indeed be true about Beethoven, but if they are also true about other composers, then something else has to be said about Beethoven to distiinguish him from all these others. That was the point, originally, what is unique to Beethoven that makes this house-filling thing true? The answer that tdc objected to consists entirely of things that Beethoven has in common with other composers.


My goodness. If you have something to say, please say it.

Or is this your idea of something?

Rhetorical question.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> In addition to the points raised by someguy, I'll add that I think the idea that Beethoven represents a kind of radical individualist composer as opposed to the establishment or conformity is extremely exaggerated. I think all innovative composers before Beethoven were also pushing boundaries and going against accepted norms and following their own individual compositional voices in the same way Beethoven was. If Beethoven's life coincided with broader social changes, this is not something that was a direct result of his music. Like these other major composers Beethoven was a product of his time. Also the idea that Beethoven in some way heralded the modern age of classical music is as far as I can tell flat out wrong. The overall aesthetic of the "modern" era of classical music is actually quite far removed from the aesthetic of Beethoven. In many ways it was a reaction against that style of composition. Like other innovators before him (ie - Monteverdi, CPE Bach, Haydn etc) Beethoven's direct influence was on the composers that immediately followed after him - nothing more.
> 
> I think because Beethoven lacked the subtle harmonic sophistication of a Bach or Mozart he relied more on things like loudness and shock value (ie-Grosse Fuge) in his music. He did have strengths in other areas, he was highly innovative with form and certainly found a valid and innovative way forward, however I don't believe he was superior in too many areas to other major composers - just different. He _was_ an excellent and unique composer and one of many greats who managed to open up new ideas and paths to composers following him.


Thank you. I don't have time this morning to address your thoughts; to expand on mine would be quite a large undertaking (material for a book, really, and I'm sure there are already some of those, as my ideas about Beethoven are hardly original). I would, though, take exception to your suggestion that some guy was raising "points" in his customary extended and convoluted expulsion of verbal miasma. He gets a real kick out of playing the pompous professor, and today I've been chosen for tutelage. But that's an honor I'll just have to bear. :lol:


----------



## Guest

Crudblud said:


> I don't think it has as much to do with the music as one might hope, rather I would suggest that the mythologising of Beethoven is what does it. It may have started with the music, but today he is a larger than life figure, no mere composer, but a symbol of struggle and the triumph of the human spirit; a tormented, brooding figure who looked deep into the soul of man, and a writer of great masterpieces who had to wrestle with his deafness over every note. Beethoven's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard precisely because he has been remade in the public consciousness as a paragon of will and determination, to embody the "I can" in all of us, a towering inspirational figure who also has the human flaws that allow us to recognise him as one of us - he's in the gutter with the rest of us, but he is looking up at the stars. He's got it all, not even the grossly romanticised Mahler or Shostakovich or Tchaikovsky have had so much nonsense lavished upon them in popular analysis, there is no other composer who has been made into a myth on the same level as Beethoven.


I see there's 7 pages after your eloquence Crud, but I don't think I need to read past this one post. Much as I love his works - mostly his symphonies - there's much else out there to try, or to return to, and IMO, he's really not quite so far ahead of the competition as his publicists make out.


----------



## papsrus

some guy said:


> ... the positive alternative to romanicizing is, oh this is a little awkward, accuracy. ...


In the collegial spirit of picking nits, and acknowledging that "positive alternative" was not your phrase to begin with, there can nonetheless be many alternatives -- positive, negative, similar, opposite, etc. One does not _necessarily_ invalidate another. So, romanticism and accuracy are not _necessarily_ mutually exclusive.

But for the sake of accuracy, that may not have been your point at all, implied or otherwise.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> I think because Beethoven lacked the subtle harmonic sophistication of a Bach or Mozart he relied more on things like loudness and shock value (ie-Grosse Fuge) in his music.


Really? There's enough subtle harmonic sophistication in the piano sonatas, trios & string quartets to more than match Bach or Mozart. And loudness or shock value are not major out-of-place factors.


----------



## ArtMusic

tdc said:


> In addition to the points raised by someguy, I'll add that I think the idea that Beethoven represents a kind of radical individualist composer as opposed to the establishment or conformity is extremely exaggerated. I think all innovative composers before Beethoven were also pushing boundaries and going against accepted norms and following their own individual compositional voices in the same way Beethoven was. If Beethoven's life coincided with broader social changes, this is not something that was a direct result of his music. Like these other major composers Beethoven was a product of his time. Also the idea that Beethoven in some way heralded the modern age of classical music is as far as I can tell flat out wrong. The overall aesthetic of the "modern" era of classical music is actually quite far removed from the aesthetic of Beethoven. In many ways it was a reaction against that style of composition. Like other innovators before him (ie - Monteverdi, CPE Bach, Haydn etc) Beethoven's direct influence was on the composers that immediately followed after him - nothing more.
> 
> I think because Beethoven lacked the subtle harmonic sophistication of a Bach or Mozart he relied more on things like loudness and shock value (ie-Grosse Fuge) in his music. He did have strengths in other areas, he was highly innovative with form and certainly found a valid and innovative way forward, however I don't believe he was superior in too many areas to other major composers - just different. He _was_ an excellent and unique composer and one of many greats who managed to open up new ideas and paths to composers following him.


Beethoven relied much more on theme and variation. He was not a natural melodist and his music was instrumental in idiom. If you listen to his only opera and other vocal works, the vocal lines are instrumental in idiom rather than truely vocal. He is one of my favorite composers and will always sell well in any modern day concert program, wholly or mixed.


----------



## tdc

DaveM said:


> Really? There's enough subtle harmonic sophistication in the piano sonatas, trios & string quartets to more than match Bach or Mozart without loudness or shock value.


Can't agree with you here. There are areas where Beethoven was certainly innovative with harmony, (for example cycling chords in 3rds in the Waldstein Piano Sonata) but to my ears his use of dissonance is just no where near the level of sophistication of Bach or Mozart.

I think music in general after Bach took a very big step back in terms of use of sophisticated use of dissonance (Mozart being an exception - but in a relatively smaller amount of works). It wasn't until the Romantic era that we really hear this more sophisticated and intricate use of dissonance again - to my ears.


----------



## KenOC

My view: Beethoven was certainly a master composer. No, he couldn't do what Mozart did as well as Mozart, and the same with Bach. But certainly neither of them could out-Beethoven Beethoven. And that's fine.

I believe, though, there's more than skill and purely musical genius involved in Beethoven's enduring popularity. A train may be beautifully designed and made, but sometimes we welcome even more the freight it carries.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc:

I think because Beethoven lacked the subtle harmonic sophistication of a Bach or Mozart he relied more on things like loudness and shock value (ie-Grosse Fuge) in his music. He did have strengths in other areas, he was highly innovative with form and certainly found a valid and innovative way forward, however I don't believe he was superior in too many areas to other major composers - just different. He was an excellent and unique composer and one of many greats who managed to open up new ideas and paths to composers following him. 

DaveM:

Really? There's enough subtle harmonic sophistication in the piano sonatas, trios & string quartets to more than match Bach or Mozart. And loudness or shock value are not major out-of-place factors. 

Beethoven's harmony is, on the whole, less chromatic than that of not only Bach but other Baroque composers. Obviously this was a matter of temperament and artistic objective, not a lack of skill, as any number of passages in his work demonstrate. I read somewhere that he was a bit dubious about the harmonic experiments of Weber and Spohr, whose harmony we now view as inaugurating the Romanticism which climaxed in Wagner, and I've always interpreted that as less a distaste for chromaticism as such than a disapproval of the weakening of formal structure which he rightly understood as a danger of such experiments.

I think we need to keep in mind that harmony, as practiced through the history of Western classical music, has been a primary language of expression, and that a composer's harmonic choices (like other aesthetic choices) give intimate and eloquent voice to his personal sensibility. Beethoven, however we want to analyze his sensibility, didn't need to depart widely from the solid diatonic foundations of common practice to express himself, and I think it's quite irrelevant, and just wrong, to view this as an indication of any deficiency either artistic or personal. He did not "rely upon things like loudness and shock value" as any sort of compensation, as any number of his works which lack these elements prove. To describe his style that way is to misrepresent and caricature it - to succumb, actually, to a "romanticized" and "exaggerated" stereotype. Beethoven is far more than the Fifth Symphony and the "Appassionata."

Another point about artistic choices in general - but really foundational for the points above - is that artistic choices are exclusive of one another: as any practicing artist knows, no work or style can contain everything; to make any aesthetic choice is to foreclose a myriad of others. As KenOC points out in his post above, Beethoven couldn't do what Bach and Mozart did as well as they did it - but neither would we expect either of them to match Beethoven on his own ground (although we can only wonder how Mozart would have responded to the challenge had he lived!). More germanely, Beethoven did not _want_ to do what Bach or Mozart did, harmonically or otherwise. He had his own things to say, and he said them with mastery and eloquence in his own musical language. That language was good enough to cover an enormous amount of ground, and what's remarkable to me is not what's lacking in his arsenal of technical devices but how extraordinarily much he managed to say with the devices he employed. Of course, when we look at the capacity for endless innovation that took him from the standard vocabulary of Viennese Classicism to stylistic regions which are still a challenge for listeners today, and the mastery with which he wrestled one new thing after another into forms of clarity and power, it is a little foolish to be clucking our tongues over the ways in which he "failed" to match other composers in one respect or another.


----------



## breakup

I think these guys understand Beethoven better than most,


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> ...Another point about artistic choices in general - but really foundational for the points above - is that artistic choices are exclusive of one another: as any practicing artist knows, no work or style can contain everything; to make any aesthetic choice is to foreclose a myriad of others. As KenOC points out in his post above, Beethoven couldn't do what Bach and Mozart did as well as they did it - but neither would we expect either of them to match Beethoven on his own ground (although we can only wonder how Mozart would have responded to the challenge had he lived!). More germanely, Beethoven did not _want_ to do what Bach or Mozart did, harmonically or otherwise. He had his own things to say, and he said them with mastery and eloquence in his own musical language. That language was good enough to cover an enormous amount of ground, and what's remarkable to me is not what's lacking in his arsenal of technical devices but how extraordinarily much he managed to say with the devices he employed. Of course, when we look at the capacity for endless innovation that took him from the standard vocabulary of Viennese Classicism to stylistic regions which are still a challenge for listeners today, and the mastery with which he wrestled one new thing after another into forms of clarity and power, it is a little foolish to be clucking our tongues over the ways in which he "failed" to match other composers in one respect or another.


Very well put- couldn't agree more. One thing that has always amazed me about Beethoven is that, given the tremendous output of music in so many forms and the requirement for so many different melodic ideas, the man rarely repeated himself or created works that were derivative of his other works, unless it was intentional.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven's harmony is, on the whole, less chromatic than that of not only Bach but other Baroque composers. Obviously this was a matter of temperament and artistic objective, not a lack of skill, as any number of passages in his work demonstrate. I read somewhere that he was a bit dubious about the harmonic experiments of Weber and Spohr, whose harmony we now view as inaugurating the Romanticism which climaxed in Wagner, and I've always interpreted that as less a distaste for chromaticism as such than a disapproval of the weakening of formal structure which he rightly understood as a danger of such experiments.
> 
> I think we need to keep in mind that harmony, as practiced through the history of Western classical music, has been a primary language of expression, and that a composer's harmonic choices (like other aesthetic choices) give intimate and eloquent voice to his personal sensibility. Beethoven, however we want to analyze his sensibility, didn't need to depart widely from the solid diatonic foundations of common practice to express himself, and I think it's quite irrelevant, and just wrong, to view this as an indication of any deficiency either artistic or personal. He did not "rely upon things like loudness and shock value" as any sort of compensation, as any number of his works which lack these elements prove. To describe his style that way is to misrepresent and caricature it - to succumb, actually, to a "romanticized" and "exaggerated" stereotype. Beethoven is far more than the Fifth Symphony and the "Appassionata."
> 
> Another point about artistic choices in general - but really foundational for the points above - is that artistic choices are exclusive of one another: as any practicing artist knows, no work or style can contain everything; to make any aesthetic choice is to foreclose a myriad of others. As KenOC points out in his post above, Beethoven couldn't do what Bach and Mozart did as well as they did it - but neither would we expect either of them to match Beethoven on his own ground (although we can only wonder how Mozart would have responded to the challenge had he lived!). More germanely, Beethoven did not _want_ to do what Bach or Mozart did, harmonically or otherwise. He had his own things to say, and he said them with mastery and eloquence in his own musical language. That language was good enough to cover an enormous amount of ground, and what's remarkable to me is not what's lacking in his arsenal of technical devices but how extraordinarily much he managed to say with the devices he employed. Of course, when we look at the capacity for endless innovation that took him from the standard vocabulary of Viennese Classicism to stylistic regions which are still a challenge for listeners today, and the mastery with which he wrestled one new thing after another into forms of clarity and power, it is a little foolish to be clucking our tongues over the ways in which he "failed" to match other composers in one respect or another.


This is all well and good, and we've to some extent been over this ground in another thread (I believe also started by KenOC - I always get sucked into these ). But I just don't believe Beethoven's weaker areas in composition (in comparison to the other masters) was wholly a matter of aesthetic choice - there is sufficient evidence that there are areas he struggled with in composing, and there are observations by people like Bernstein that despite Beethoven's excellence in form - he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration.

Yet despite these apparent shortcomings he often gets the reputation of being the pinnacle of Western music - this is what I think is undeserved. There are too many 'holes in his game' so to speak, and excellently stated by crudblud on the first page of this thread - many non-musical reasons why he has become quite popular.

For the record I think there are plenty of more recent composers that also have superior skills to Beethoven in these areas, I just tend to mention Bach and Mozart as they preceded Beethoven. When one mentions composers after Beethoven he tends to (unjustly) get blanket credit for these later achievements.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> This is all well and good, and we've to some extent been over this ground in another thread (I believe also started by KenOC - I always get sucked into these ). But I just don't believe Beethoven's weaker areas in composition (in comparison to the other masters) was wholly a matter of aesthetic choice - there is sufficient evidence that there are areas he struggled with in composing, and there are observations by people like Bernstein that despite Beethoven's excellence in form - he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration.
> 
> Yet despite these apparent shortcomings he often gets the reputation of being the pinnacle of Western music - this is what I think is undeserved. There are too many 'holes in his game' so to speak, and excellently stated by crudblud on the first page of this thread - many non-musical reasons why he has become quite popular.
> 
> For the record I think there are plenty of more recent composers that also have superior skills to Beethoven in these areas, I just tend to mention Bach and Mozart as they preceded Beethoven. When one mentions composers after Beethoven he tends to (unjustly) get blanket credit for these later achievements.


IMO, you're swimming against the current. Since much, if not most, of your argument is based on _'observations by people like Bernstein that despite Beethoven's excellence in form - he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration.'_, I would have to call that hearsay until seeing specific quotes from 'people like Bernstein'. I can't imagine him saying 'quite weak'. Even if he did, I'd like to have heard counter-opinions from conductors such as Toscannini, Karajan, Barenboim, etc.

Also, I'm afraid that the premise that there are 'too many holes in his game' and 'there many non-musical reasons why he has become quite popular' (as if the latter trumps the substance and accessibility of his music) is so fallacious that I don't know why I'm responding to it.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> ...observations by people like Bernstein that despite Beethoven's excellence in form - he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration.


Bernstein's purposely provocative comments, which he had occasion to backtrack on vigorously later, are on a YouTube video. "Weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration" indeed. Here's a nice Bernstein quote on Beethoven:

"Beethoven broke all the rules, and turned out pieces of breath-taking rightness. Rightness - that's the word! When you get the feeling that whatever note succeeds the last is the only possible note that can rightly happen at that instant, in that context, then chances are you're listening to Beethoven... Our boy has the real goods, the stuff from Heaven, the power to make you feel at the finish: Something is right in the world. There is something that checks throughout, that follows its own law consistently: something we can trust, that will never let us down."


----------



## tdc

KenOC said:


> Bernstein's purposely provocative comments, which he had occasion to backtrack on vigorously later, are on a YouTube video. "Weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration" indeed. Here's a nice Bernstein quote on Beethoven:
> 
> "Beethoven broke all the rules, and turned out pieces of breath-taking rightness. Rightness - that's the word! When you get the feeling that whatever note succeeds the last is the only possible note that can rightly happen at that instant, in that context, then chances are you're listening to Beethoven... Our boy has the real goods, the stuff from Heaven, the power to make you feel at the finish: Something is right in the world. There is something that checks throughout, that follows its own law consistently: something we can trust, that will never let us down."


There are Beethoven works I genuinely enjoy listening to, but I've never experienced what Bernstein is describing here...seems pretty subjective. I think Bernstein was being more academic when he was commenting on Beethoven's melody, harmony, orchestration and counterpoint.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> There are Beethoven works I genuinely enjoy listening to, but I've never experienced what Bernstein is describing here...seems pretty subjective. I think Bernstein was being more academic when he was commenting on Beethoven's melody, harmony, orchestration and counterpoint.


Just as well that Beethoven wasn't writing music for academics. And of course it's subjective - Even Bernstein is entitled to a personal point of view!


----------



## KenOC

I suspect that academic discourse and analysis will yield no clue why Beethoven's music "fills the house". And it certainly isn't because a bunch of slack-jawed cretins are ponying up for those expensive tickets because of some semi-mythical backstory. I'd bet that Bernstein's quote hits the truth much more accurately, even if it isn't objectively provable. You hear it or you don't -- and lots of people do. "Our boy has the real goods, the stuff from Heaven, the power to make you feel at the finish: Something is right in the world. There is something that checks throughout, that follows its own law consistently: something we can trust, that will never let us down."


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> This is all well and good, and we've to some extent been over this ground in another thread (I believe also started by KenOC - I always get sucked into these ). But I just don't believe Beethoven's weaker areas in composition (in comparison to the other masters) was wholly a matter of aesthetic choice - there is sufficient evidence that there are areas he struggled with in composing, and there are observations by people like Bernstein that despite Beethoven's excellence in form - he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration.
> 
> Yet despite these apparent shortcomings he often gets the reputation of being the pinnacle of Western music - this is what I think is undeserved. There are too many 'holes in his game' so to speak, and excellently stated by crudblud on the first page of this thread - many non-musical reasons why he has become quite popular.
> 
> For the record I think there are plenty of more recent composers that also have superior skills to Beethoven in these areas, I just tend to mention Bach and Mozart as they preceded Beethoven. When one mentions composers after Beethoven he tends to (unjustly) get blanket credit for these later achievements.


You've been making some very specific evaluations of the quality of Beethoven's music. Are these mainly your own opinions? Do you think them widely shared? You cite something or other said by Bernstein. What did he actually say? What did he mean? Do others with equal "authority" agree with him or say similar things? If these ideas about the "holes in Beethoven's game" are just subjective impressions, I wouldn't press you to defend them. You're entitled to feel however you feel. But you seem to want to marshal objective support for your feelings. So how solid is that support?

What is weak about Beethoven's melodies? I find them striking, memorable, and perfectly adapted to their structural contexts.

What is weak about Beethoven's harmony? The mere fact that he doesn't write extended chromatic passages? Is that a weakness? Why? Are there other "weaknesses" you can point to?

What is weak about Beethoven's orchestration? Does it not "sound" well? Is it not appropriate to his material and the way he structures it? Did he fail to find suitable and effective orchestral treatments for any of his major works?

What is weak about Beethoven's counterpoint? Do the voices lack independence or definition? Does excessive counterpoint clutter his textures, or is there too little of it to lend interest? Is it uninteresting in style, mechanical, inexpressive, too unusual?

I think my biggest problem with what you're saying is that you seem to be trying to assess the quality and value of Beethoven's work out of context - both aesthetic context and historical context. We just can't make direct, one-to-one comparisons of the compositional skills and achievements of composers without looking at the nature of their art as a whole, their artistic purposes and meanings, and looking in turn at the context of their culture, their time, and the history of which they are a part. Without establishing a context for it, a statement such as "he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration" leads nowhere. It isn't that it's too vague or too general. It just doesn't tell us anything at all.

Beethoven's symphonies, concertos, quartets, sonatas, variations, etc. sound to me as if he knew exactly how he wanted them to sound and as if he was fully up to the task of making them sound that way. They sound, most of them, like superb music - fresh, original, bold, strong, affecting, memorable. Again and again, he turned out works which simultaneously push the boundaries of their genres, say something that hasn't been said before, and achieve perfection on their own unprecedented terms. They are works of daring, definiteness, authority, inevitability, and rightness, note for note. And all their elements - melody, harmony, counterpoint, etc. - work together, as they must, to make them so. As individual works, they inspire admiration; as a body of work, they inspire, in many of us, incredulity. There are certain works of art that cause us to wonder how they were even conceived, much less carried to fulfillment. Beethoven, more than most composers, had the ability to produce such works.

As for Beethoven's popularity... If Beethoven's has traditionally been the biggest bust on the piano, do we need to worry about that? Most people now don't even have pianos to set busts on. You speak of Beethoven having "become" popular, as if he just released a gold record or won the Grammy! Honestly, the idea that "non-musical" factors have finally brought to pre-eminence, almost two centuries after his death, a composer whose melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration couldn't make the grade is just too bizarre.


----------



## KenOC

Criticisms of Beethoven's counterpoint go back to his own time and tend to concentrate on his wilder episodes -- especially the Hammerklavier fugue and the Grosse Fuge. But his music is basically contrapuntal and rich in effective fugal episodes (fugatos) which are often praised. I'll mention the fugato in the Eroica's funeral march, in the slow movement of the 7th Symphony, and in the second movement of the Serioso string quartet. Who can do other than admire them? There are certainly a dozen or so others, including the final movement of the 3rd Rasumovsky quartet, the finale of the Op. 101 piano sonata, and the first movement of the Op. 131 quartet.

Weak in counterpoint? I'd bet there are a lot of later composers, including our favorites, who wish they were as weak.

Oh, forgot to mention one of his most spectacular: The fugue on "et vitam venturi saeculi" closing the Credo of the Missa!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I suspect that academic discourse and analysis will yield no clue why Beethoven's music "fills the house". And it certainly isn't because a bunch of slack-jawed cretins are ponying up for those expensive tickets because of some semi-mythical backstory."


One of the more creative and entertaining distortions of a position I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot of them, distorting one's opponents' positions being a very popular sport 'round these parts.

But, it's still a distortion.

Anyway, I'd like to remind the esteemed members on both sides of the aisle that the idea that Beethoven's music actually does fill the house has taken some pretty serious drubbing. And the question, "Does Beethoven's music fill the house?" should really be pretty definitively answered before we can even consider the question of why. Be fair, if it doesn't, then "why" doesn't even enter into it.

As for Bernstein's quote, I gotta say, it could be said about dozens of other composers. Maybe hundreds.

So I'm still waiting here, sitting in this miasma of my own making, for someone to say something nice about Beethoven that couldn't equally be said about numerous other people. After all, the whole point of this thread was to distinguish Beethoven from all the rest, to speculate on the reasons for his uniqueness. But all I've seen so far from the fans are things he shares in common with many many other people, people who, I assume, do NOT fill houses.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> You've been making some very specific evaluations of the quality of Beethoven's music. Are these mainly your own opinions? Do you think them widely shared? You cite something or other said by Bernstein. What did he actually say? What did he mean? Do others with equal "authority" agree with him or say similar things? If these ideas about the "holes in Beethoven's game" are just subjective impressions, I wouldn't press you to defend them. You're entitled to feel however you feel. But you seem to want to marshal objective support for your feelings. So how solid is that support?
> 
> What is weak about Beethoven's melodies? I find them striking, memorable, and perfectly adapted to their structural contexts.
> 
> What is weak about Beethoven's harmony? The mere fact that he doesn't write extended chromatic passages? Is that a weakness? Why? Are there other "weaknesses" you can point to?
> 
> What is weak about Beethoven's orchestration? Does it not "sound" well? Is it not appropriate to his material and the way he structures it? Did he fail to find suitable and effective orchestral treatments for any of his major works?
> 
> What is weak about Beethoven's counterpoint? Do the voices lack independence or definition? Does excessive counterpoint clutter his textures, or is there too little of it to lend interest? Is it uninteresting in style, mechanical, inexpressive, too unusual?
> 
> I think my biggest problem with what you're saying is that you seem to be trying to assess the quality and value of Beethoven's work out of context - both aesthetic context and historical context. We just can't make direct, one-to-one comparisons of the compositional skills and achievements of composers without looking at the nature of their art as a whole, their artistic purposes and meanings, and looking in turn at the context of their culture, their time, and the history of which they are a part. Without establishing a context for it, a statement such as "he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration" leads nowhere. It isn't that it's too vague or too general. It just doesn't tell us anything at all.
> 
> Beethoven's symphonies, concertos, quartets, sonatas, variations, etc. sound to me as if he knew exactly how he wanted them to sound and as if he was fully up to the task of making them sound that way. They sound, most of them, like superb music - fresh, original, bold, strong, affecting, memorable. Again and again, he turned out works which simultaneously push the boundaries of their genres, say something that hasn't been said before, and achieve perfection on their own unprecedented terms. They are works of daring, definiteness, authority, inevitability, and rightness, note for note. And all their elements - melody, harmony, counterpoint, etc. - work together, as they must, to make them so. As individual works, they inspire admiration; as a body of work, they inspire, in many of us, incredulity. There are certain works of art that cause us to wonder how they were even conceived, much less carried to fulfillment. Beethoven, more than most composers, had the ability to produce such works.
> 
> As for Beethoven's popularity... If Beethoven's has traditionally been the biggest bust on the piano, do we need to worry about that? Most people now don't even have pianos to set busts on. You speak of Beethoven having "become" popular, as if he just released a gold record or won the Grammy! Honestly, the idea that "non-musical" factors have finally brought to pre-eminence, almost two centuries after his death, a composer whose melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration couldn't make the grade is just too bizarre.


I think in ways we are talking past each other, because I also admire many of the traits you have listed in Beethoven's music, but it often seems that the people who are most strongly affected by his music (the case of Bernstein's comments being an exception) - they want to gloss over any of the less than stellar or merely functional bits because, who cares? Its how much the music moves a person that matters, right? Perhaps because I generally don't find "heaven" when listening to his music, the other details stand out to me more. Perhaps it is his very reputation that makes me demand more out of the music.

The final part of your post doesn't make sense to me, because it is taken out of context. No one is arguing that Beethoven's reputation has only now brought him to pre-eminence. He has been popular (as far as classical music goes) for quite some time. Some have just pointed out that his reputation quite possibly contributes to why his concerts occasionally sell-out _nowadays_. Beethoven has _become_ popular in certain ways that he wasn't previously based on his life-story having become a legend of sorts and the fact his name is used in movies, television etc. A different kind of popularity than just musical appreciation. He should not be faulted for this, but I don't see what is bizarre about pointing it out seeing as it pertains directly to the topic of this thread.


----------



## Lord Lance

some guy said:


> Ack. One fallacy per sentence please. I'm up to three already here. Too much. But let me catch my breath for a second. OK. I'm only going to mention one, onus probandi. There.
> 
> Having said that, I would like to go ahead and take up the burden that's been shifted to tdc and to say that the positive alternative to vagueness is specificity, the positive alternative to exaggeration is accuracy, the positive alternative to romanicizing is, oh this is a little awkward, accuracy.
> 
> The other one takes some special attention, for the "I disagree with x" in tdc's post has been transformed by the magic of equivocation to "disagreeable." So for this one, I would say that the positive alternative to equivocation is to address what has actually been said, without any transforming, though I confess that I responded positively to the cleverness of turning "I completely disagree" into "completely disagreeable." That is, while I deprecate it, it still made me grin.
> 
> So, are we ready now to address the issue that's been raised? These things that have been said about Beethoven could equally apply to many other composers, including Berlioz and Wagner and Debussy and Stravinsky and Cage, for starters. Not to mention.
> 
> That is, these thing may indeed be true about Beethoven, but if they are also true about other composers, then something else has to be said about Beethoven to distiinguish him from all these others. That was the point, originally, what is unique to Beethoven that makes this house-filling thing true? The answer that tdc objected to consists entirely of things that Beethoven has in common with other composers.


Thank you, Mr. someguy. I enjoyed reading your post.

Am I dumb because I learned a bit of law and one more type of fallacy? [Personally love annoying people by pointing out their fallacies and the guardian of the message.]

Beethoven was a versatile and indigenous composer but not the messiah in an era of incompetent conformists. Where's the love for Hummel?


----------



## Guest

I won't spoil it by naming the one more type.

I will say I loved it. Why, it's the fallacy I use the most!!


----------



## Nereffid

KenOC said:


> Bernstein's purposely provocative comments, which he had occasion to backtrack on vigorously later, are on a YouTube video. "Weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration" indeed. Here's a nice Bernstein quote on Beethoven:
> 
> "Beethoven broke all the rules, and turned out pieces of breath-taking rightness. Rightness - that's the word! When you get the feeling that whatever note succeeds the last is the only possible note that can rightly happen at that instant, in that context, then chances are you're listening to Beethoven... Our boy has the real goods, the stuff from Heaven, the power to make you feel at the finish: Something is right in the world. There is something that checks throughout, that follows its own law consistently: something we can trust, that will never let us down."


As soon as Lenny's name came up, that was _exactly_ the quote I was going to post!

Some of the discussion here suggests a dichotomy: if it's not for musical reasons, it must be societal ones. But I don't see how, a couple of centuries later, Beethoven's reputation can be separated from his music. His influence on Romantic music, and thus on 19th-century music generally, is undeniable; and 19th-century music still seems to dominate as "the" classical music among the general public (and the general classical audience, if we can agree such a thing exists). Take Beethoven's music (as opposed to his reputation) out of the equation and you lose 19th-century music (and thus "classical music" for the general public) as we know it: Beethoven's _music_ is part of the very definition of "classical music" for audiences in a way that no other composer's is. And his reputation comes from his music.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> And the question, "Does Beethoven's music fill the house?" should really be pretty definitively answered before we can even consider the question of why. Be fair, if it doesn't, then "why" doesn't even enter into it. ...
> 
> So I'm still waiting here, sitting in this miasma of my own making, for someone to say something nice about Beethoven that couldn't equally be said about numerous other people. After all, the whole point of this thread was to distinguish Beethoven from all the rest, to speculate on the reasons for his uniqueness. But all I've seen so far from the fans are things he shares in common with many many other people, people who, I assume, do NOT fill houses.


I agree that we don't have enough data on what percentage of tickets are sold for concerts with Beethoven's music compared to other composers' music. We do have some data though. The PSO article mentioned that a Beethoven concert was one of the last 2 to sell out and that this season a Beethoven concert sold the most tickets. So recently Beethoven is one of only 2 composers at the PSO who have filled the house. That's a start.

Further (and this answers the "request" in your second paragraph above) from the esteemed gentleman who posted earlier, "Data from 21 major US orchestras from the 2014-2015 season show Beethoven, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky were by far the most programmed." In fact Beethoven led _all_ composers with the most compositions performed. You can't say that (accurately) about any other composer. We don't know the percentage of tickets sold for those performances, but we can guess that Beethoven sells extremely well compared to others since finances are extremely important in orchestras.


----------



## mmsbls

tdc said:


> Its how much the music moves a person that matters, right? ...
> 
> Some have just pointed out that his reputation quite possibly contributes to why his concerts occasionally sell-out _nowadays_. Beethoven has _become_ popular in certain ways that he wasn't previously based on his life-story having become a legend of sorts and the fact his name is used in movies, television etc. A different kind of popularity than just musical appreciation. He should not be faulted for this, but I don't see what is bizarre about pointing it out seeing as it pertains directly to the topic of this thread.


The OP's question may come down to how much the question above influences ticket sales. I think there are roughly 3 groups of people buying tickets - very knowledgeable people who can analyze Beethoven's music compared to others, less knowledgeable people who nonetheless have heard music from many composers, and people with little experience with classical music.

The first group is small I believe. This group may have many reasons to buy a Beethoven ticket or not. I assume the second group dominates sales. They have presumably heard many composers and buy tickets based on "how much the music moves" them. When they buy a Beethoven ticket, they presumably know roughly what they will get. The third group is a bit of a wildcard. They may very well buy tickets based on popularity since they have limited experience with classical music.

Is the third group significant? I don't know. Given that the average PSO ticket sales were around 50%, the Beethoven concerts that filled or came close to filling the hall sold vastly more tickets. Obviously we simply don't know enough, but I doubt that the third group could be large enough to make that big a difference.


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> These things that have been said about Beethoven could equally apply to many other composers, including Berlioz and Wagner and Debussy and Stravinsky and Cage, for starters [...] I'm still waiting [...] for someone to say something nice about Beethoven that couldn't equally be said about numerous other people. After all, the whole point of this thread was to distinguish Beethoven from all the rest, to speculate on the reasons for his uniqueness. But all I've seen so far from the fans are things he shares in common with many many other people, people who, I assume, do NOT fill houses.


The easy answer to this is that that there are very few things that can be said about anyone that cannot be said about numerous other people. As for the "equally," that's where the real point of contention lies, and contention over the absolute quality of artists and their work comes down - in the end, when all the analysis is over - to perceptions which can never be fully communicated, much less proved. No attempt to assert the superiority of one composer over another will be universally accepted, and the very attempt will be decried. But those who decry it should be equally hesitant to assert the inferiority of one composer compared to another - or their "equality."

I'm not one who believes that an absence of consensus on the excellence of art means that excellence, and relative excellence, don't exist. A great deal can be said to point out, describe, and allude to the qualities of a work which make it fine or less than fine. But on the highest levels of genius, words fail us well short of their ability to do justice. We experience great works, and we are amazed, and our sense of life's possibilities is quite possibly changed. No one can communicate that experience to anyone else - though a poet might have a decent go at it - and no one can experience it who is not ready to.

My sense has always been that Beethoven is one of the very greatest of artists. That has been my feeling since I first began listening to the music of our great classical composers over half a century ago. I had heard quite a few of these composers by my mid-teens, and although I can't and wouldn't boast about my musical erudition or perceptiveness at that age, I can report that although Beethoven was not (and still is not) my personal favorite among composers, my instantaneous impression upon hearing some of his most famous works - the third, fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth symphonies, the "Moonlight," "Appassionata" and "Waldstein" sonatas, the "Archduke" Trio, the late quartets (to name only pieces that I discovered at that time) - was that this was some of the greatest - most perfect and most profound - music I had ever heard or ever would hear. And nothing I've heard in the fifty years since has caused me to change my mind.

Can I prove Beethoven's greatness, much less whether greatness sells tickets or fills houses? No - not, certainly, to anyone who doesn't intuit these things himself. And you are right that virtually anything that can be said about his work can be said about any number of other composers' work. But - "equally"? That in itself is a judgment which I'll bet the farm you can't support.

You do, after all, include Cage...


----------



## Faustian

Woodduck said:


> I'm not one who believes that an absence of consensus on the excellence of art means that excellence, and relative excellence, don't exist. A great deal can be said to point out, describe, and allude to the qualities of a work which make it fine or less than fine. But on the highest levels of genius, words fail us well short of their ability to do justice. We experience great works, and we are amazed, and our sense of life's possibilities is quite possibly changed. No one can communicate that experience to anyone else - though a poet might have a decent go at it - and no one can experience it who is not ready to.


Beautifully said. I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's observation, "About what one can not speak, one must remain silent." But that's not the same as denying it's existence.


----------



## Bulldog

tdc said:


> This is all well and good, and we've to some extent been over this ground in another thread (I believe also started by KenOC - I always get sucked into these ). But I just don't believe Beethoven's weaker areas in composition (in comparison to the other masters) was wholly a matter of aesthetic choice - there is sufficient evidence that there are areas he struggled with in composing, and there are observations by people like Bernstein that despite Beethoven's excellence in form - he was actually quite weak in areas like melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration.


I might be dense on this subject, but I can't see how a composer could be weak in those four areas and still be an excellent composer. Adding in the fact that I don't hear weakness in those areas, I reject the merit of your argument.


----------



## tdc

Bulldog said:


> I might be dense on this subject, but I can't see how a composer could be weak in those four areas and still be an excellent composer. Adding in the fact that I don't hear weakness in those areas, I reject the merit of your argument.


Well, again "weak" was used here only in reference to other top tier composers, it would be a huge exaggeration to call him flat out weak in all those areas. Keep in mind that the way Bernstein made the comment was actually not to disparage Beethoven, but to suggest that because Beethoven was so perfect with *form* (ie - the way he developed ideas, and how one section flows into the next, how every note just feels "right" etc) these apparent weaknesses did not matter, because the whole became so much more than the sum of its parts.

And you know what? In an over-arching sense I can agree with that. My point has never been that Beethoven's music is trash or weak. I was just pointing out two things 1) For those who feel the ticket sales is an indicator of musical quality, there can be other factors to look at and 2) For those who feel that Beethoven is the pinnacle of Western music, in my opinion there might be other composers who are better suited for that title, because if you break down the music into areas which can be somewhat objectively referred to, Beethoven does not seem to rank very highly in many of those areas.

Sure we can say "who cares about those things?! The music matters". The problem is it then becomes very difficult to assess individual subjective opinions on the music itself, and when popularity is indicative of musical quality and when it is not.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> ...For those who feel that Beethoven is the pinnacle of Western music, in my opinion there might be other composers who are better suited for that title, because if you break down the music into areas which can be somewhat objectively referred to, Beethoven does not seem to rank very highly in many of those areas.


Based on what? Which areas of music that can be objectively referred to? You started off by appearing to backtrack on your previous post, but then essentially went on to repeat the same points. I can understand if someone says they don't particularly like Beethoven because subjective preferences are what they are. But you are making claims based on some sort of alleged objective evidence.

What are these many areas that Beethoven is weak in? It's a given that other composers might out do him in one category/area or another, but apparently there are other composers who best him overall and are thus suited to be called the true pinnacles of Western music. Who might they be? I'm not looking for your opinion because you said that these areas can be objectively referred to so you must have some supportive evidence.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> ...My point has never been that Beethoven's music is trash or weak. I was just pointing out two things 1) For those who feel the ticket sales is an indicator of musical quality, there can be other factors to look at and 2) For those who feel that Beethoven is the pinnacle of Western music, in my opinion there might be other composers who are better suited for that title...


You have been arguing, in general, that Beethoven's music isn't as good as a lot of people think. Obviously that could be argued all day. But it doesn't cast much light on the OP's question: Why does his music fill the house?


----------



## Albert7

Hmm... that's interesting. Wouldn't Mozart compare as much as Beethoven in bringing audiences too?


----------



## DaveM

Albert7 said:


> Hmm... that's interesting. Wouldn't Mozart compare as much as Beethoven in bringing audiences too?


I doubt out it (though he's no slouch of a possible runner-up) with one exception, and a big one at that: the operas.


----------



## KenOC

I don't doubt that Mozart's music vies with Beethoven's in popularity, but would guess that many people don't considerate it as being as "important." Hate that word, but there it is.


----------



## mmsbls

From the link in post #121, Beethoven had 317 performances in the 2014-2015 season at 21 of the top US orchestras. Mozart had 313. Tchaikovsky was 3rd with 260. So basically Beethoven and Mozart were pretty much equal.


----------



## breakup

mmsbls said:


> From the link in post #121, Beethoven had 317 performances in the 2014-2015 season at 21 of the top US orchestras. Mozart had 313. Tchaikovsky was 3rd with 260. So basically Beethoven and Mozart were pretty much equal.


The missing data is how full was the hall for each performance, that would give a better indication of popularity.


----------



## mmsbls

breakup said:


> The missing data is how full was the hall for each performance, that would give a better indication of popularity.


Of course. I tried to find that data, but I couldn't fnd anything useful. I assume the orchestral programmers programed works in large part based on their popularity. I could be wrong, but if not, Beethoven and Mozart are roughly equal in popularity and more popular than other programed composers (among the general orchestral listenership).


----------



## KenOC

Popularity is a big driver, but there are other aims on most orchestras' dockets: Introducing new and adventurous music, reaching out to the community, bringing in new audiences (lots of Latinos in my area, for instance), presenting salable soloists, and so forth. My point was my impression that, when financially things get tough, there's always a temptation to trot Beethoven out, and he often delivers.

I do believe that, in general, the amount of concert exposure a composer receives is a pretty good approximation of his or her popularity. Concert programmers (and orchestras for that matter) live and die by seat loading.


----------



## tdc

DaveM said:


> Based on what? Which areas of music that can be objectively referred to? You started off by appearing to backtrack on your previous post, but then essentially went on to repeat the same points. I can understand if someone says they don't particularly like Beethoven because subjective preferences are what they are. But you are making claims based on some sort of alleged objective evidence.
> 
> What are these many areas that Beethoven is weak in? It's a given that other composers might out do him in one category/area or another, but apparently there are other composers who best him overall and are thus suited to be called the true pinnacles of Western music. Who might they be? I'm not looking for your opinion because you said that these areas can be objectively referred to so you must have some supportive evidence.





KenOC said:


> You have been arguing, in general, that Beethoven's music isn't as good as a lot of people think. Obviously that could be argued all day. But it doesn't cast much light on the OP's question: Why does his music fill the house?


What has happened is I have put forth a few points, some people have misinterpreted those posts, and I have tried to clarify - multiple times. I've really said all I have to say on the topic now. You all are free to disagree with me and I assure you my opinion also has not changed. Bernstein's opinion mirrors mine except where he says that Beethoven's music brings him to heaven etc. I'm sure there are other musicians and composers who have different opinions on the topic, I think I have made mine clear.

@KenOC sections of my posts have been specifically about the question in the OP, parts of it have broadened into other areas. I'm done clarifying but feel free to re-read my back posts as I'm sure you will find there my opinion on the question in the OP.

As I bow out of this thread I will just add that I'm a touch disappointed that DiesIraeCX has decided to stop in on this thread and "like" posts but refrained from posting anything. I'm sure there are further interesting points he could touch on (even though he undoubtedly disagrees with me).

Regardless, I do find him quite knowledgeable and enthusiastic about Beethoven and I enjoy reading his posts.


----------



## Guest

Speaking entirely for myself, and making no claim of objectivity, Beethoven's symphonies have a greater energy or vitality or power than Haydn or Mozart, and are less constrained in form than either, but do not suffer from the blunderbuss of emotion of later Romantic symphonists (Tchaik, Wagner). LvB wants to shake you by the lapels, not beat you round the head!

Whatever the shortcomings cited by Bernstein, this average concert-goer simply doesn't notice them.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Concert programmers (and orchestras for that matter) live and die by seat loading.


Well no, actually they don't. Ticket sales account for only part of any orchestra's total operating budget. And orchestras' budgets vary widely. The part that ticket sales account for can be less than half of what's needed. It's not a simple matter at all. A lot of balancing is required. You probably find that trying to rely on any one source of revenue can get you in all sorts of trouble.

Let's say you've been relying on grants. But that's not been working out. If you jack up your ticket prices too much, to bring in revenue that all those grants aren't providing, then you might find that even the die-hard Beethoven fans won't pony up.

And if ticket sales drop, you don't look as good to grant givers, who tend to award grants to people who are doing well, not to people who need money.

Since a lot of people like stars as much as they like music, another way to get butts on the seats is to hire yourself some big stars. But big stars also means big fees. Even the revenue from selling out the house will not cover the costs. So it's tough. It's always a balancing act.

And what about that concession stand? What happens when prices for small glasses of cheap wine go through the roof? Patrons go next door to the hotel bar where they can get great wine for half of what you're charging. And shortening the intermission break to 20 minutes to keep people inside the building just contributes to a general feeling that going to concerts is simply not worth the bother. I'll just buy a CD or watch youtube for free.

To reduce a complex situation like keeping a large symphony orchestra running to something as simple as "seat loading" serves no musical or economic purpose.


----------



## Arie

KenOC said:


> From an article decrying the Pittsburg SO's declining ticket sales and half-empty houses: "The closest the symphony came this season to a sold-out house was 97 percent for the June 7 performance of the final Beethovenfest series, a concert featuring Ludwig van Beethoven's Violin Concerto and Symphony No. 9... The last sold-out concerts were in February 2013 for Honeck's program featuring Sergei Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 and Beethoven's Symphony No. 7. Both performances sold 101 percent, with standing-room admissions."
> 
> So what is it about this Beethoven guy? What's his secret? Should struggling orchestras play his music all the time?


I'm offering my personal opinion. May or may not be objective and fact-based:

Beethoven is someone who can both entertain people as well as make them filled with awe with his genius. In my own opinion, I find no one else balancing it 50-50 as Beethoven does. A composer can be a genius and may be able to make enormously complex, layered music - say Mahler, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, etc. - but he/she usually, in writing such a complicated piece, fails to make the audience chant, clap, tap foot on the floor. But Beethoven can make you do that. Let me give you the most famous of his symphonies - his 5th. Initially I thought it is too much of overrated fan-ship and hero worship that made it famous, but then when I listened to the 5th multiple times, I realised how wonderfully crafted, yet enjoyable, a music it was. Especially the transition from melody A to B in 1st movement--trust me when I say this--makes me feel goosebumps every time I listen to it. He makes you "lose yourself."
Beethoven is someone who can make you smile, and tap your foot! I don't think there are others who are equally as successful as Beethoven. Beethoven can cater to both the elite (critics, royals, musicians, etc) and the Proletariat (common working folk). I'm not saying there is no one else like Beethoven; all I'm saying is that, as far as I have explored, Beethoven is the best.
Any random pop-music lover (or any genre, for that matter) who had never heard classical music before, will, in my opinion, immediately love Beethoven (maybe Mozart and Haydn as well). But ask him/her to try Shostakovich, or Bruckner, they'd get bored even before they were able to catch the melody in it.
Thank you for the opportunity for expressing my opinion.


----------



## fjf

Yes, it is as simple as that: The old Ludwig fills the concert hall because people like his music. Something that cannot be said about much of the post-Mahlerian music. Some people have the opposite taste, and they resist the evidence.


----------



## Triplets

Crudblud said:


> I don't think it has as much to do with the music as one might hope, rather I would suggest that the mythologising of Beethoven is what does it. It may have started with the music, but today he is a larger than life figure, no mere composer, but a symbol of struggle and the triumph of the human spirit; a tormented, brooding figure who looked deep into the soul of man, and a writer of great masterpieces who had to wrestle with his deafness over every note. Beethoven's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard precisely because he has been remade in the public consciousness as a paragon of will and determination, to embody the "I can" in all of us, a towering inspirational figure who also has the human flaws that allow us to recognise him as one of us - he's in the gutter with the rest of us, but he is looking up at the stars. He's got it all, not even the grossly romanticised Mahler or Shostakovich or Tchaikovsky have had so much nonsense lavished upon them in popular analysis, there is no other composer who has been made into a myth on the same level as Beethoven.


I wish there was a "dislike this post" option, but since there isn't, I will just have to respectfully disagree. It's the music, not the myth, that puts the fannies in the seats


----------



## DaveM

Arie said:


> I'm offering my personal opinion. May or may not be objective and fact-based:
> 
> Beethoven is someone who can both entertain people as well as make them filled with awe with his genius. In my own opinion, I find no one else balancing it 50-50 as Beethoven does. A composer can be a genius and may be able to make enormously complex, layered music - say Mahler, Schoenberg, Shostakovich, etc. - but he/she usually, in writing such a complicated piece, fails to make the audience chant, clap, tap foot on the floor. But Beethoven can make you do that. Let me give you the most famous of his symphonies - his 5th. Initially I thought it is too much of overrated fan-ship and hero worship that made it famous, but then when I listened to the 5th multiple times, I realised how wonderfully crafted, yet enjoyable, a music it was. Especially the transition from melody A to B in 1st movement--trust me when I say this--makes me feel goosebumps every time I listen to it. He makes you "lose yourself."
> Beethoven is someone who can make you smile, and tap your foot! I don't think there are others who are equally as successful as Beethoven. Beethoven can cater to both the elite (critics, royals, musicians, etc) and the Proletariat (common working folk). I'm not saying there is no one else like Beethoven; all I'm saying is that, as far as I have explored, Beethoven is the best.
> Any random pop-music lover (or any genre, for that matter) who had never heard classical music before, will, in my opinion, immediately love Beethoven (maybe Mozart and Haydn as well). But ask him/her to try Shostakovich, or Bruckner, they'd get bored even before they were able to catch the melody in it.
> Thank you for the opportunity for expressing my opinion.


It's a pretty good opinion & well expressed.

I just listened to the 32nd Sonata Arietta played by Barenboim, Pogorelich, and Trifonov on YouTube. What a masterpiece! And composed by a profoundly deaf man! Here is a work that is a production from what one might call the final more complex phase of Beethoven's output. And yet, as you infer, the opening deceivingly simple melody would be accessible to all categories of listeners, hooking them into traveling along throughout the variations that follow until the final glorious restatement of the theme.


----------



## DonAlfonso

fjf said:


> Yes, it is as simple as that: The old Ludwig fills the concert hall because people like his music. Something that cannot be said about much of the post-Mahlerian music. Some people have the opposite taste, and they resist the evidence.


Yet the two oversold concerts cited in the article featured the post-Mahlerian Rachmaninoff, perhaps it was his music that filled the hall.

There is far too little evidence in the original article to deduce that it was Beethoven that put 'bums on seats' (and to be fair the article does not make that claim). 
Without wishing to diminish Beethoven's music or fame in any way there are many factors to consider when judging the popularity of those three particular performances vis a vis the less well attended concerts.

Perhaps the Pittsburgh Penguins were not playing on those dates in February 2013. Yes there are people who love hockey and classical music - I am one of them.
Was one of those February concerts on Valentine's Day?
Was there a big convention in town?
Were those particular concerts featured on several of the 'set series' subscriber choices?
Were there other performances featuring Beethoven that were not well attended?
etc etc


----------



## Guest

DonAlfonso said:


> Were there other performances featuring Beethoven that were not well attended?


This I would like to know.


----------



## isorhythm

All of the hard evidence that has been presented in this thread supports Ken's original premise that Beethoven is one of the most popular composers among concert audiences.

I can't believe this is being seriously disputed. To what end?


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> All of the hard evidence that has been presented in this thread supports Ken's original premise that Beethoven is one of the most popular composers among concert audiences.
> 
> I can't believe this is being seriously disputed. To what end?


That Beethoven is popular is not being disputed at all, though.


----------



## Mahlerian

some guy said:


> DonAlfonso said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were there other performances featuring Beethoven that were not well attended?
> 
> 
> 
> This I would like to know.
Click to expand...

Yes. In fact, I mentioned this before.


----------



## Guest

So you did!

Oops. I'd forgotten that. Very sorry.


----------



## mmsbls

Here's just a bit more information. Bachtrack compiles information from their 
"extensive database of classical music, opera and dance events worldwide." They admit that not all performances are included, but they don't purposely exclude any. They call themselves "the largest classical events finder online." I'm not sure how long they have compiled performance data.

Anyway their 2013 data led them to state, "For the first time in Bachtrack's history, Mozart has overtaken Beethoven as the most performed composer in the concert hall: the elder figure has edged Beethoven out with 2,512 concerts ahead of 2,475. As in 2012, J.S. Bach is a respectable third with 2,441 concerts." There is some uncertainty in exactly what that means, but it would appear that Beethoven and Mozart have battled for #1 for at least a few years. This data is more extensive than the US data posted earlier.

Based on what I have seen (although, yes, I'd love more detailed data), I would say Beethoven and Mozart appear to be the most programmed composers. I believe it's a bit hard to suggest that they are programmed so much for reasons other than that they will sell more tickets than others.

There's nothing in this thread that would suggest that Beethoven is most popular (or one of the most popular) because his music is the "best" or even better than most others. But I think one has reason to conclude those who do buy tickets to classical concert halls find Beethoven's works among the most pleasing to them. One could conclude the same of Mozart.


----------



## fjf

In 2014, however: http://bachtrack.com/classical-music-statistics-2014


----------



## mmsbls

fjf said:


> In 2014, however: http://bachtrack.com/classical-music-statistics-2014


I actually looked for 2014 and other years and couldn't find them. Thanks for the link. But it still looks like Beethoven and Mozart and numbers 1 and 2. Bachtrack doesn't show absolute numbers.


----------



## EdwardBast

some guy said:


> So I'm still waiting here, sitting in this miasma of my own making, for someone to say something nice about Beethoven that couldn't equally be said about numerous other people. After all, the whole point of this thread was to distinguish Beethoven from all the rest, to speculate on the reasons for his uniqueness. But all I've seen so far from the fans are things he shares in common with many many other people, people who, I assume, do NOT fill houses.


This is reasonable request and easily fulfilled. I'll make a list:

1. He more or less invented the thematically and dramatically unified multimovement cycle in the genres of the symphony, the string quartet and the solo sonata. Every standard way of accomplishing such unity employed by tonal composers from Schubert to Shostakovich was explored first by Beethoven (basing finale themes (Op. 57, The Fifth) or a finale fugue (Sonata Op. 110) on a first movement theme, reprising disruptive elements from early in the cycle in the development of the finale (5th symphony), overall progressions from minor to major mode (5th, 9th), the dramatic linking of penultimate and final movements (4th concerto, Waldstein, 5th symphony, Appassionata), the reprise and rejection of earlier themes (9th), Choral movements and especially finales in the symphony.

2. Fragmentary thematic structures based on dramatic oppositions of motive: No one before Beethoven did anything like the opening themes of the Appassionata, the Sonatas Op. 31 #2 ("Tempest") and #3, the Quartets op. 59 #3 and 95, the Eroica and numerous others. No one since has ever done it as successfully.

3. The whole thematic/schematic model for sonata-form, formulated by Reicha and still taught today as textbook sonata form, is just a codification of Beethoven's practice.

4. The use of chromatic mediant and submediants as secondary keys in sonata form movements broke from classical practice and was widely taken up by later composers.

5. Using thematic oppositions to extend dramatic tension beyond and in spite of tonal resolutions in opening and other movements - this is a necessary basis for several of the cyclic patterns mentioned above in (1) and was tied to another innovation: long developmental codas.

These are just a few things off the top of my head. As for whether or how much these innovations and stylistic traits explain his perennial drawing power at concerts and recitals, who knows. That, to cite Douglas Adams, is an SEP, someone else's problem.


----------



## Albert7

EdwardBast said:


> This is reasonable request and easily fulfilled. I'll make a list:
> 
> 1. He more or less invented the thematically and dramatically unified multimovement cycle in the genres of the symphony, the string quartet and the solo sonata. Every standard way of accomplishing such unity employed by tonal composers from Schubert to Shostakovich was explored first by Beethoven (basing finale themes (Op. 57, The Fifth) or a finale fugue (Sonata Op. 110) on a first movement theme, reprising disruptive elements from early in the cycle in the development of the finale (5th symphony), overall progressions from minor to major mode (5th, 9th), the dramatic linking of penultimate and final movements (4th concerto, Waldstein, 5th symphony, Appassionata), the reprise and rejection of earlier themes (9th), Choral movements and especially finales in the symphony.
> 
> 2. Fragmentary thematic structures based on dramatic oppositions of motive: No one before Beethoven did anything like the opening themes of the Appassionata, the Sonatas Op. 31 #2 ("Tempest") and #3, the Quartets op. 59 #3 and 95, the Eroica and numerous others.
> 
> 3. The whole thematic/schematic model for sonata-form, formulated by Reicha and still taught today as textbook sonata form, is just a codification of Beethoven's practice.
> 
> 4. The use of mediant and submediants as secondary keys in sonata form movements broke from classical practice and was widely taken up by later composers.
> 
> 5. Using thematic oppositions to extend dramatic tension beyond and in spite of tonal resolutions in opening and other movements - this is a necessary basis for several of the cyclic patterns mentioned above in 1.
> 
> These are just a few things off the top of my head. As for whether or how much these innovations and stylistic traits explain his perennial drawing power at concerts and recitals, who knows. That's someone else's problem.


I would hate to rain on your parade but I doubt that 95% of the Beethoven concert goers would have understood what the bleep you just said. So not likely that those are the reasons for their attendance.


----------



## EdwardBast

Albert7 said:


> I would hate to rain on your parade but I doubt that 95% of the Beethoven concert goers would have understood what the bleep you just said. So not likely that those are the reasons for their attendance.


Audiences, from the most naive to the best educated feel most of those elements as a sense of drama and the unified channeling of tension from beginning to end. These techniques and principles, I would argue, keep people on the edge of their seats, whether those people can identify the source of the effects or not. Mostly not, I'd guess!


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> I'll make a list:


And what follows is exactly what I've been missing from this discussion so far.

Spot on and thank you, sir.:tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

Albert7 said:


> I would hate to rain on your parade but I doubt that 95% of the Beethoven concert goers would have understood what the bleep you just said. So not likely that those are the reasons for their attendance.


There is probably more than one way to answer the question EdwardBlast is trying to answer. My take is that he explaining the structural innovations (as a musicologist might do) that resulted in a whole catalog of categories of music that has attracted large numbers for 200 years. Concert goers don't have to know anything about these innovation to be attracted to it.

I would make another addition to Edward's list and that is Beethoven's innovations with what was the 'new' grand pianoforte. Parenthetically, IMO, the only composer of that era that composed piano music of almost the same depth and power was Schubert.


----------



## Albert7

EdwardBast said:


> Audiences, from the most naive to the best educated feel every one of those elements as a sense of drama and the unified channeling of tension from beginning to end. These techniques and principles, I would argue, keep people on the edge of their seats, whether those people can identify the source of the effects or not. Mostly, not I'd guess!


Wow. I must have been going to the wrong orchestral concerts because I never have seen many people at the Beethoven concerts feel a sense of tension. In fact in SLC and Philly I saw a few people sleeping during the Beethoven sections. So people I think bring people to hear Beethoven just for show and that is it. It is no wonder that Gould hated the concert hall later on.

Interestingly enough I have seen more tension at a Chicago Bears game show than any concert sadly enough. Not even opera.


----------



## Lord Lance

Albert7 said:


> Wow. I must have been going to the wrong orchestral concerts because I never have seen many people at the Beethoven concerts feel a sense of tension. In fact in SLC and Philly I saw a few people sleeping during the Beethoven sections. So people I think bring people to hear Beethoven just for show and that is it. It is no wonder that Gould hated the concert hall later on.
> 
> Interestingly enough I have seen more tension at a Chicago Bears game show than any concert sadly enough. Not even opera.


Beethoven's works lost their sense of tension after twentieth thousand time they were programmed. Not even adventurous within his own oeuvre!


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> Beethoven's works lost their sense of tension after twentieth thousand time they were programmed. Not even adventurous within his own oeuvre!


Put Barbara Hannigan in a cheerleading outfit and have her mock prance around to Beethoven's Seventh. Then perhaps then we can rally up the orchestral troops.


----------



## EdwardBast

Albert7 said:


> Wow. I must have been going to the wrong orchestral concerts because I never have seen many people at the Beethoven concerts feel a sense of tension. In fact in SLC and Philly I saw a few people sleeping during the Beethoven sections. So people I think bring people to hear Beethoven just for show and that is it. It is no wonder that Gould hated the concert hall later on.
> 
> Interestingly enough I have seen more tension at a Chicago Bears game show than any concert sadly enough. Not even opera.


Yes, you should have gone to the premiers!  The reception history of Beethoven's major orchestra works is pretty well documented. Early audiences often clamored for the immediate repetition of individual movements (like the Andante of the 7th). KenOC perhaps has some of this history at his fingertips? The reviews of even fairly innovative works like the 5th were almost universally positive if not adulatory. Of course, they were completely new and fresh then …


----------



## DaveM

Albert7 said:


> Wow. I must have been going to the wrong orchestral concerts...


I think so.


> It is no wonder that Gould hated the concert hall later on.


Gould's increasing dislike of the concert hall was only part of the reason he stopped performing publicly. His decision was enabled by the fact that advances in recording at the time allowed him to have the best parts of 'takes' spliced together to result in the 'perfect' final result. Incidentally, as a very young kid, I saw one of his last performances in Winnipeg, Canada and I remember it vividly.


----------



## KenOC

Albert7 said:


> Put Barbara Hannigan in a cheerleading outfit and have her mock prance around to Beethoven's Seventh. Then perhaps then we can rally up the orchestral troops.


Makes me think of Beecham's comment on the finale of the 7th: "What can you do with it? It's like a lot of yaks jumping about." :lol:


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> KenOC perhaps has some of this history at his fingertips?


Some contemporary reviews of Beethoven's music here:

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/

An amusing dissenting view from a well-known composer of the time:

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/weber-on-beethoven-s-fourth-symphony


----------



## Lord Lance

Albert7 said:


> Put Barbara Hannigan in a cheerleading outfit and have her mock prance around to Beethoven's Seventh. Then perhaps then we can rally up the orchestral troops.











"Must concentrate... Can't concentrate... _must listen to the music_." 
_ - LSO player_​
And that is why Hannigan is a bad idea to "cheer" the orchestral players.


----------



## breakup

Albert7 said:


> Put Barbara Hannigan in a cheerleading outfit and have her mock prance around to Beethoven's Seventh. Then perhaps then we can rally up the orchestral troops.


Check out post #106 in this thread. I think Barbara Hannigan as a cheerleader would certainly have added to the show.


----------



## Albert7

Lord Lance said:


> View attachment 72625
> 
> 
> Must concentrate... Can't concentrate... _must listen to the music.
> 
> _
> And that is why Hanngian is a bad idea to "cheer" the orchestral players.


Sorry but I have ADHD so I need a visual distraction. So as official concertmaster in this thread, I re-hired Hannigan just for you again .


----------



## GhenghisKhan

Albert7 said:


> Put Barbara Hannigan in a cheerleading outfit and have her mock prance around to Beethoven's Seventh. Then perhaps then we can rally up the orchestral troops.


Like this?






EDIT: D'oh someone beat me to it.


----------



## Lord Lance

GhenghisKhan said:


> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: D'oh someone beat me to it.


Wow! Ligeti's not terribly inaccessible!


----------



## Guest

Green Umbrella did this back in the day, when Ligeti and Berio and Lutoslawski were still coming to L.A. at least once a year each of them.

Our singer was not as vocally adept as in this video.

There were other differences as well....


----------



## papsrus

Albert7 said:


> Wow. I must have been going to the wrong orchestral concerts because I never have seen many people at the Beethoven concerts feel a sense of tension. In fact in SLC and Philly I saw a few people sleeping during the Beethoven sections.
> (...)


Is it possible these people you thought were sleeping through Beethoven in those comfy concert hall chairs were simply closing their eyes to better concentrate on the music?

Perhaps another poll:

A) I sometimes close my eyes during (Beethoven) concerts in order to better focus on the music. 
B) I always keep my eyes wide open to monitor the behavior of other people at the concert hall.
C) I sit up front so I have no idea what other people are doing, but boy is the conductor distracting.
D) I never go to concerts because I have narcolepsy, specifically episodes triggered by Beethoven.
E) Wake me when it's over.


----------



## Albert7

papsrus said:


> Is it possible these people you thought were sleeping through Beethoven in those comfy concert hall chairs were simply closing their eyes to better concentrate on the music?
> 
> Perhaps another poll:
> 
> A) I sometimes close my eyes during (Beethoven) concerts in order to better focus on the music.
> B) I always keep my eyes wide open to monitor the behavior of other people at the concert hall.
> C) I sit up front so I have no idea what other people are doing, but boy is the conductor distracting.
> D) I never go to concerts because I have narcolepsy, specifically episodes triggered by Beethoven.
> E) Wake me when it's over.


Nope I definitely know that some of those zonked out completely. For example, Beethoven's Piano Concerto 2 was a sleeper for some when Fliter hit the piano but I knew that they weren't any more awake for the Wagner piece before Fliter appeared on stage.

It's rather sad honestly. I love all types of classical music but the majority at the concerts are there due to corporate tickets and dates and well social prestige.

It has been driving me away for years just to sit at home and hit recordings instead.


----------



## papsrus

Hm. My own experience in the concert hall is somewhat different.


----------



## KenOC

Mine too. When I go to concerts, a lot of the audience are semi-pro musicians or others with interesting backgrounds. Quite a few students with a developing interest in CM. Often have some very interesting conversations with interesting people. Albert7's observations are far from my experience.


----------



## Guest

Albert's observations are pretty in line with mine, tbh.

But then again, just because I can cite several instances, there are kinda a lot more seats out there than "several", so who knows.


----------



## Albert7

KenOC said:


> Mine too. When I go to concerts, a lot of the audience are semi-pro musicians or others with interesting backgrounds. Quite a few students with a developing interest in CM. Often have some very interesting conversations with interesting people. Albert7's observations are far from my experience.


Which orchestra are you going to? If this is true then the audiences for both the Philadelphia Orchestra and Utah Symphony ought to be fired . Because I have to find more educated audiences whom I can hang out with when I attend these concerts.


----------



## Guest

nathanb said:


> Albert's observations are pretty in line with mine, tbh.
> 
> But then again, just because I can cite several instances, there are kinda a lot more seats out there than "several", so who knows.


Exactly. The situation is complex enough, and large enough, and full enough of realities that are hidden, that none of these conclusions are quite right. And none of them are quite wrong, either.

The problem with arguing from experience only is that it's only experience. There is no way that you can know what's going on inside anyone else's head. That's what we have this handy device called language, you know. And there is no way that anyone can have talked to enough people to draw any of these conclusions.

There's also no way of knowing why that person a row ahead of you and two seats down has fallen asleep, either. It might be because Beethoven bores them to tears. (Check next time to see if they're crying.) But it could also be that they just had a huge meal after a long day at work. Or that they just spend all night the night before sitting by the hospital bed of their dearest friend and already had this ticket and didn't want to waste it because they love Beethoven so much.

I used to work the CD booth in the lobby of the Portland symphony, so I have heard a lot of comments about music that are really really stupid and infuriating. It would be tempting to conclude that "no one's really there for the music, which they don't understand anyway, and obviously don't like, and audiences are getting dumber and dumber."

Resist temptation, I say.


----------



## Guest

If the BBC Proms are anything to go by, 14 events involve Beethoven, 13 involve Mozart, 10 involve Stravinsky and the next most frequently occurring composers are Bach, Shostakovich and Nielsen at 7 each.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/events/r89mxj/composers/by/a-z


----------



## Guest

Albert7 said:


> Wow. I must have been going to the wrong orchestral concerts because I never have seen many people at the Beethoven concerts feel a sense of tension. In fact in SLC and Philly I saw a few people sleeping during the Beethoven sections. So people I think bring people to hear Beethoven just for show and that is it. It is no wonder that Gould hated the concert hall later on.
> 
> Interestingly enough I have seen more tension at a Chicago Bears game show than any concert sadly enough. Not even opera.


I'm not going to deny your experience, but I will compare it with my own, which I'm enjoying right now in another thread.

http://www.talkclassical.com/37826-2015-proms-post913073.html#post913073

Yes, indeed, you've been going to the wrong concerts!


----------



## ArtMusic

MacLeod said:


> If the BBC Proms are anything to go by, 14 events involve Beethoven, 13 involve Mozart, 10 involve Stravinsky and the next most frequently occurring composers are Bach, Shostakovich and Nielsen at 7 each.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/events/r89mxj/composers/by/a-z


The problem with that observation is it doesn't take into account the size of the work. They might play seven pieces of Nielsen where each piece might be twenty minutes long, yet only say one piece of say Handel that lasts two and a half hours for the whole night (e.g. Messiah).


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> The problem with that observation is it doesn't take into account the size of the work. They might play seven pieces of Nielsen where each piece might be twenty minutes long, yet only say one piece of say Handel that lasts two and a half hours for the whole night (e.g. Messiah).


Are you able to follow the link I posted? If so, you can see the works for each composer.

(I know some parts of the BBC aren't accessible unless you're in the UK.)


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, you should have gone to the premiers!  The reception history of Beethoven's major orchestra works is pretty well documented. Early audiences often clamored for the immediate repetition of individual movements (like the Andante of the 7th). KenOC perhaps has some of this history at his fingertips? The reviews of even fairly innovative works like the 5th were almost universally positive if not adulatory. Of course, they were completely new and fresh then …


Speaking of romantic myths (irrespective of whether they help to sell tickets), the acclaim accorded Beethoven's music throughout his lifetime is certainly inconvenient for the theory, occasionally trotted out in these parts, that innovation in art is always met with misunderstanding, hostility and rejection - and for the popular image of the artist who dies in poverty and despair because his greatness is destined to go unrecognized till after he is dead.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Speaking of romantic myths (irrespective of whether they help to sell tickets), the acclaim accorded Beethoven's music throughout his lifetime is certainly inconvenient for the theory, occasionally trotted out in these parts, that innovation in art is always met with misunderstanding, hostility and rejection - and for the popular image of the artist who dies in poverty and despair because his greatness is destined to go unrecognized till after he is dead.


Outliers do not disprove correlation.


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> Speaking of romantic myths (irrespective of whether they help to sell tickets), the acclaim accorded Beethoven's music throughout his lifetime is certainly inconvenient for the theory, occasionally trotted out in these parts, that innovation in art is always met with misunderstanding, hostility and rejection - and for the popular image of the artist who dies in poverty and despair because his greatness is destined to go unrecognized till after he is dead.


Schoenberg was also recognized as a great composer during his lifetime, and several of his pieces attracted significant popular applause at their premieres or other early performances (A Survivor from Warsaw, Five Orchestral Pieces, and the Phantasy for Piano and Violin among them). The ones most vociferously against him were critics.

Several of his pieces were met mostly with derision and audience displeasure, it is true (the Violin Concerto, for one), but this can often be chalked up in part to horrible performances.

Surely these things put the theory that Schoenberg's music is inherently unpalatable to audiences on shaky ground?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> the theory... that innovation in art is always met with misunderstanding, hostility and rejection


Innovation in art is frequently met with misunderstanding. The less familiar, the more likely to be misunderstood. And often misunderstanding translates to hostility and rejection, it's true. But I know of no one who would argue that it's always true.

I do know at least one person who has argued that you cannot say things about misunderstanding, hostility and rejection without identifying who's doing those things. With Beethoven, with Cage, with Monteverdi, with Tchaikovsky, it depends. Some people go out armed with those three things. Some do not. And different people use these three differently at different times, sometimes even backing away from earlier hostility once familiarity has done its good work on them. As for the trotting out part, when there is misunderstanding, hostility and rejection happening right in front of you, it's no thing to recognize that it's happening. It doesn't always happen, no. But when it happens, why, there it is, happening.

I don't think there's anything more to it than that. A mention or two of other times and other places where it has also happened is the extent of it, I think. Just to ground the discussion historically.


----------



## Woodduck

Three quick responses to my observation. No surprise who they're from...:tiphat: :tiphat: :tiphat:

To nathanb: You're being cryptic, but if you're implying that Beethoven's acclaim during his lifetime was an exception to some rule, I'd welcome some evidence of that. Seems to me that very little great music is unrecognized, rejected or neglected for very long if people have access to it, even when it's highly innovative and meets with initial misgivings (examples: _The Rite of Spring_, _Tristan und Isolde_).

To Mahlerian: You're pointing out, I think, that antagonism to the new often comes from critics who are invested in their theories and reputations. Sometimes the public is more open and the music is accepted and enjoyed while the reactionary professional opinion-makers are still beating dead horses. But, if we must bring up Schoenberg, isn't the reverse the case with him and his "school"? I don't have statistics on performances. Maybe our local information specialists can help out here.

To some guy: Well, yes, sometimes things are and sometimes they aren't. It's good to ground things historically. So we agree that the myth is mostly a myth?


----------



## Mahlerian

Woodduck said:


> To Mahlerian: You're pointing out, I think, that antagonism to the new often comes from critics who are invested in their theories and reputations. Sometimes the public is more open and the music is accepted and enjoyed while the reactionary professional opinion-makers are still beating dead horses. But, if we must bring up Schoenberg, isn't the reverse the case with him and his "school"? I don't have statistics on performances. Maybe our local information specialists can help out here.


Schoenberg's music is performed relatively frequently in Europe, and less so in the US or the UK. I've seen sold-out crowds cheer heartily after performances of his later works. That and the fact that some of the early performances were well-received by audiences seems to indicate that it's the fact that Schoenberg is considered the first practitioner of so-called atonality rather than his music that makes people hate it. If it's played well and the audience is receptive to it, they're more likely (than they would have been otherwise) to find it fascinating rather than horrifying.

What I was pointing out is that your own method of pulling out a few adulatory reviews on Beethoven really doesn't say much about whether or not his music was met with hostility. We know that Schoenberg's music was met with considerable resistance and antagonism from Verklarte Nacht on. But it's not as if the antagonism was unanimous, and you can find quite a few examples of positive contemporary reviews and mentions of genuine audience approval (which was often unfairly dismissed by biased reviewers as being the approval of a claque).

The point is that by extension, the fact that Beethoven's contemporaries considered him a great composer and he won audience approval for many of his works does not necessarily mean that those same works and others did not elicit considerable disapproval as well.


----------



## Guest

It's true. As I've pointed out before, to no avail, Berlioz and Liszt, who expended a great deal of energy on promoting Beethoven's music in the face of incredible resistance, would have been very surprised to hear that he was universally admired. Waste of energy promoting it, if that were true.

In 1840, if I'm recalling this correctly--I no longer have easy access to the books I still own--a famous pianist was told by the London venue for whom he was going to perform not to bring any Beethoven with him as that would empty the house.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> To nathanb: You're being cryptic, but if you're implying that Beethoven's acclaim during his lifetime was an exception to some rule, I'd welcome some evidence of that. Seems to me that very little great music is unrecognized, rejected or neglected for very long if people have access to it, even when it's highly innovative and meets with initial misgivings (examples: _The Rite of Spring_, _Tristan und Isolde_).


If you think that the case of *BEETHOVEN* is some kind of norm, I guess we're done here.


----------



## Woodduck

nathanb said:


> If you think that the case of *BEETHOVEN* is some kind of norm, I guess we're done here.


I said: "Seems to me that very little great music is unrecognized, rejected or neglected for very long if people have access to it, even when it's highly innovative and meets with initial misgivings (examples: The Rite of Spring, Tristan und Isolde)."

If you think this is wrong, wouldn't it be more helpful to say why than to make assumptions about what you think are my assumptions?


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> The point is that by extension, the fact that Beethoven's contemporaries considered him a great composer and he won audience approval for many of his works does not necessarily mean that those same works and others did not elicit considerable disapproval as well.


Quite true, and Beethoven got his bad reviews as well. But it would seem that Beethoven led his contemporaries in popularity because publishers were usually willing to pay premium prices for the right to print and sell his sheet music, which was the major non-opera music market of the time.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I said: "Seems to me that very little great music is unrecognized, rejected or neglected for very long if people have access to it, even when it's highly innovative and meets with initial misgivings (examples: The Rite of Spring, Tristan und Isolde)."
> 
> If you think this is wrong, wouldn't it be more helpful to say why than to make assumptions about what you think are my assumptions?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

Would you care to enumerate every piece of music that qualifies objectively as "great" and the objective qualifications for "unrecognized" status, so that I can actually compare the two?


----------



## EdwardBast

some guy said:


> It's true. As I've pointed out before, to no avail, Berlioz and Liszt, who expended a great deal of energy on promoting Beethoven's music in the face of incredible resistance, would have been very surprised to hear that he was universally admired. Waste of energy promoting it, if that were true.
> 
> In 1840, if I'm recalling this correctly--I no longer have easy access to the books I still own--a famous pianist was told by the London venue for whom he was going to perform not to bring any Beethoven with him as that would empty the house.


The case of Berlioz is not surprising. I think acceptance of Beethoven in France lagged far behind his popularity in other countries, even England . But then, Shakespeare was apparently not accepted In France until 1820 or 1830, I believe. Something about the French, I suppose …

Do you have any further leads on the Liszt thing? That interests me. Are we talking piano sonatas? Or concertos?


----------



## KenOC

Not sure where the "incredible resistance" to Beethoven that Berlioz and Liszt encountered came from. Well, Berlioz had his Fetis, to be sure! And in Liszt's time and place, Beethoven's popularity was unchallenged -- an enthusiasm Liszt shared of course. It was hardly necessary to wave the flag for Ludwig.

About the only well-known composer I can think of who had reservations about Beethoven was Chopin. Well, maybe sometimes Schubert.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> What I was pointing out is that your own method of pulling out a few adulatory reviews on Beethoven really doesn't say much about whether or not his music was met with hostility.


Robin Wallace's book, _Beethoven's Critics_, addresses this in some detail. It has been a long time, but I believe Wallace notes an overwhelmingly positive response just about everywhere. If I remember correctly, he also commented on a tendency of apologists for modern music in the 20thc to cherry pick the few bad reviews of major works by Beethoven, the 5th in particular, to support the view that innovative works always (more often than not?) met with significant resistance.


----------



## KenOC

Edward has it right. It used to be common practice in LP liner notes to pick out some obscure review (often from a French source, no surprise) and pretend its hostility represented some common reaction. This was evidently supposed to support the romantic view of Beethoven as a "misunderstood genius."

Seems to me that his contemporaries understood Beethoven's music pretty well, even if they didn't always like it. There was a real issue of what music was supposed to do, what it was supposed to be. That sort of controversy is still going on, of course.


----------



## Guest

Has anyone else noticed that the word "apologist" has recently become a red flag of sorts on this board?


----------



## Woodduck

nathanb said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language
> 
> Would you care to enumerate every piece of music that qualifies objectively as "great" and the objective qualifications for "unrecognized" status, so that I can actually compare the two?


Well, what's your sense of it? When I say "seems to me" I'm not writing a doctoral thesis but giving a general impression of the reception given to the major composers during past eras. So, sure, there were complaints about the complexity of some of Bach's music, but he was consistently both esteemed and employed. Haydn tried out all sorts of new ideas in his symphonies and quartets, but was also consistently esteemed, employed, and, in the end, lionized. Beethoven raised some eyebrows and frightened Goethe, but he made good money from public performances of his music and from publishers and was widely regarded as the greatest composer of his day. Berlioz encountered some puzzlement (hell, he still stupefies me) but had much success with his innovative works. Bizet's _Carmen_ failed first time out but immediately became popular, as did Verdi's _La Traviata_ and Puccini's _Madama Butterfly_. Wagner was called every unprintable thing imaginable yet saw opera houses all over the world clamoring to produce his work. I'm sure someone could go on giving examples all day. Do you have a feeling about this? Doesn't it call into question the generality about artists, and their innovative art, being found incomprehensible and suffering enormous rejection and neglect during their lifetimes - which was my original point?


----------



## EdwardBast

nathanb said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the word "apologist" has recently become a red flag of sorts on this board?


It shouldn't be. The first definition in my dictionary includes: "a defender of or advocate for."


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> And in Liszt's time and place, Beethoven's popularity was unchallenged -- an enthusiasm Liszt shared of course. It was hardly necessary to wave the flag for Ludwig.


Well, either Liszt was an idiot, or just willing to waste his time, or something about the previous sentence is not quite right.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Do you have any further leads on the Liszt thing? That interests me. Are we talking piano sonatas? Or concertos?


Again, I apologize for posting according to my memory rather than according to a text, but as I recall, Berlioz and Liszt spent quite a bit of time, in Germany as well as elsewhere, championing Beethoven's music, convincing program directors to program it and performers to perform it and audiences to come listen to it.

Why would they have done that if his popularity were as universal, as much of a given, as is often argued. These are both guys who had their own careers. They would hardly have wasted time advocating for music that needed no advocacy. They were, indeed, neither of them idiots.

Perhaps what KenOC and Woodduck and yourself (and maybe even Wallace) are seeing is the successful results of those efforts, efforts that have become invisible? We seem simply to be swinging back and forth between two myths, actually, not simply correcting one myth with historical accuracy. And if that's true, we need perhaps to look past both myths to see what, if anything, is really going on.

Anyway, as I recall, we're talking all of Beethoven, but probably an emphasis on orchestral.

And if my recollections of the details is not perfectly precise, my recollection of the sources is OK: Jacques Barzun, _Berlioz and the Romantic Century_ and Berlioz, _Memoirs._

I'm only being tentative and apologetic because I no longer have those physical books at hand to quote from directly.

[Also, along these same lines, it's possible that Berlioz was as successful as Woodduck suggests because of his indefatigable (actually often quite fatigable) efforts at promoting his own music as well. To collapse a lifetime filled with ceaseless antagonism and resistance and distortion into "encountered some puzzlement" doesn't really seem quite the thing. (That was either an earthquake I just felt, or Berlioz just turned over in his grave.)]


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> Again, I apologize for posting according to my memory rather than according to a text, but as I recall, Berlioz and Liszt spent quite a bit of time, in Germany as well as elsewhere, championing Beethoven's music, convincing program directors to program it and performers to perform it and audiences to come listen to it.
> 
> Why would they have done that if his popularity were as universal, as much of a given, as is often argued. These are both guys who had their own careers. They would hardly have wasted time advocating for music that needed no advocacy. They were, indeed, neither of them idiots.


I have trouble believing that Liszt would have thought he was "wasting time" performing music he loved, regardless of how much or little advocacy it needed.

He did put in particular effort championing Beethoven beginning in 1839, as a means of raising funds for the proposed Beethoven monument in Bonn. Alan Walker's biography makes a good case that his efforts were necessary because of the organising committee's incompetence; Walker says nothing about a general lack of interest in Beethoven's music.


----------



## Dr Johnson

From The Lives Of The Great Composers (3rd edition) by Harold C. Schonberg:

(from the chapter on Mendelssohn)

"[Mendelssohn having taken over the Gewandhaus concerts in Leipzig in 1835] He also revised the repertory. Before he took over the Gewandhaus concerts, the most-played composers were such now forgotten figures as Anton Eberl, Ignaz von Seyfried, Karl Reissiger, Alexander Fesca, Sigismund Neukomm, Ferdinand Ries, and other such worthies. Mendelssohn changed all that. He made Mozart and Beethoven the backbone of the repertory, with Haydn, Bach and Handel not far behind.

Nor would he separate the movements of a symphony with a divertissement. Often, in the programs of the day, a Beethoven symphony would be stopped after two movements, and a harpist, or cellist, or a singer would entertain the audience, after which the symphony would be resumed. Sponsors of concerts clearly felt that no audience could survive the intellectual strain of listening to a Beethoven symphony straight through."


----------



## Woodduck

some guy said:


> It's possible that Berlioz was as successful as Woodduck suggests because of his indefatigable (actually often quite fatigable) efforts at promoting his own music as well. To collapse a lifetime filled with ceaseless antagonism and resistance and distortion into "encountered some puzzlement" doesn't really seem quite the thing. (That was either an earthquake I just felt, or Berlioz just turned over in his grave.)


I don't know and haven't said just _how_ successful Berlioz's music was in his lifetime, but if the question is whether or not people found it readily comprehensible and enjoyable, the following bits from Wiki may be somewhat indicative:

_Symphonie Fantastique:_ The first performance was at the Paris Conservatoire in December 1830. The work was repeatedly revived after 1831 and subsequently became a favourite in Paris.

_Harold in Italy:_ Harold in Italy was premiered on 23 November 1834 with the Orchestre de la Société des Concerts du Conservatoire, Chrétien Urhan playing the viola part, Narcisse Girard conducting. Paganini did not hear the work he had commissioned until 16 December 1838; then he was so overwhelmed by it that, following the performance, he dragged Berlioz onto the stage and there knelt and kissed his hand before a wildly cheering audience and applauding musicians. A few days later he sent Berlioz a letter of congratulations, enclosing a bank draft for 20,000 francs.

_Romeo and Juliet:_ It was first performed in three concerts conducted by Berlioz at the Paris Conservatoire with an orchestra of 100 instruments and 101 voices[10] on 24 November, 1 December and 15 December 1839, before capacity audiences that comprised much of the Parisian intelligentsia. Another notable audience member was Richard Wagner.[5] Reactions to the piece were quite varied, as could be expected for a radical work. However, it was widely acknowledged that Berlioz had scored a major triumph in these first performances; a "tour de force such as only my system of sectional rehearsals could have achieved".[4] Berlioz comments: "The work as it was then [in 1839] was performed three times at the Conservatoire under my direction and, each time, appeared to be a genuine success."

_The Damnation of Faust:_ Its first performance at the Opéra-Comique, Paris, 6 December 1846, did not meet with critical acclaim, perhaps due to its halfway status between opera and cantata; the public was apathetic, and two performances (and a cancelled third) rendered a financial setback for Berlioz: "Nothing in my career as an artist wounded me more deeply than this unexpected indifference", he remembered.

_Requiem:_ The premiere was conducted by François Antoine Habeneck on 5 December 1837 in commemoration of General Damrémont and the soldiers killed in the Siege of Constantine. In his autobiographical Mémoires, Berlioz claimed that Habeneck put down his baton during the dramatic Tuba mirum (part of the Dies irae movement) while he took a pinch of snuff, [2] prompting the composer to rush to the podium to conduct the rest of the work himself, thereby saving the performance from disaster. The premiere was a complete success.

_Les Troyens:_ The efforts to get this work performed were enormously frustrating, with inadequate performing forces and cuts to the score, and Berlioz never heard it in its entirety. But even in its less than ideal form, the work made a profound impression. For example, Meyerbeer attended 12 performances. Berlioz's son Louis attended each performance.[11] A friend tried to console Berlioz for having endured so much in the mutilation of his magnum opus and pointed out that after the first night audiences were increasing. "See", he said encouragingly to Berlioz, "they are coming." "Yes", replied Berlioz, feeling old and worn out, "they are coming, but I am going." Berlioz never saw the first two acts, later given the name La prise de Troie ['The Capture of Troy'].

_Beatrice and Benedict:_ Berlioz described the premiere of Béatrice et Bénédict as a "great success" in a letter to his son Louis...It was first performed at the Theater der Stadt, Baden-Baden on 9 August 1862.[2] Berlioz conducted the first two performances of a German version in Weimar in 1863, where, as he wrote in his memoirs, he was "overwhelmed by all sorts of kind attention."

Berlioz certainly encountered difficulties in his life. It doesn't appear that they were, by and large, a result of resistance to his music as such. That seems pretty noteworthy, given how radical that music was. If a performance is a success, we can be pretty sure it's because people like the music they're hearing. A failure, on the other hand, may be attributable to any number of extrinsic factors, a poor performance being only the most obvious one.


----------



## gardibolt

KenOC said:


> Edward has it right. It used to be common practice in LP liner notes to pick out some obscure review (often from a French source, no surprise) and pretend its hostility represented some common reaction. This was evidently supposed to support the romantic view of Beethoven as a "misunderstood genius."
> 
> Seems to me that his contemporaries understood Beethoven's music pretty well, even if they didn't always like it. There was a real issue of what music was supposed to do, what it was supposed to be. That sort of controversy is still going on, of course.


Part of that was engineered by Beethoven himself; after his initial fury at a bad review calmed down, he carefully cultivated the critics who didn't like him---to an astonishing extent for someone largely regarded as an antisocial madman---to the point of making sure the Breitkopf firm got to publish some of his pieces in order to get Breitkopf's influential critic to be more favorable to him. Ethical? Probably not. But effective. Once he started doing this, the dissenting voices were pretty well quelled for good.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

if a Haydn symphony is being played by an orchestra, I'm in. Beethoven, not so guaranteed. 'Tis subjective, folks!


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Well, let me be a bit more specific: perhaps the popularity of Beethoven can be explained by the fact that we are living in a society preoccupied with individualism and individual success and self-realization. Beethoven's life is a dramatic example of an individual who overcame great challenges and achieved immortality - thus, he appeals to our modern society. Added to this is the epic nature of Beethoven's music - its rebellious overtones, which reflect the modern individual's struggle for self-realization. Also, the more serious and monumental nature of Beethoven's music confirms the reputation of classical music as 'serious music for serious people', even though we all know that classical music was not always seen this way. Added to this are the known facts that Beethoven's music was capable of changing the course of music history. People are naturally curious about what it was about his music that was capable of doing this. In light of Beethoven's important role in leading the Classical style into the Romantic, Beethoven, in a way, could be seen as a sort of musical prophet, speaking musical truth, unlike his (more or less) contemporaries, Haydn and Mozart, who have a more 'conformist' reputation, i.e. as composers who are more inclined to 'follow rules' than break them. Thus, they are seen as 'less sincere' and 'realistic' than Beethoven.


----------



## EdwardBast

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, let me be a bit more specific: perhaps the popularity of Beethoven can be explained by the fact that we are living in a society preoccupied with individualism and individual success and self-realization. Beethoven's life is a dramatic example of an individual who overcame great challenges and achieved immortality - thus, he appeals to our modern society. Added to this is the epic nature of Beethoven's music - its rebellious overtones, which reflect the modern individual's struggle for self-realization. Also, the more serious and monumental nature of Beethoven's music confirms the reputation of classical music as 'serious music for serious people', even though we all know that classical music was not always seen this way. Added to this are the known facts that Beethoven's music was capable of changing the course of music history. People are naturally curious about what it was about his music that was capable of doing this. In light of Beethoven's important role in leading the Classical style into the Romantic, Beethoven, in a way, could be seen as a sort of musical prophet, speaking musical truth, unlike his (more or less) contemporaries, Haydn and Mozart, who have a more 'conformist' reputation, i.e. as composers who are more inclined to 'follow rules' than break them. Thus, they are seen as 'less sincere' and 'realistic' than Beethoven.


I think Beethoven did more than confirm "classical music as 'serious music for serious people';" he was the composer most responsible for making it so. He did this by being the first to fully embrace Romantic-expressive aesthetics and to realize the implications of this perspective for musical structure. Symphonies and sonata cycles were no longer congenially arranged musical entertainments, as they were, by and large, in the music of Haydn and Mozart, but assumed the profile of unified human experience, with finales in which the issues of an entire cycle culminate and resolve. In the heydays of Haydn and Mozart, music was languishing in the basement of the pantheon of the arts. It was not even considered a high art because it imitated no important aspect of human experience. After Beethoven, many considered music the highest art of all because it expressed a world of absolute experience beyond even the reach of poetry.


----------



## tdc

I know I was going to bow out of this thread, but I feel this post by EdwardBast needs addressing.



EdwardBast said:


> I think Beethoven did more than confirm "classical music as 'serious music for serious people';" he was the composer most responsible for making it so. He did this by being the first to fully embrace Romantic-expressive aesthetics and to realize the implications of this perspective for musical structure.


...and these implications were very important specifically for music that directly followed in the Romantic era, and became less important in the Modern era. The "Romantic expressive aesthetic" is not inherently more important to music as a whole than the Renaissance aesthetic, the Baroque aesthetic, the Classical etc.



EdwardBast said:


> Symphonies and sonata cycles were no longer *congenially arranged musical entertainments*, as they were, by and large, in the music of Haydn and Mozart, but *assumed the profile of unified human experience*, with finales in which the issues of an entire cycle culminate and resolve.


I think the parts in bold are not objective elements in the music at all, but merely reflect your own personal musical tastes and perceptions.



EdwardBast said:


> In the heydays of Haydn and Mozart, music was languishing in the basement of the pantheon of the arts. It was not even considered a high art because it *imitated no important aspect of human experience*. After Beethoven, many considered music the highest art of all because it expressed a world of absolute experience beyond even the reach of poetry.


If music was indeed "languishing in the basement of the pantheon of the arts", this would be because people generally were not fully noticing the profound artistic statements that were being made at the time - or did not yet realize how to properly define them in the context of their lives. This has to do with general perceptions of music at a certain time and doesn't describe any inherent qualities in the music itself. I think if Beethoven changed these perceptions that can possibly be an indicator of a multitude of things, for example it could suggest that his music was possibly more accessible in general than the music of the earlier masters - the profundity a little more on the surface and a little less subtle. Obviously there are other societal factors. I certainly don't think his music is a better expression of the human experience than the composers before him, it simply is another (valid) perspective of the infinite possible perspectives of the human experience. Again the part in bold only reflects your subjective views on the music.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

EdwardBast said:


> I think Beethoven did more than confirm "classical music as 'serious music for serious people';" he was the composer most responsible for making it so. He did this by being the first to fully embrace Romantic-expressive aesthetics and to realize the implications of this perspective for musical structure. Symphonies and sonata cycles were no longer congenially arranged musical entertainments, as they were, by and large, in the music of Haydn and Mozart, but assumed the profile of unified human experience, with finales in which the issues of an entire cycle culminate and resolve. In the heydays of Haydn and Mozart, music was languishing in the basement of the pantheon of the arts. It was not even considered a high art because it imitated no important aspect of human experience. After Beethoven, many considered music the highest art of all because it expressed a world of absolute experience beyond even the reach of poetry.


Music was definitely considered high art at the time of Mozart and Haydn. Just read the reviews of Haydn's symphonies by his contemporaries:

„Der unvergleichliche Haydn schuf eine Ouvertüre[4], die sich nicht mit gewöhnlichen Worten beschreiben lässt. Sie ist eine der großartigsten Leistungen der Kunst, die wir jemals erlebt haben. Sie ist reich an neuartigen, großen und eindringlichen musikalischen Gedanken, sie erhebt die Seelen und die Gefühle. Das Werk wurde mit begeistertem Applaus begrüßt."[5]

Translated from German: The inimitable Haydn created an overture, which cannot be described with usual words. This is one of the greatest achievements of art hitherto experienced. It is filled with new, expansive and striking musical thoughts; it raises the soul and the emotions. The work was applauded with great enthusiasm."


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> I think the parts in bold are not objective elements in the music at all, but merely reflect your own personal musical tastes and perceptions.


I'll begin with the last bold passage, "imitated no important aspect of human experience." This isn't my personal perception at all. It is the central criterion for a high art under the dominant aesthetic theory in the Classical Era: imitative aesthetics.



tdc said:


> ...and these implications were very important specifically for music that directly followed in the Romantic era, and became less important in the Modern era.


Less pervasively important in the Modern era it is true. But expressionism, all of the major Soviet composers, the post-Romantics, some Bartok, Britten, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, Barber, Pärt - it would be a long list - were largely in the expressive-aesthetic sphere. Most everything on the popular end, from blues to prog-rock more or less takes expressive aesthetics for granted. Moreover, virtually any person on the street will happily cite its central tenet with little prompting, whether or not they listen to art music in any form: "Music expresses the emotions of the people who make (or sing or play) it." It is pervasive enough to be a (tiresome) cliche.



tdc said:


> The "Romantic expressive aesthetic" is not inherently more important to music as a whole than the Renaissance aesthetic, the Baroque aesthetic, the Classical etc.


Baroque musical aesthetics, with its basis in rhetorical theory and the science of eliciting appropriate affective states from audiences has some kinship with Romantic aesthetics, given the common emphasis on human emotion. But it has no generality beyond that era, where, obviously, it is of great importance. Likewise, the aesthetic concerns of Renaissance music are crucially important to Renaissance music.

So, yes, Romantic expressive aesthetics is vastly more important for music of the last two-hundred years than any of the aesthetic systems you cite. However, one could postulate a general aesthetic theory under which pure form with aesthetic qualities like variety within unity, grace, symmetry, contrapuntal complexity - any number of aesthetic qualities, really - are of central importance and expressive qualities are downplayed. Such a theory would likely be more appropriate for classical music, serial music, neoclassical music, Renaissance music, and perhaps much Baroque music as well. So, in that case, I would be ready to agree with your general point.


----------



## EdwardBast

Oops. Left this out:



tdc said:


> If music was indeed "languishing in the basement of the pantheon of the arts", this would be because people generally were not fully noticing the profound artistic statements that were being made at the time - or did not yet realize how to properly define them in the context of their lives. This has to do with general perceptions of music at a certain time and doesn't describe any inherent qualities in the music itself.


It would be because the dominant system of the time did not place value on the aesthetic qualities of this music. They believed arts were important to the extent that they imitated important aspects of human experience. They thought music's imitative capabilities were limited to things like bird calls, canon shots, farts, and other instances of onomatopoeia.



tdc said:


> I think if Beethoven changed these perceptions that can possibly be an indicator of a multitude of things, for example it could suggest that his music was possibly more accessible in general than the music of the earlier masters - the profundity a little more on the surface and a little less subtle.


I don't see any reason to believe anyone found Beethoven more accessible than Haydn and Mozart.



tdc said:


> Obviously there are other societal factors. I certainly don't think his music is a better expression of the human experience than the composers before him, it simply is another (valid) perspective of the infinite possible perspectives of the human experience. Again the part in bold only reflects your subjective views on the music.


Folks in the classical era didn't generally believe music was an expression of the human experience in any central way whatever. Beethoven seems to have believed it was, and this view became more and more pervasive in the later part of his life and thereafter.


----------



## EdwardBast

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Music was definitely considered high art at the time of Mozart and Haydn. Just read the reviews of Haydn's symphonies by his contemporaries:
> 
> „Der unvergleichliche Haydn schuf eine Ouvertüre[4], die sich nicht mit gewöhnlichen Worten beschreiben lässt. Sie ist eine der großartigsten Leistungen der Kunst, die wir jemals erlebt haben. Sie ist reich an neuartigen, großen und eindringlichen musikalischen Gedanken, sie erhebt die Seelen und die Gefühle. Das Werk wurde mit begeistertem Applaus begrüßt."[5]
> 
> Translated from German: The inimitable Haydn created an overture, which cannot be described with usual words. This is one of the greatest achievements of art hitherto experienced. It is filled with new, expansive and striking musical thoughts; it raises the soul and the emotions. The work was applauded with great enthusiasm."


When was this written? And by whom?


----------



## Nereffid

EdwardBast said:


> When was this written? And by whom?


Quick bit of Googling reveals it's a February 1794 review of Haydn's Symphony no.99: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/99._Sinfonie_(Haydn)


----------



## KenOC

I remember reading a similarly gushing review of Haydn's Military Symphony, from a London critic.


----------



## millionrainbows

Beethoven speaks to us as individuals. He had a great desire to communicate to us. Aren't we lucky that we had him?


----------



## Vesteralen

I no longer attend concerts at Heinz Hall in Pittsburgh because of the sound. It seems that they must use amplification by speakers and the high end distortion makes it a very uncomfortable experience for me.

That being said, the last season for which I had tickets had a lot of two-thirds filled concerts. The one Brahms/Beethoven concert on my schedule was packed out. I believe it was Brahms' First Piano Concerto and Beethoven's Fourth Symphony. I met a young man and his fiancé at a party the next night and he said he saved his money to get tickets specifically for that one concert - because of the Brahms.

I'd like to support the orchestra, but they have got to do something about the sound.


----------



## EdwardBast

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Music was definitely considered high art at the time of Mozart and Haydn. Just read the reviews of Haydn's symphonies by his contemporaries:
> 
> „Der unvergleichliche Haydn schuf eine Ouvertüre[4], die sich nicht mit gewöhnlichen Worten beschreiben lässt. Sie ist eine der großartigsten Leistungen der Kunst, die wir jemals erlebt haben. Sie ist reich an neuartigen, großen und eindringlichen musikalischen Gedanken, sie erhebt die Seelen und die Gefühle. Das Werk wurde mit begeistertem Applaus begrüßt."[5]
> 
> Translated from German: The inimitable Haydn created an overture, which cannot be described with usual words. This is one of the greatest achievements of art hitherto experienced. It is filled with new, expansive and striking musical thoughts; it raises the soul and the emotions. The work was applauded with great enthusiasm."


Not surprising; Aesthetic opinions and systems don't change over night. Romanticism in literature was well under way by this time, and some early romantic critics were ready to praise Haydn and Mozart as great romantic composers. Nor did music leap to the pantheon of the arts overnight. Haydn's late symphonies and Mozart's also had a role in its ascendancy. And a music critic might be especially interested in this ascendancy and in furthering it. I was addressing general aesthetic theories and trends. The edges naturally blur when one focuses on some of the fine grain, as you have.


----------



## KenOC

We tend to think of Beethoven as somebody who "changed everything." There's truth in this, but the musical world where he lived was ready, even anxious, for the change he brought -- or so it seems to me.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven speaks to us as individuals. He had a great desire to communicate to us. Aren't we lucky that we had him?


You have just explained in both the simplest and most profound way why Beethoven 'fills the house'.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> You have just explained in both the simplest and most profound way why Beethoven 'fills the house'.


I agree with Millions but only halfway. It's one thing to "speak to us as individuals," another to say something we want to hear.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven speaks to us as individuals. He had a great desire to communicate to us. Aren't we lucky that we had him?


What does he say?


----------



## Guest

Mandryka said:


> What does he say?


Oh, you know, "buh buh buh bummmmm" and "Bump... Bump... buhbubbuhbuh buhbuh buhbubbuhbuh buhbuh buhbubbuhbuhbuhbuhbuhbubbuhbuh buhbuh," "buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buhhhh buhbuhhhh." Stuff like that.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> Folks in the classical era didn't generally believe music was an expression of the human experience in any central way whatever. Beethoven seems to have believed it was, and this view became more and more pervasive in the later part of his life and thereafter.


I think what the issue here is, is that you are over-simplifying music's function pre-Beethoven. I don't think it is something that can be summed up by reading general thoughts of the day on aesthetics. You have conceded musical thought was not a monolithic thing - the lines blur and Romantic thought was coming to the forefront already in the Classical era. I think great composers compose in a rather instinctive manner, as a result I don't think they are always capable of readily explaining their art in words after the fact (can art ever be adequately explained in words?) or had the general philosophies in mind to help people grasp it coinciding with the thoughts our current mainstream society deems as an acceptable way of viewing music.

If you are arguing that the expressive qualities in Beethoven's music is more in line with the expressivity of rock and all music popular, I think one could just as easily argue that he was responsible for a general decline in music. However, I think Beethoven's primary influence was on the Romantic era, he had some influence on the Modern era, (but not more so than many other composers before and after him), and I think he has had very minimal influence on the popular music of today.

I think music was coming to be seen as a more expressive thing before Beethoven, he just happened to be the guy that was active and innovative during that period of change in musical philosophy. The wheels were already set in motion before him, he was a product of his time.


----------



## Oebis

Name recognition. Imagine our conservative, well-respected man; just doing his rounds, covering his night and day with relentless work -- "I deserve something", he thinks. But already there are doubts: he has an unconscious desire to punish himself; he feels bad for indulging, after all. So what does he think of, perchance? He thinks of culture: it bores him, though he is loathe to admit it, but it looks good to look your friend in the eyes, and, with a little too much casual inflection, say, "I saw a symph-oh-kneee" -- thus, he goes to a concert: but which one? He is out of his world and his depth; but, he thinks: I can prevent drowning if only it is Beethoven's depth. Beethoven knows all about joy, after all: he can provide just the small amount I desire. Therefore he sees Beethoven.


----------



## EdwardBast

I've been out of my country and incommunicado, so, late reply:



tdc said:


> I think what the issue here is, is that you are over-simplifying music's function pre-Beethoven. I don't think it is something that can be summed up by reading general thoughts of the day on aesthetics. You have conceded musical thought was not a monolithic thing - the lines blur and Romantic thought was coming to the forefront already in the Classical era. I think great composers compose in a rather instinctive manner, as a result I don't think they are always capable of readily explaining their art in words after the fact (can art ever be adequately explained in words?) or had the general philosophies in mind to help people grasp it coinciding with the thoughts our current mainstream society deems as an acceptable way of viewing music.


Nothing I disagree with here.



tdc said:


> If you are arguing that the expressive qualities in Beethoven's music is more in line with the expressivity of rock and all music popular, I think one could just as easily argue that he was responsible for a general decline in music. However, I think Beethoven's primary influence was on the Romantic era, he had some influence on the Modern era, (but not more so than many other composers before and after him), and I think he has had very minimal influence on the popular music of today.


I was not in any way relating the expressivity of Beethoven with that of rock music, only observing that the basic premise behind Romantic expressive aesthetics is so deeply ingrained in the public consciousness that even teenage stoners today are likely to have it on the tips of their tongues. Beethoven's influence on 20thc music was enormous, especially since what Richard Taruskin has described as "heroic classicism" modeled on the Beethovenian tradition was pretty much the officially sanctioned standard for Soviet instrumental music and the doctrine of socialist realism as it applied to music. Moreover, virtually every composer of more or less traditional multimovement cycles in the 20thc, from Mahler to Schnittke, was deeply indebted to Beethoven's essays in the craft.



tdc said:


> I think music was coming to be seen as a more expressive thing before Beethoven, he just happened to be the guy that was active and innovative during that period of change in musical philosophy. The wheels were already set in motion before him, he was a product of his time.


There were hundreds of guys active during the period of change in musical philosophy. There is a reason why, out of that crowd, it is Beethoven's name we know. The "product of the times" versus "architect of history" argument is not a very productive one. Nearly all of the great composers are/were both. By many objective standards and relatively speaking, however, it is exceptionally easy to make the case for Beethoven as architect.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> ...There were hundreds of guys active during the period of change in musical philosophy. There is a reason why, out of that crowd, it is Beethoven's name we know. The "product of the times" versus "architect of history" argument is not a very productive one. Nearly all of the great composers are/were both. By many objective standards and relatively speaking, however, it is exceptionally easy to make the case for Beethoven as architect.


The way I think of it, society wanted a new kind of music and Beethoven was the right guy to develop it. He didn't fight his society, he was very much a part of it. The right man in the right place at the right time, as they say. Failing any one of those three, things would have turned out quite differently. Certainly there was no plausible substitute for Beethoven, in the musical capital of Europe or even elsewhere, in those times.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

some guy said:


> Oh, you know, "buh buh buh bummmmm" and "Bump... Bump... buhbubbuhbuh buhbuh buhbubbuhbuh buhbuh buhbubbuhbuhbuhbuhbuhbubbuhbuh buhbuh," "buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buh buhhhh buhbuhhhh." Stuff like that.


hehe, the beginnings of the 5th and the Eroica, respectively?


----------



## Dim7

"Bump... Bump..." fits Eroica but the rest, not so much.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven speaks to us as individuals. He had a great desire to communicate to us. Aren't we lucky that we had him?


I think every single composer, even ones we don't really enjoy, speak to us as individuals, since they all have a specific, individual idea in mind when composing, and all ellicit an individual response from the listener. So I think this statement can be applied to all composers of music.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Dim7 said:


> "Bump... Bump..." fits Eroica but the rest, not so much.


the 'buhbuh' represents the lead melody. I can sort of piece it out, hehe.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

KenOC said:


> We tend to think of Beethoven as somebody who "changed everything." There's truth in this, but the musical world where he lived was ready, even anxious, for the change he brought -- or so it seems to me.


A good way to put it - basically, Haydn and Mozart were already pointing the way quite clearly . Still though, I think it's harmful to think of both Haydn and Mozart merely as 'precursors' to Beethoven.


----------



## Guest

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> hehe, the beginnings of the 5th and the Eroica, respectively?


And the tune in the fourth movement of the ninth. You know the one.


----------



## Guest

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I think every single composer, even ones we don't really enjoy, speak to us as individuals, since they all have a specific, individual idea in mind when composing, and all ellicit an individual response from the listener. So I think this statement can be applied to all composers of music.


I clicked a like for this post, as you can see, principally because of the "can applied to all composers" part, but I would put it a bit differently, myself:

No composer, whether we enjoy them or not, speaks to any of us, individually or collectively. Why, most of the dead composers couldn't have known us, and most of the living ones haven't met us yet. All composers have all sorts of things in mind when composing, including, but not confined to, "when will dinner be ready?" and "does that cute boy in the percussion section think I'm nice?" Any listener is apparently able to hear all sorts of things in any old piece,* kind of like the ability to see faces in rock formations (including the one in that big old rock circulating around our own big old rock here) and to see various and sundry shapes in the clouds.









Each of us can perceive things, whether or not the things we're perceiving were intended for us to perceive or not.

*I've mentioned this before, and it looks like, yes, I'm going to mention it again. What gall. Some friends and I used to listen to music together. I know, but this was in the long ago, in the before time. We didn't have iPhones, just radio and TV. We even had to go to special buildings, called "movie theaters," to watch films. Anyway, there was one thing we found particularly amusing to do. We'd listen to whatever, maybe Xenakis' _Pithoprakta_ or Lachenmann's _Grido_ or even Dvorak's _Requiem,_ maybe. Nurse With Wound was always fun.

At some point, one or the other of us would say, to describe what we were hearing "It is dawn in the forest..." and then there'd be howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.

Australia Australia Australia we love you amen!

(Full disclosure: "dawn in the forest" came from an actual paper about some piece of music or other that a poor, oft-bemocked student had written. That person never KNEW that they were being mocked. We may have been cruel, but we were also fair.

The outburst about Australia is not me losing my mind--that happened already ever so long ago--but a reference to a Monty Python sketch. Cruel but fair refers to another of those sketches. I am not getting one pence for mentioning these sketches. In the long ago, in the before time is from South Park, which also pays me nothing to mention that show.

Stick around. I have great lines from Archer and from Broad City and from Workaholics, too, not to mention, so be careful not to encourage me in any way.)


----------



## papsrus

some guy said:


> (...)
> No composer, whether we enjoy them or not, speaks to any of us, individually *or collectively*. Why, most of the dead composers couldn't have known us, and most of the living ones haven't met us yet.
> 
> (...)


Does this not overlook the idea that as humans we share certain collective notions about love, hate, joy, heartbreak, man, God, etc.? That these are ideals which go a bit beyond guessing from the music how the composer may have felt about what they were having for dinner that night?


----------



## Guest

Yes papsrus, it does.

And that is because certain collective notions about love, hate, joy, whatever are just exactly that, collective.

Not Beethoven speaking directly to some guy, but both myself and Beethoven sharing--quite vaguely and generally--some common cultural notions.

The gist of my post, of course, was to make the whole "communicating" idea as absurd as possible to inject just a skosh of balance into the imbalanced love-fest going on here.

It wasn't hard to do, either.


----------



## DaveM

some guy said:


> Yes papsrus, it does.
> 
> And that is because certain collective notions about love, hate, joy, whatever are just exactly that, collective.
> 
> Not Beethoven speaking directly to some guy, but both myself and Beethoven sharing--quite vaguely and generally--some common cultural notions.
> 
> The gist of my post, of course, was to make the whole "communicating" idea as absurd as possible to inject just a skosh of balance into the imbalanced love-fest going on here.
> 
> It wasn't hard to do, either.


I wouldn't be the first to say that music is a universal language. And a universal language can to speak to us as individuals. A love-fest surrounding Beethoven that permeates this thread is no surprise to me. He's been my soft-shoulder for decades!


----------



## Guest

Yeah, you're right. I'm supposed to be the last person to want to impugn a love-fest of any kind!

What was I thinking? Love-fests are supposed to be imbalanced. Only if they're not is something amiss.

Let the "communicating as absurd" thing stand, BUT also let the love-fest continue unabated.:tiphat:


----------

