# Beethoven - Symphony No. 3



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

How do you rate this piece? A user (Xisten267) suggested a recording of the New York Philharmonic with Leonard Bernstein for the second symphony, so I will post a recording of the same team for the symphony 3. You can suggest better versions, if you want.


----------



## shaun fernandez (6 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> How do you rate this piece? A user (Xisten267) suggested a recording of the New York Philharmonic with Leonard Bernstein for the second symphony, so I will post a recording of the same team for the symphony 3. You can suggest better versions, if you want.
> 192.168.100.1 192.168.1.1​


for me Beethoven never gone wrong ! I like it "very good"


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

So - what about those last two movements? 

I remember being amused at a contemporary account from the English press saying something about a performance of the Eroica where it was "correctly ended after the second movement", and while this is was sort of portrayed as a "old music critics write the darndest things" sort of thing, there really is something fundamentally strange about a symphony where the first half is loosely programmatic, and the second half... really isn't.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

That’s my favorite from Lenny’s NYPO cycle


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Surprisingly not my fave Beethoven symphony but a seminal piece. Lots of good uns but Honeck or Weil for the 3rd for me, but Savall has knocked it outta the park twice, Norrington did it really well 2nd time round with the SWR and Tennstedt did a fine one for Profil with the NDR. For older ones Herbie always made a very good job of it and Scherchen is a total blast.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Listened last evening to Erich Kleiber conducting the Concertgebouw. Wow! The most exciting performance I’ve ever heard.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Several years back the BBC Music magazine polled a bunch of conductors asking "what is the greatest symphony ever written?" The answer: the Eroica. 

It does not lack for great recordings and they're all over the place the way they're played. I do prefer a chamber orchestra. My very favorite is a relatively new one: Paavo Jarvi with the Bremen chamber group on an RCA in stunning SACD sound. Then Mackerras with the RSNO. For big band: Rene Leibowitz with the Royal Philharmonic or the Bernstein mentioned above. It amuses me how many amateur orchestras play this - often poorly - it's usually underestimated in terms of difficulty.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Bernstein/NYPO is my favourite recording of this work. And the symphony itself is amazing of course. And the first movement has one of the best buildups and climaxes in all of classical music IMO


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

fbjim said:


> So - what about those last two movements?
> 
> I remember being amused at a contemporary account from the English press saying something about a performance of the Eroica where it was "correctly ended after the second movement", and while this is was sort of portrayed as a "old music critics write the darndest things" sort of thing, there really is something fundamentally strange about a symphony where the first half is loosely programmatic, *and the second half... really isn't.*


Are you sure? If one reads the first movement as the hero's struggles and death and the second movement as the funeral, why wouldn't the finale, based on The Creatures of Prometheus, be the fire brought down from heaven by the hero spreading after his death as a conflagration in the finale?

To all interested in programmatic readings of the _Eroica_, an excellent source is Scott Burnham's _Beethoven Hero_. It mentions some based on the Prometheus myth I think.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

A fine symphony but not one of my favorites from Beethoven - voted "good".


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It's in the top 10 -- usually the top 5 -- in any poll of top symphonies or compositions. It is undeniably one of the greatest compositions ever written and has stood the test of time for more than 200 years. Aside from the fact that some may not like it to grade it below outstanding is laughable.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Bulldog said:


> A fine symphony but not one of my favorites from Beethoven - voted "good".


You know the grade isn’t based on Beethoven’s symphonies but just in general. I can’t fathom which symphonies would be excellent


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

fbjim said:


> So - what about those last two movements?
> 
> I remember being amused at a contemporary account from the English press saying something about a performance of the Eroica where it was "correctly ended after the second movement", and while this is was sort of portrayed as a "old music critics write the darndest things" sort of thing, there really is something fundamentally strange about a symphony where the first half is loosely programmatic, and the second half... really isn't.


The scherzo is fine.
And, though it's arguably uneven, I love the finale.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I suspect my take on the Beethoven _Eroica_ mirrors that of many of the posters here. It is _not_ my favorite Beethoven symphony, and I don't listen to it very often in my daily-or-so "listening sessions". Still, I recognize it as a great symphony, perhaps even Beethoven's greatest symphony. It is definitely, as Merl terms it, "a seminal piece." In fact, had I to preserve only one Beethoven symphony for posterity, I would likely select the Third; it's _that _seminal. The work remains a turning point in Beethoven's art, in music in general, and in Western art in general. I rank it as one of the greatest works of art in our culture. And, stating that, I again feel a sense of guilt by my admission that I don't listen to this work as often as it likely deserves. Still, I don't confuse my "favorite" pieces with "seminal" pieces, and I can think of no better argument to make for a difference between those two options than to cite the case of the Beethoven Third.

I offer no definitive versions. Rather, listen to a lot of different interpretations. But if I were to reach for a copy off my shelves right at this moment, I would likely grab the recording by Rudolf Kempe and the Munich Philharmonic. What? Oh, yes. It just happens to be playing in the background at this very moment! Imagine that!

I remain fond of the Scherzo movement of the Beethoven Third; I rank it just below the Scherzo of Bruckner's Seventh as my favorite such movement. Too, I admire the Finale. I often wonder if it influenced Tchaikovsky when he was sketching his Fourth Symphony. 

As for the Prometheus angle to the symphony .... Prometheus has long proved a favorite character in the literature I read. He's the initial rebel who steals fire from the gods and gives it to men, his creatures whom he created by molding clay. (Recall that Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ novel is subtitled "The Modern Prometheus".) Prometheus is responsible for lifting men closer to the level of the gods, for civilizing them by giving them, actually, ‘techne’ (τέχνη) for which he is heinously punished. And Prometheus knew full well, having the gift of foresight (the very meaning of his name), that he would suffer such punishment even before he embarked on his wild gifting exercise. The gods, of course, especially Zeus, feared that man would use fire to eventually destroy the gods, and in a sense that is exactly what our use of technology has done, by supplying rational and provable answers to the questions of the world we live in. Of course, Prometheus is eventually freed from his sufferings by Heracles, a son of Zeus and the mortal Alcmene. And, there is the fascinating story of Io, seduced by Zeus, punished by Hera, and a crucial ancestor or Heracles, also woven into the fabric of this great myth, all of it very Beethovenish, I feel.

I reflect upon such things each time I listen to the Beethoven Third. And, as soon as I end typing here, I'll be at that same reflection, with the help of my stereo system and Kempe and his Munich musicians. Does it get more seminal than that?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I wonder why so many people even entertain the idea that movements 3+4 were "weak" or "too light" in the Eroica but not in the case of e.g. Beethoven's own 1st, 2nd, 4th, Berlioz' Fantastique (not even to start with Harold which is weaker after half of the first movement than anything Beethoven ever published), Brahms's 2nd or the common version of Bruckner's 3rd. The only other major piece I have seen this charge against is Bruckner's 7th (and it is a bit more plausible there although I think the piece is all the better for its terse finale).

If one looks at the proportions of the movements, they are actually quite similar to Beethoven's 1st and 2nd symphony. The first two movements are each of roughly the same length and 3+4 together match this length. In the 1st this is about 8-10 min, in the second 10-12 (similar in the 4th), in the 3rd 15-17 min. It doesn't fit perfectly (usually the slow movement is a bit shorter but I just looked at Harnoncourt's recordings and in all the first 4 symphonies the length of 3+4 is close to the length of the first movement), partly because 1 and 2 have slow intros to their first movements and of course also depends on tempi. But I cannot see how the 1st, 2nd and 4th should have proper balance but the 3rd's mvmts 3+4 be "too light".


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

larold said:


> It's in the top 10 -- usually the top 5 -- in any poll of top symphonies or compositions. It is undeniably one of the greatest compositions ever written and has stood the test of time for more than 200 years. Aside from the fact that some may not like it to grade it below outstanding is laughable.


1. Not everyone loves the Eroica, and the poll could be interpreted as asking about one's personal preferences. On forums like this, some posters may have been overexposed to this warhorse and no longer love it.

2. Some posters reject the existence of the canon of great works.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> I wonder why so many people even entertain the idea that movements 3+4 were "weak" or "too light" in the Eroica but not in the case of e.g. Beethoven's own 1st, 2nd, 4th, Berlioz' Fantastique (not even to start with Harold which is weak after half of the first movement), Brahms's 2nd or the common version of Bruckner's 3rd. The only other major piece I have seen this charge against is Bruckner's 7th (and it is a bit more plausible there although I think the piece is all the better for its terse finale).
> 
> If one looks at the proportions of the movements, they are actually quite similar to Beethoven's 1st and 2nd symphony. The first two movements are each of roughly the same length and 3+4 together match this length. In the 1st this is about 8-10 min, in the second 10-12 (similar in the 4th), in the 3rd 15-17 min. It doesn't fit perfectly (usually the slow movement is a bit shorter but I just looked at Harnoncourt's recordings and in all the first 4 symphonies the length of 3+4 is close to the length of the first movement), partly because 1 and 2 have slow intros to their first movements and of course also depends on tempi. But I cannot see how the 1st, 2nd and 4th should have proper balance but the 3rd's mvmts 3+4 be "too light".


Beethoven 4 is well-balanced with four movements of roughly equal weight.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Not everyone loves the Eroica _

One doesn't have to love something to see its substance or greatness. We learned the past 5 years not all Americans love democracy or equality. That doesn't diminish them or what they have done in the world. 

I don't like the Ninth Symphony but to suggest it is something less than one of the greatest pieces of classical music is preposterous. Same with Eroica. If you doubt this ask any musicologist.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

An excellent Symphony. The beginning stages of prime Beethoven. Which would last for many years.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> You know the grade isn’t based on Beethoven’s symphonies but just in general. I can’t fathom which symphonies would be excellent


I'll put it differently. Considering the entire world of classical music, I rate the Eroica as "good".


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

ORigel said:


> Beethoven 4 is well-balanced with four movements of roughly equal weight.


No, the 4th has the typical proportions of a classical symphony with a considerably shorter and lighter scherzo and finale. And the Eroica mostly keeps these proportions despite and overall much larger scale.
Despite the shallow lengthening of the scherzo to 5 instead of 3 parts the 4th has roughly the same proportions
I give you explicit playing times from Harnoncourt
3: 15'53, 14:35, 5'37, 11'27, so 3+4 17'04, about a minute more than 1
4: 12'14, 9'17, 5'43, 6'41, so 3+4 12'24, a few seconds longer than 1. 
Directly comparing 1st movement and finale, the Eroica finale is longer and weightier than the one of the 4th (and the same is true for the first two symphonies).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Are you sure? If one reads the first movement as the hero's struggles and death and the second movement as the funeral, why wouldn't the finale, based on The Creatures of Prometheus, be the fire brought down from heaven by the hero spreading after his death as a conflagration in the finale?
> To all interested in programmatic readings of the _Eroica_, an excellent source is Scott Burnham's _Beethoven Hero_. It mentions some based on the Prometheus myth I think.






(1797)
0:00 The Revolution
4:55 English March
8:32 March of the Austrians and Prussians
11:19 The Fate and Death of Louis XVI
14:23 Funeral March
18:21 English March
19:20 March of the Allies
20:42 The Tumult of a Battle
23:29 The Prospects of Peace
25:28 Rejoicing at the Achievement of Peace
"Wranitzky was highly respected by Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven; the latter two preferred him as conductor of their new works (e.g., Beethoven's First Symphony in 1800)"


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

This and the 6th are my favorite Beethoven pieces, for sure, though my favorite single movement goes to the 2nd of the Pastoral.

Here are my favorite Eroica movements ranked:
1. 4th
2. 1st
3. 3rd
4. 2nd

I voted* excellent.* Undeniably!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Excellent.

If I had to make a list of the Five Greatest Symphonies, Beethoven's 3rd would be on it.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Vey good , Bernstein, Haitink to name a few.


----------



## MusicInTheAir (Apr 21, 2007)

Not thinking the Eroica is great reminds me when I was on another classical music message board where there were two regular posters who insisted that Mozart wasn't very good. I only listen to the Third symphony once or twice a year because it's a very painful experience. The second movement brings up a lot of personal grief, so it's gotten fewer listens in the past couple of years. My two favorite performances of the work are by Klemperer and Szell. I also like Barbirolli and Sir Colin Davis (the first go round).


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

larold said:


> _Not everyone loves the Eroica _
> 
> One doesn't have to love something to see its substance or greatness. We learned the past 5 years not all Americans love democracy or equality. That doesn't diminish them or what they have done in the world.
> 
> I don't like the Ninth Symphony but to suggest it is something less than one of the greatest pieces of classical music is preposterous. Same with Eroica. If you doubt this ask any musicologist.


The question the poll asks is, "How do _you_ rate the piece?" It doesn't explicitly ask how "great" the Eroica is. If you don't like the Ninth symphony, you can rate it as "horrible" if you want, and clarify you're talking about your personal reaction to the music (or not).

As of the time I'm posting, 80% (or 20) of the respondents rated the Eroica as "excellent" and 8% (or 2) as "very good" which is what you'd expect from a poll of a work of that caliber. The results mean 80% either love the symphony or acknowledge its greatness.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> No, the 4th has the typical proportions of a classical symphony with a considerably shorter and lighter scherzo and finale. And the Eroica mostly keeps these proportions despite and overall much larger scale.
> Despite the shallow lengthening of the scherzo to 5 instead of 3 parts the 4th has roughly the same proportions
> I give you explicit playing times from Harnoncourt
> 3: 15'53, 14:35, 5'37, 11'27, so 3+4 17'04, about a minute more than 1
> ...


The first two movements of the Eroica are emotionally weightier than the scherzo and finale; the four movements of the Fourth are each of roughly equal emotional weight (the symphony is less emotionally weighty overall). It gives the impression of being more balanced, at least to me. I listened to a piano reduction of the Fourth earlier today and was surprised at how short the scherzo objectively was.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Of course the two first movements are weightier. But this is absolutely standard; there are very few exceptions, up to and including Beethoven, the only somewhat clear exceptional case probably being the Jupiter finale. One can of course argue that they are especially weighty in the Eroica. But unless one finds the finale "light" because of it's uncommon form, it's not shorter in proportion to the first movement than in 1,2,4 or 7 (with repeat 7,i takes about 14 min vs. 8 for the finale which is more "top heavy" than the Eroica, granted, the scherzo is more weighty in the 7th and with observing all repeats will be longer than allegretto or finale) The clear weight shift towards the finale takes place in the 5th and the 9th.

For the Scherzo, I think one can also make the case that it is on a larger scale in proportion with the rest of the symphony. Again, the scherzo is the "lightest" movement in a symphony by default, that's mostly true even for gigantic scherzi like in Beethoven's 9th or in Bruckner. In the Eroica there is obviously an extension of scale by the long "suspended" beginning and the strong contrasts with the violent tutti outburst. Despite no difference in length this is more "serious" than the rather playful scherzo of the 4th.
I'll admit also that the 4th is overall a much lighter piece with a comparably lightweight 1st movement. They are all individual pieces and Beethoven had different "dramatic arcs" and movements balances in all 9.

But the relative dimensions of the Eroica are not nearly as different as is often claimed, I think. Part of this impression might be a tradition of too slow first movements, dragging each to 18 min or more, when it should be about 15-16 for the first and 13-15 for the funeral march.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Have always loved the "Eroica", so I voted excellent. My go-to recording is by my distant relative Lovro von Matacic and the Czech Philharmonic. The orchestra in particular plays Beethoven as to the manner born.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Love the Eroica., much more than the 5th - or maybe even the 9th. The fullness of inspiration in the groundbreaking first movement, the elegiac depths of the funeral march, the proto-Bruckner horn fanfares in the scherzo and the wonderful kaleidoscopic soundscape of the finale.

Two of my favorite recordings are very much incompatible, interpretation-wise. Savall's HIP performance is dramatic, tense and strong, full of contrast, channeling Beethoven's revolutionary spirit - while Barbirolli's hyper-romantic traditional reading caresses every melody, infuses intense expression and makes the music radiate elegance and human warmth.
Both performances feel absolutely right when I listen to them, but they couldn't be more different. That's the magic of great music and great music making.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Somebody thinks the Eroica is Horrible?! Beethoven may not always be someone's favorite composer, you may not like his symphonies, you may prefer chamber music, you maybe more into the Baroque, but horrible?!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

haziz said:


> Somebody thinks the Eroica is Horrible?!


It's likely that one particular TC member votes "horrible" on all these polls coming from Hans.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Of course the two first movements are weightier. But this is absolutely standard; there are very few exceptions, up to and including Beethoven, the only somewhat clear exceptional case probably being the Jupiter finale.


+ the later, 3-movement symphonies of M Haydn; the 27th 28th, 29th, especially 31st (the jarring dissonant finale), 39th, etc.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

I don't think the "Eroica" is all that special; it's just kind of average stuff, catchy at points. I don't think World War II has had much significance in world affairs. The Internet hasn't really changed anything. The creation of agriculture? It's arguably just a fad that will pass like all the others. For awhile, people made a big deal about the taming of fire, but who uses it anymore?


----------



## JimZipCode (Feb 16, 2021)

For almost 30 years I've been listening to a performance conducted by Otto Klemperer. I probably chose it off a review in the Penguin Guide, likely because they mentioned that Klemperer “observed the exposition repeat.” Observing the first movement repeat gives it a nice weight (that's probably a near-direct quote from the Penguin review, but it has proved true).
The symphony was one of my go-to's for heads-down coding in the 90s: go under the headphones and get to work. Along with some techno, like U2's "Lemon - Perfecto Mix" and Orbital. Good music for concentration.
I love it. The third and the seventh are my two favorite Beethoven symphonies – probably the seventh a little bit ahead of the third, but it's close. There's a MOMENT in the second mvmt, one of my favorite held chords of all time. It's at 30:54 in this vid:




It should have a fermata in every performance 
I was surprised when I listened to the Eroica Variations (piano), that it's basically just a piano transcription of the 3rd symphony's fourth movement.
The _Das Boot_ soundtrack has some Eroica references.

*EDIT:*


JimZipCode said:


> For almost 30 years I've been listening to a performance conducted by Otto Klemperer.


No! I lied! It's Eugen Jochum conducting the Royal Concertgebouw. 
This one:
Beethoven, Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, Eugen Jochum - Symphony No. 3 «Eroica»


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Have always loved the "Eroica", so I voted excellent. My go-to recording is by my distant relative Lovro von Matacic and the Czech Philharmonic. The orchestra in particular plays Beethoven as to the manner born.


Matacic/CzPO is indeed a great Eroica one of my 3 favorites....Toscanini /NBC "49 and Reiner/CSO are my other 2 faves...all 3 outstanding...with Toscanini and Reiner you get clear textures, plus a drive, forward propulsion that is most compelling...the orchestral tutti accents are real gut punches not soft, gentle love taps...love the horn trio in the Scherzo with Reiner...horns are rough, gruff, with Horn I (P. Farkas) soaring off to the high Ebs...great stuff!!
Bernstein, Szell, Solti are all good, too...


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Kreisler jr said:


> Of course the two first movements are weightier. But this is absolutely standard; there are very few exceptions, up to and including Beethoven, the only somewhat clear exceptional case probably being the Jupiter finale. One can of course argue that they are especially weighty in the Eroica. But unless one finds the finale "light" because of it's uncommon form, it's not shorter in proportion to the first movement than in 1,2,4 or 7 (with repeat 7,i takes about 14 min vs. 8 for the finale which is more "top heavy" than the Eroica, granted, the scherzo is more weighty in the 7th and with observing all repeats will be longer than allegretto or finale) The clear weight shift towards the finale takes place in the 5th and the 9th.
> 
> For the Scherzo, I think one can also make the case that it is on a larger scale in proportion with the rest of the symphony. Again, the scherzo is the "lightest" movement in a symphony by default, that's mostly true even for gigantic scherzi like in Beethoven's 9th or in Bruckner. In the Eroica there is obviously an extension of scale by the long "suspended" beginning and the strong contrasts with the violent tutti outburst. Despite no difference in length this is more "serious" than the rather playful scherzo of the 4th.
> I'll admit also that the 4th is overall a much lighter piece with a comparably lightweight 1st movement. They are all individual pieces and Beethoven had different "dramatic arcs" and movements balances in all 9.
> ...


I like the first two movements to be done with old-school tempos, so maybe that's why I have the impression(?)


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

> I was surprised when I listened to the Eroica Variations (piano), that it's basically just a piano transcription of the 3rd symphony's fourth movement.


The piano variations were written a few years _before_ the symphony and they are quite different, except for the beginning with the bass.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Next there should be a poll about how highly people rate breathing, or ice cream, or sex. ;-)


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

To me, the _Eroica _is one of the most astonishing symphonies ever created, and I greatly enjoy it.

Contrary to the view of others here, I don't think that it's finale is any less substantial than it's first two movements (it's actually longer in number of pages in the score than the slow movement by the way). The _englische_ was a dance that had humanistic connotations in Beethoven's time (because it allowed that people from distinct social classes danced together, as equals), and setting it to a complex piece of music, as Schiller asked, seems to have been a priority to the composer, that used a particular _englische_ not only in the finale of his third symphony but also as the main theme of the _Eroica_ variations for solo piano and of the finale of the ballet _The Creatures of Prometheus_. In my view, the last movement of the _Eroica_ symphony is the logic culmination of the narrative that the work allegedly follows, expressing the ideals of freedom and fraternity that the _aufklärung_ so dearly valued. In other words, it's Beethoven at his dreamer, humanistic side, as in the finale of his _Choral_ symphony.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

To me the Eroica finale is even greater. My Choral finale. It has a lot of personal meaning and I recall in my young years programming the melody as my doorbell, then my phone's midi ringtone, and eventually made it our official town's theme in _Animal Crossing._ Everywhere we went the townsfolk sang out our patriotic anthem of life celebration, probably the only thing that compelled me to actually play and bring the town to amazingly noble levels of beauty and order.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Next there should be a poll about how highly people rate breathing, or ice cream, or sex. ;-)


*Beethoven's 3rd Symphony* goes very well with breathing, ice cream, AND sex.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

pianozach said:


> *Beethoven's 3rd Symphony* goes very well with breathing, ice cream, AND sex.


I don't disagree (with the possible exception of the last). I'm just asserting that this poll is quite uncontroversial. Maybe they should focus on something more divisive.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I don't disagree (with the possible exception of the last). I'm just asserting that this poll is quite uncontroversial. Maybe they should focus on something more divisive.


It's not the first time that someone tell me that a poll is too predictable, but the last week I opened a poll about a minor work of Mozart and there are only two votes and no discussion: Mozart - KV 185 - Serenade No. 3 in D major

The users seem to be interested only about major works.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

In the case of an undisputed masterpiece like the Eroica, a poll about its qualities just makes no sense. Sure, one can like it or not, depending on one's taste, or just like the first two movements like some people here, that's perfectly fine - but "rating" a piece implies being in the position of giving an objective verdict - and rating the Eroica "horrible" would just be trolling or, if serious, showcase one's stupidity.
The problem with KV 185 is that it's just not interesting enough for a discussion. It's early Mozart, it is what it is, and it's not better or worse than those hundreds of other works he churned out before reaching maturity as a composer.
I think what these kind of threads need are works that are unique and well-known enough - and still be controversial to a certain degree.
For instance, I'm sure that if there was a thread about Orff's Carmina Burana, there would be quite some people here with a strong dislike of the work (including myself). While others would be fervent supporters. And it would be not all a matter of taste. One could claim on objective grounds it's mediocre music that doesn't deserve its popularity.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

RobertJTh said:


> In the case of an undisputed masterpiece like the Eroica, a poll about its qualities just makes no sense. Sure, one can like it or not, depending on one's taste, or just like the first two movements like some people here, that's perfectly fine - but "rating" a piece implies being in the position of giving an objective verdict - and rating the Eroica "horrible" would just be trolling or, if serious, showcase one's stupidity.


I don't think I have ever posted a horrible piece, but the radical "horrible" votes are quite common in my polls. Maybe it's because some people have binary judgements in music.

Although I disagree with the user who voted horrible, I also disagree with the users who voted "excellent".
Why?

Because in order to be really good, an orchestral piece must sound good when played with the piano, and the piano version of this piece is weak according to me.






Try to compare this with moonlight sonata (which is a piece where Beethoven really shows his compositional skills).







Why do I use this criteria? Because if an orchestral piece sounds good when played with the piano, it means that it has melodic substance.

In this case, a powerful and nice orchestration is used to inflate the melody. I think that the purpose of a large orchestra should be to give more power to a melody which is already powerful in itself.

Although this symphony is not horrible, I reserve "excellent" or "very good" for symphonies that sound good when played with the piano. Mozart's symphonies sound good at the piano too, so they are excellent.



> The problem with KV 185 is that it's just not interesting enough for a discussion. It's early Mozart, it is what it is, and it's not better or worse than those hundreds of other works he churned out before reaching maturity as a composer.


It's not the best piece of Mozart, but there is melodic substance in it: a piano version would work.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> Because in order to be really good, an orchestral piece must sound good when played with the piano, and the piano version of this piece is weak according to me.


I don't know what you're trying to prove here. The Liszt piano versions of Beethoven's symphonies are masterpieces of the art of transcription, and to me, they sound good, really good.



HansZimmer said:


> Why do I use this criteria? Because if an orchestral piece sounds good when played with the piano, it means that it has melodic substance.
> In this case, a powerful and nice orchestration is used to inflate the melody. I think that the purpose of a large orchestra should be to give more power to a melody which is already powerful in itself.
> Although this symphony is not horrible, I reserve "excellent" or "very good" for symphonies that sound good when played with the piano. Mozart's symphonies sound good at the piano too, so they are excellent.


Orchestration isn't just adding orchestral color to already existing melodic material. It adds numerous qualities on its own.
Just take Sibelius for example. Piano transcriptions of his symphonies never sound satisfying - so by your criteria they can't be "excellent" works. But why should we care what Sibelius sounds like on the piano when we can enjoy his works the way he intended them, played by an orchestra? It's the orchestral colors that shape his works, and you can't separate the melodies from their orchestral settings.
His symphonies do have melodic substance, plenty even. But it's just not the kind that translates well to a piano version.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

RobertJTh said:


> I don't know what you're trying to prove here. The Liszt piano versions of Beethoven's symphonies are masterpieces of the art of transcription, and to me, they sound good, really good.


As good as the moonlight sonata, which doesn't need a large orchestra to be effective?



> Orchestration isn't just adding orchestral color to already existing melodic material. It adds numerous qualities on its own.
> Just take Sibelius for example. Piano transcriptions of his symphonies never sound satisfying - so by your criteria they can't be "excellent" works. But why should we care what Sibelius sounds like on the piano when we can enjoy his works the way he intended them, played by an orchestra? It's the orchestral colors that shape his works, and you can't separate the melodies from their orchestral settings.
> His symphonies do have melodic substance, plenty even. But it's just not the kind that translates well to a piano version.


I know that some parts of the arrangement make sense only when they are orchestrated, but the central body of the melody should sound good even when you whistle it. There are whistleable tunes inside of Mozart symphonies which, combined with the nice orchestration (all the elements of the orchestral arrangements), make the pieces excellent.
For sure the melody is weaker if you simply whistle it, but it's still pleasant.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

There are plenty of really good melodies in the eroica symphony. It was written for an orchestra. The moonlight sonata was written for the piano. Suddenly moonlight is better because it ‘doesn’t need’ an entire orchestra to be effective? Since when does that matter. One of the worst takes I’ve read on this forum


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> Because in order to be really good, an orchestral piece must sound good when played with the piano, and the piano version of this piece is weak according to me.


Melody is one and only one of the fundamental aspects of music - others include rhythm, harmony, texture, tone color, dynamics, and form. To always stress only one aspect over the others in art appreciation makes no sense to me. If only cantabile melody in a piano is what matters, then Ludovico Einaudi must be a better composer than Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. What seems odd, no?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> Since when does that matter.


It matters for me, because I hear the notes beyond the instrumentation.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> Melody is one and only one of the fundamental aspects of music - others include rhythm, harmony, texture, tone color, dynamics, and form. To always stress only one aspect over the others in art appreciation makes no sense to me. If only melody cantabile in a piano is what matters, then Ludovico Einaudi must be a better composer than Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. What seems odd, no?


For me the melody is the most important ingredient. The other elements are the side dish. You can have a different point of view, but this is my point of view. In order to enjoy a piece of music I need a good melody. I was only explaining why, according to my point of view, this symphony is not excellent: I've heard better melodies in classical music.

I don't understand your point about Bach. There are great melodies in his pieces. In the baroque music the melody is central, that's why I tend to prefer the music of the baroque and early classical period.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> For me the melody is the most important ingredient. The other elements are the side dish. You can have a different point of view, but this is my point of view. In order to enjoy a piece of music I need a good melody. I was only explaining why, according to my point of view, this symphony is not excellent: I've heard better melodies in classical music.


I think that to systematically try to evaluate the objective artistic merits of compositions only using their melodic aspect as a measure is not reasonable. But individual taste is totally subjective, and if what you're evaluating is how much you like a piece, then you're free to establish whatever criteria you wish. Personal taste and perception of greatness don't have to coincide.



HansZimmer said:


> I don't understand your point about Bach. There are great melodies in his pieces. In the baroque music the melody is central, that's why I tend to prefer the music of the baroque and early classical period.


I don't think that J.S. Bach is not a good melodist. But he's more famous for interweaving melodic lines using the rules of counterpoint, and his arguably unmatched ability with the overall effect created by the juxtaposition of this material, both horizontally and vertically, and not with the individual melodies by themselves, is, in my view, what makes his music so special. In other words, Bach's genius lies primarily in his handling of texture and harmony.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I love the Eroica symphony in a vacuum. Compared to the other eight by Beethoven, it's probably ranking about seventh with me.

Favorite version: Vladimir Jurowski with London Philharmonic Orchestra

For those wanting great third and fourth movements, consider Cluytens/BPO, Vanska/Minnesota, and Chailly/Gewandhausorchester Leipzig.

Solti/CSO 1970's has one of the best second movements.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

That the orchestral work that would sound best on piano (why on unmelodic, percussive piano rather than arranged for brass band or whatever?) should therefore be superior, seems an utterly bizarre notion. Why bother with an orchestra at all?

It's a bit like claiming that we should compare black and white postcard sized repro of paintings like e.g. "The Medusa raft" (originally about 5x7m, it's just huge and the size is a considerable part of the effect it has).
I don't much care for the piano versions of Beethoven by Liszt, brilliant as they might be. And it's difficult to compare a piece like the "Moonlight sonata" to a symphony. But fwiw I think all Beethoven symphonies (as symphonies not in piano versions), except maybe the 1st are considerably more accomplished pieces than the Moonlight sonata. But such comparisons are usually not helpful because the specific differences of such really different pieces are not recognized better if we think of one of them as a "weaker variant" of the others. (There might sometimes be such cases but Eroica vs. op.27/2 is not such a case.)


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> That the orchestral work that would sound best on piano (why on unmelodic, percussive piano rather than arranged for brass band or whatever?) should therefore be superior, seems an utterly bizarre notion.


Doesn't matter the instrument. The piano version is only an example. You can use two flutes, if you prefer.

What I wanted to say is simple: if the melody has an intrinsic quality, you can play it with any instrument (you can also whistle it) and it's always good. If a melody sounds weak unless it's played by a large orchestra, it means that the intrinsic quality of the melody is not high.



> Why bother with an orchestra at all?


Because a large orchestra adds further elaboration to the piece. The point is the following: I try to imagine to be a composer in the composing phase, before the arrangement phase. I'm playing my piano to elaborate a melody. Once I'm satisfied with the melodic idea, I go to the next phase: tha arrangement. You are ready to arrange for the orchestra once you already have a well elaborated melody in your hand. This is my point of view.

I heard the piano versions of orchestral works of Mozart and I think that he followed this process. He could have composed piano pieces (string duets, whatever you want) for his whole life, but he chose to arrange the pieces for orchestra simply because he wanted to further elaborate them, not because his melodies can be appreciated only with instrumental complexity.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Next there should be a poll about how highly people rate *breathing, or ice cream, or sex*. ;-)


How about a combination of all three 🤭


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I can sort of see where you are coming from, HZ. I will agree that if you can play a melody from a symphony or large orchestral piece on a single instrument, and it still sounds good, then that melody is probably a good one. However, I don't see that as a requirement for a good symphony. Take the start of the fourth movement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 as an example. It's recognizable and has bits that I can hum or sing along with the orchestra, but it would sound absurd if I tried to reproduce it a cappella. That part of the composition is not trying to be music for a single voice. Beethoven is using the musical forces at his disposal to create varying effects, and the approach is necessarily different than he used for solo or chamber pieces.

There are melodies that you can take from symphonies (e.g. the openings to Beethoven's 6th or Mozart's 40th) and have them sound great in almost any version of performance you choose. If that is what you are seeking, that is fine. However, that is not the way that most of the posters here are approaching symphonic works.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Of course, the reason for this is that they were already famous as symphonies and that the arrangements are by another famous composer. But among the few piano versions of orchestral pieces (as opposed to pieces that were written first for piano, like some of Ravel) that are professionally publicly played ARE in fact the (Liszt) Beethoven symphonies. Not Mozart or Brahms or Reger's versions of the Brandenburgs... so many people seem to think that they work extraordinarily well even as piano versions. 
As I said above, I have listened to some, not all (2,5,6,7 or so) of the Liszt arrangements and don't care much for them. But unless I dislike an original version for some odd reason, I rarely prefer alternative arrangements.

Works of Art are Wholes and have to be taken in all important aspects. It's almost never helpful to abstract and isolate certain aspects and use them as decisive markers of quality.

The Eroica is in some sense like a huge painting by David or Gericault (only better ). It's not a little piano suite later arranged for orchestra like Childrens corner or whatever. It can only be appreciated in its original form with a full orchestra. The volume, the tone, the breadth only works that way. 

If you want to study such differences that might be interesting, compare the Eroica finale with the piano variations op.35 based on the same melody. They are similar in some ways, rather different in others. Because Beethoven usually knew very well what he was doing.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> Of course, the reason for this is that they were already famous as symphonies and that the arrangements are by another famous composer. But among the few piano versions of orchestral pieces (as opposed to pieces that were written first for piano, like some of Ravel) that are professionally publicly played ARE in fact the (Liszt) Beethoven symphonies. Not Mozart or Brahms or Reger's versions of the Brandenburgs... so many people seem to think that they work extraordinarily well even as piano versions.
> As I said above, I have listened to some, not all (2,5,6,7 or so) of the Liszt arrangements and don't care much for them. But unless I dislike an original version for some odd reason, I rarely prefer alternative arrangements.
> 
> Works of Art are Wholes and have to be taken in all important aspects. It's almost never helpful to abstract and isolate certain aspects and use them as decisive markers of quality.
> ...


The point is not that I want to listen to the piano versions of orchestral pieces. I was trying to explain that when I listen to this piece I hear a nice orchestration full of energy, but for me the quality of the melodies is not the highest (I've heard better melodies in classical music).
For me, a great orchestration full of energy is not sufficient and I reserve the "excellent" for the pieces which have everything: excellent melodies and excellent orchestration.

Of course, it is possible that the users who voted excellent think that the melodies are excellent. It's a question of tastes. So, are the melodies excellent?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> The point is not that I want to listen to the piano versions of orchestral pieces. I was trying to explain that when I listen to this piece I hear a nice orchestration full of energy, but for me the quality of the melodies is not the highest (I've heard better melodies in classical music).
> For me, a great orchestration full of energy is not sufficient and I reserve the "excellent" for the pieces which have everything: excellent melodies and excellent orchestration.
> 
> Of course, it is possible that the users who voted excellent think that the melodies are excellent. It's a question of tastes. So, are the melodies excellent?


The _Eroica_ is a major masterpiece in all of classical music, but you don't like it so much because you don't like it's melodies. Got it.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> It's not the first time that someone tell me that a poll is too predictable, but the last week I opened a poll about a minor work of Mozart and there are only two votes and no discussion: Mozart - KV 185 - Serenade No. 3 in D major
> 
> The users seem to be interested only about major works.


Likely untrue.

Maybe it's the way I browse the site when I'm on it, but I don't recall seeing that thread.

It's also possible that people will rate, rank, and comment about major works because they are more FAMILIAR with them.

If one is unfamiliar with a work, then in order to rate, rank, and comment one needs to _listen_ to the work. In the case of Serenade 3, that's a 40 minute ride.

I'm one of the lucky few that can sight read music well. I can also sight "hear" music . . . so the screen shot of the Serenade shows the first page of the piece, and I can hear the tune just by looking at it. Because it's Mozart, I can also infer the harmonic structure. 

I've now heard the first 2 minutes, and without Googling I can make an educated guess that this is a fairly early work of Mozart's.

I love having it playing in the background, but it's awfully predictable. As it happens, that is just _one_ of the many things I actually enjoy about Mozart; that certain harmonic predictability, especially the earlier stuff. As such I'm not really enticed to participate in the poll, where I'd have to pick a single rating from "Horrible" to "Excellent". It's not _either_ of these things, nor really is it clearly any of the choices in between.

I'll guess that the intent of this "Serenade", or really, a divertimento, is to exist as a simple chamber piece meant to be _pleasant_. In that case it succeeds in a most "Excellent" way. But it's pointedly tonal and inoffensive . . . is that "Quite Bad" or "Quite Good"?

Fine, I'll rate it "Good". It's been playing as I typed this comment, and I've been enjoying it very much. And I'm halfway through it. It's sweet and lovely.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> The _Eroica_ is a major masterpiece in all of classical music, but you don't like it so much because you don't like it's melodies. Got it.


It's a masterpiece for people who like it more than many other pieces of classical music. It's not that god put the stamp on it


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> I heard the piano versions of orchestral works of Mozart and I think that he followed this process. He could have composed piano pieces (string duets, whatever you want) for his whole life, but he chose to arrange the pieces for orchestra simply because he wanted to further elaborate them, not because his melodies can be appreciated only with instrumental complexity.


That’s actually really funny because Mozart is one of the very few composers that composed from his head to the paper with no piano involved. _German musicologist Hermann Abert cited Mozart's first biographer Franz Xaver Niemetschek in his book, who originally wrote: "He never went to the keyboard when composing." Mozart's wife, Constanze, has also stated the same thing and added that he "only tried out a movement when it was finished".[7]. _
That’s straight from Wikipedia. So you can think all you want but it’s not true. If however you replaced Mozart with Beethoven you would be right


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> I don't think that J.S. Bach is not a good melodist.


But are his contemporaries "better"? Have you thought of that in terms of the idiom he worked with? Maybe part of the reason why Handel's 4-hour long operas are "cut to shreds" is because he's not any better than Bach (aside from a few famous arias)? Maybe many of Vivaldi's 500 concertos are said to be indistinguishable from each other because his melodic prowess? (I'm just asking).
Also think of Bach's instrumental music in general vs. Handel's. Aside from the famous G minor suite, which of Handel's would you consider to be superior to Bach in that department?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> It's a masterpiece for people who like it more than many other pieces of classical music. It's not that god put the stamp on it


No, it _is_ a major piece of music, one that changed history. It's very significant in terms of influence, originality, technical details (lot's of counterpoint that include fugal moments in three of it's movements, unprecedented level of development, daring harmony that includes shocking dissonance in the first movement, strong contrasts of pitch and dynamics etc.), and, one could argue, expression, regardless of you enjoying it or not.



hammeredklavier said:


> But are his contemporaries "better"?


I don't know. What I can tell is that usually J.S. Bach is more recognized as a genius of counterpoint and harmony (he was known as "grand master of the fugue" by his contemporaries, and Beethoven called him "father of harmony") than as a genius of melody. But, as I said, I don't think that he was not a good melodist.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> The point is not that I want to listen to the piano versions of orchestral pieces. I was trying to explain that when I listen to this piece I hear a nice orchestration full of energy, but for me the quality of the melodies is not the highest (I've heard better melodies in classical music).
> For me, a great orchestration full of energy is not sufficient and I reserve the "excellent" for the pieces which have everything: excellent melodies and excellent orchestration.


Neither is it for me. I actually rather dislike many pieces with flashy instrumentation I consider having not much "substance", e.g. Tchaikovsky's 2nd or Rimsky's Sheherazade (as you note, these do have nice tunes but tunes and colorful orchestration is not enough). But the substance of a piece is not mainly/only "pretty melodies". As I wrote above, it is a whole of all its elements that need to coherently work together to have their aesthetic effect. 
So you seem to miss or don't realize what other people consider central elements of great music, i.e. neither flashy orchestration nor pretty tunes. But overall coherence of harmony, melody, rhythm, instrumentation, formal structure, dramatic expression and contrast. All of which can and usually involve (hummable) "melody" but not necessarily so.

I am also a bit surprised how many people find the short melodic fragments in the (first movement) "Moonlight" "great melodies"; for me this is mostly a "mood" piece that has very little of what I'd see as hummable melody.



> Of course, it is possible that the users who voted excellent think that the melodies are excellent. It's a question of tastes. So, are the melodies excellent?


yes. I think the Eroica is melodically excellent. The melodies do exactly what they are supposed to to. Many, except for the finale theme might not be the greatest for whistling but that's not their purpose. They also work particularly well in the original orchestration. Someone compared the woodwind soli in the funeral march with different people mourning at a graveside. The trio is obviously tailored to the sonority of horns (although supposedly very difficult on natural instruments) and so on.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> No, it _is_ a major piece of music, one that changed history. It's very significant in terms of influence, originality, technical details (lot's of counterpoint that include fugal moments in three of it's movements, unprecedented level of development, daring harmony that includes shocking dissonance in the first movement, strong contrasts of pitch and dynamics etc.), and, one could argue, expression, regardless of you enjoying it or not.


In few words, you are saying that it's an elaborated piece.

Some weeks ago I was explaining to a user in an other forum how much work there is behind the film "Titanic" and how much Cameron invested in it:
- The film is a result of original scientific research: what you see at the beginning of the film are original filmings of the research company of Cameron (the same company is creating a videogame with which you will be able to explore the entire ship)

- Most of the things you see in the film are not digital effects: basically, they built a model of the ship that they could immerse in water in order to create the scenes of the sinking. Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winslet were really hovering over the bow of the ship at the end of the sinking.

That user still doesn't like the film and he refuses to consider it a cinematic masterpiece, but to when it comes to defend the classical music pieces that he likes he uses the "it's elaborated" argument.


Unlike him, I don't deny the seriousness of the work behind the products I don't like, but I enjoy some quartets more than many romantic symphonies, including this one.
I don't think that it's because I prefer simple pieces, but it's because they probably have a greater elaboration of aspects of music that I enjoy more than other things, like theme writing and melodic development.
Elaboration doesn't mean only "complexity": it also means spending a lot of time in refining the aesthetics of the melody.



> I don't know. What I can tell is that usually J.S. Bach is more recognized as a genius of counterpoint and harmony (he was known as "grand master of the fugue" by his contemporaries, and Beethoven called him "father of harmony") than as a genius of melody. But, as I said, I don't think that he was not a good melodist.


Counterpoint, fugal writting and so on... belong to the field of melody writing, so they must be considered "melodic skills". If Bach was able to write multilayered melodies that sound good, it means that he was a skilled melodist.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> In few words, you are saying that it's an elaborated piece.
> 
> Some weeks ago I was explaining to a user in an other forum how much work there is behind the film "Titanic" and how much Cameron invested in it:
> - The film is a result of original scientific research: what you see at the beginning of the film are original filmings of the research company of Cameron (the same company is creating a videogame with which you will be able to explore the entire ship)
> ...


What makes it sound really good is the harmony. The vertical aspect of the music is often more praised than the horizontal with fugues


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> What makes it sound really good is the harmony. The vertical aspect of the music is often more praised than the horizontal with fugues


Would this famous fugue of Bach sound so good without that good subject? 






If we establish that in classical music the melody doesn't matter, then we lose the 90% of persons, who will go with pop music because the pop composers know that the melody is important for most people.
In order to mantain and attract the public, we also have to care about elements about which pop music cares, but we have to put a greater quality in respect to pop music. 
This piece here above is an example: Bach, first of all, wrote a good theme, but he didn't stop there. He went further and he used that theme as a subject for a fugue. 
How can you produce a masterpiece if you don't care about the horizontal quality? If you do so, then it means that you didn't work hard on an important element of music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> The melodies do exactly what they are supposed to do.


What are they supposed to do?


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> Would this famous fugue of Bach sound so good without that good subject?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who here exactly established that in classical music melody doesn’t matter? To quote yourself you are answering to straw men. We just say that melody isn’t the end all be all of a piece. A piece can be a masterpiece also because of a lot of other factors mentioned many times here in this thread


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Excellent. Favorite recordings: Solti/CSO 1975; Blomstedt/Staatskapelle Dresden.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> In few words, you are saying that it's an elaborated piece.
> 
> Some weeks ago I was explaining to a user in an other forum how much work there is behind the film "Titanic" and how much Cameron invested in it:
> - The film is a result of original scientific research: what you see at the beginning of the film are original filmings of the research company of Cameron (the same company is creating a videogame with which you will be able to explore the entire ship)
> ...


_Titanic_ is not a movie I particularly enjoy (mostly because, despite the historical aspect, it's main story is a romance, and romances in the seventh art are not my cup of tea), but I can agree that it's a great movie. It's "great" in the sense that it's well-made, that it's a product of quality, and indicatives of this are that many critics are enthusiasts of it, and that it even won several academy awards. As I said before, I don't think that personal taste and perception of greatness need to coincide.



HansZimmer said:


> I don't think that it's because I prefer simple pieces, but it's because they probably have a greater elaboration of aspects of music that I enjoy more than other things, like theme writing and melodic development.


As far as I can tell, the first movement of the _Eroica_ symphony has more motivic development than any piece composed prior to it, including the _Moonlight_ sonata.



HansZimmer said:


> Counterpoint, fugal writting and so on... belong to the field of melody writing, so they must be considered "melodic skills". If Bach was able to write multilayered melodies that sound good, it means that he was a skilled melodist.


Counterpoint and fugal writing generate polyphony, which in my view is much more related to texture and harmony than with melodism - in counterpoint the melodic content is usually secondary to the overall textural effect, opposed to what happens in homophony, where the melody usually receives full attention and can really shine. But I didn't say that Bach wasn't a skilled melodist, and I acknowledge that some of the most beautiful arias I know from the Baroque era came from his pen.



HansZimmer said:


> If we establish that in classical music the melody doesn't matter, then we lose the 90% of persons, who will go with pop music because the pop composers know that the melody is important for most people.


Nobody here is saying that in classical music the melody doesn't matter. My point is that, although it _does_ matter, it is only one of several aspects that could be used as a measure of the perceived quality of a musical piece. Note also that non-classical is not only about melody - there _are_ songs in it that make use of counterpoint, that have distinctive harmony, that are long and formally elaborated etc.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> I don't know. What I can tell is that usually J.S. Bach is more recognized as a genius of counterpoint and harmony (he was known as "grand master of the fugue" by his contemporaries, and Beethoven called him "father of harmony") than as a genius of melody. But, as I said, I don't think that he was not a good melodist.


Yes, "a genius of counterpoint and harmony".

But Bach "not a good melodist"? Bah! 

*Air on the G String*
_*Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring
Bist du bei mir
Sheep May Safely Graze
Sleepers, Awake, BWV 140 (Wachet Auf)
Brandenburg Concertos No. 3 and No. 5
Concerto for Two Violins in D minor*_
*Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben
Cello Suite No. 2 in D minor
Magnificat in D Major
St. Matthew Passion*


You could sing the beginning of the *Toccata in D minor* without even thinking about it.

Not a good melodist? Sweet Wounded Jesus, *Bach was an extraordinary melodist*.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> It matters for me, because I hear the notes beyond the instrumentation.


The notes of an orchestral work are not abstract pitches. They don't exist "beyond the instrumentation." They are notes written for specific instruments. That's what it means to write a work for orchestra. Your statement is nearly as absurd as stating that the "Moonlight" is really bad because it isn't orchestral in conception.



HansZimmer said:


> What are [the melodies] supposed to do?


First and foremost, sound like they are suitable for and like they were composed for the instruments to which they are given.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

pianozach said:


> *Bach was an extraordinary melodist*.












pianozach said:


> *Bach was an extraordinary melodist*.












pianozach said:


> *Bach was an extraordinary melodist*.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Ethereality said:


>


Oh. Seinfeld memes. You've convinced me with yur mockery. Bach was a lousy melodist after all. Crappy. Couldn't write a melody to save his life. He's all harmony and counterpoint. No melodies at all.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

> Ludovico Einaudi must be a better composer than Bach


But also, we don't know how much better AI will get at those aspects outside of melody-





There was a trend in certain 18th century Germanic composers like-
"_At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered *negative features* of 'Germanic' music."_
Bruckner was interested in the colored harmonies of F.J. Aumann. Whether or not it's just a "style" can be a matter of opinion. For example, this stuff from 1768, with its dark, eerie-sounding 'contrapuntal harmonies' (in its many numbers such as the "Lasse Jesu von dem Leben Christ", "Jesu, der den Tod besiegt", "Es ist nicht g'nug"; I can't post them cause they're blocked on youtube due to copyright) is virtually forgotten.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Ethereality said:


> pianozach said:
> 
> 
> > B*ach was an extraordinary melodist*.


He was. I could identify probably 20 memorable melodic lines from the cello suites alone. How the "Bach wasn't very good at melody" thing ever started is beyond me. Maybe it's because Bach is so excellent that there has to be _some_ weakness in there somewhere. And then we're told that Brahms for example was a superior melodist. Eh?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> But also, we don't know how much better AI will get at those aspects outside of melody-


Frankly, I see AI as just another tool for composing. I don't think that it will substitute humans at it in the near future, as it's output is always based on the input by a programmer. Also, I don't believe that just making pastiches of established composers will make anyone a memorable musician, as originality is a key feature of prominent artists.



pianozach said:


> Yes, "a genius of counterpoint and harmony".
> 
> But Bach "not a good melodist"? Bah!
> 
> ...


I feel my posts in this thread are being misread by the members. I said I don't think that Bach was not a good melodist. I _didn't_ say he wasn't a good melodist.



Xisten267 said:


> I don't think that J.S. Bach is not a good melodist





Xisten267 said:


> But, as I said, I don't think that he was not a good melodist.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> Frankly, I see AI as just another tool for composing. I don't think that it will substitute humans at it in the near future, as it's output is always based on the input by a programmer. Also, I don't believe that just making pastiches of established composers will make anyone a memorable musician, as originality is a key feature of prominent artists.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel my posts in this thread are being misread by the members. I said I don't think that Bach was not a good melodist. I _didn't_ say he wasn't a good melodist.


Ah. Got it. I read your sentences too quickly. 

When you use double negatives in a sentence you run the risk to people thinking that you mean the exact opposite of your intended view.

_"I don't think that J.S. Bach is not a good melodist"_ is easily misread. 

You're saying "I do _not_ think that J.S. Bach is _not_ a good melodist." 

It probably would have been easier to leave out the self canceling pair of "nots", and simply said,

_"I . . . think that J.S. Bach is . . . a good melodist."  _


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

A great symphony though the Pastoral edges it out. As far as recordings go there are three that I'm very happy to listen to and all have been mentioned earlier in this thread

Toscanini NBCSO 1949
Rene Leibowitz RPO
Bernstein NYPO

I only came across Lenny's version in the last few years but it's probably top for me. The interpretative similarities between the Toscanini and the Leibowitz are striking.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

It’s pretty funny because I followed @Trout’s list and top 3 were Furtwangler, Scherchen en Szell 1955. Normally I always follow Trout’s lists but this time someone who wasn’t one the last was clearly the best who really understood the symphony and Beethoven. Lenny/NYPO


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

EvaBaron said:


> It’s pretty funny because I followed @Trout’s list and top 3 were Furtwangler, Scherchen en Szell 1955. Normally I always follow Trout’s lists but this time someone who wasn’t one the last was clearly the best who really understood the symphony and Beethoven. Lenny/NYPO


Lenny/NYPO is my favorite _Eroica_ as well.

Trout's list is a great reference for recordings, but not necessarily we always have to agree with it. I think it's a good idea to check other sources too, such as threads about specific works here at TC or Hurwitz channel on youtube for example. By the way, the _Pastoral_ with Bernstein/VPO is superb, easily one of the finest I've ever listened to in my opinion, and worth checking if you're a fan of the maestro like me.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Xisten267 said:


> Lenny/NYPO is my favorite _Eroica_ as well!
> 
> Trout's list is a great reference for recordings, but not necessarily we always have to agree with it. I think it's a good idea to check other sources too, such as threads about specific works here at TC or Hurwitz channel on youtube for example. By the way, the _Pastoral_ with Bernstein/VPO is superb, easily one of the finest I've ever listened to in my opinion, and worth checking if you're a fan of the maestro like me.


I haven’t heard lenny/VPO only his pastoral with the NYPO and that one’s excellent. Will definitely listen to it then. I really like trout’s list but indeed also check individual threads here on Tc and also Hurwitz’s channel. We are alike in that way!


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

to me there are three outstanding symphonists in the history of music ; beethoven (3, 5, 9), mahler (3, 9, 10), pettersson (6, 7, 9); the third by lvb has this relentless drive, awesome power, great structure and a couple of nice melodies; quite an appealing cocktail; it was probably the first great symphony ever written (although i would not discard the prague and jupiter by mozart), and we are clearly dealing with a milestone that has not been surpassed until today. jansson, honeck and chailly are the versions i listen to.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

EvaBaron said:


> It’s pretty funny because I followed @Trout’s list and top 3 were Furtwangler, Scherchen en Szell 1955. Normally I always follow Trout’s lists but this time someone who wasn’t one the last was clearly the best who really understood the symphony and Beethoven. Lenny/NYPO


I admire Lenny's NYPO Eroica, but there are several I would rank above it. 

Actually, my own Top 10 is not far from Trout's:

1. Furtwangler/BPO, 12/8/52
2. Klemperer/Philharmonia, 1959 stereo
3. Toscanini/NBC SO, 1939
4. Furtwangler/VPO, 1944
5. Karajan/BPO, 1984
6. Van Kempen/BPO, 1951
7. Kleiber/Concertgebouw, 1950
8. Klemperer/Philharmonia, 1955 mono
9. Szell/Cleveland Orch, 1957
10. Barbirolli/BBC SO, 1967


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> Frankly, I see AI as just another tool for composing. I don't think that it will substitute humans at it in the near future, as it's output is always based on the input by a programmer. Also, I don't believe that just making pastiches of established composers will make anyone a memorable musician, as originality is a key feature of prominent artists.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel my posts in this thread are being misread by the members. I said I don't think that Bach was not a good melodist. I _didn't_ say he wasn't a good melodist.


An AI recently composed "Beethoven's Tenth Symphony" out of a few sketches. Then an orchestra played only the third and fourth movements (probably because the first two movements were junk-- the press release last year bragged that those movements were more than 20 minutes long each, which is ominous). 

There is a sloppy scherzo based on the Fate motif of Beethoven's Fifth, and a sloppy rondo with no real emotion or drama. 
They tried to make it more appealing by adding in an organ part-- it does not redeem the symphony. 

The symphony is a lifeless pastiche of middle Beethoven. The programmers clearly did not train the AI on Beethoven's late period. They were aiming for an hour long symphony-- I think-- but as the orchestra refused to play the first two movements, they put it on a CD with the Eighth Symphony. The Amazon reviews complain of the poor quality of the CD-- I think the project was a scam to appeal to techno-nerds that did not have the listening experience to tell quality classical music apart from junk.

You can listen to the third and fourth movements on Youtube-- it's about 20 minutes long.






I have to say, it's impressive that an AI can ape middle Beethoven, just as it's impressive if a 6 year old knows their multiplication tables (that child would be good at math compared to their peers, but not compared to adults).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> An AI recently composed "Beethoven's Tenth Symphony" out of a few sketches.
> ...[a long rant on things everyone knows already]...





hammeredklavier said:


> we don't know how much better AI *will* get at those aspects outside of melody


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yeah, I like the "Eroica" - though not because it's revolutionary, or by Beethoven. None of that is relevant two hundred years after so many other musical revolutions have taken place.

I like it because it's a great musical piece.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

People knew about the clip of the scherzo that was posted on this forum last year; did they know about the conclusion to the experiment? I only found that video because I decided to search for it specifically..


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Is there an option better than Excellent? Symphonies, and music in general, don't get any better than this.

The persons who voted "Horrible" are either trolling or have no clue what excellent music is and should just retire from classical music listening since it's obvious they won't know good music even if it hit them in the face.

By the way, my new favourite recording is with Honeck conducting the Pittsburgh SO live in outstanding HD sound. A truly desert island CD.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I never get the "people don't understand properly" sentiment. A lot of times what a large majority consider great, I notice that to someone else it sounds just like another niche style, almost to where there's no real difference between a popular great piece and one they consider obscurely random. No, it's very subjective. Though if by happenstance our forum has become more similar in taste, then by consequence also more out of touch with reality.

Is The Erotica one of my favorites? Sure. And the Eroica as well. But is it better than Glazunov's Eroica Symphony? Not by a real discernable margin. Both have good form, but Glazunov's has much better colors and melodies, while Beethoven's has much better contrapuntal patterns.

The Pastoral is better than the Eroica anyway. Both are Beethoven's best works.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

ORigel said:


> People knew about the clip of the scherzo that was posted on this forum last year; did they know about the conclusion to the experiment? I only found that video because I decided to search for it specifically..


Everyone knows the current state of AI. Are you trying to say AI will stay that way in the next hundreds of years? I'm just asking - by the time AI has what it takes to do things creatively, will music written by the rules of counterpoint, for instance, still be viewed as having the same significance as it is now?

I think what you're saying is a non-argument, like "Bach was not a great melodist" in this thread. I'm reminded of Xisten's reservations about Mozart, which he expressed on various occasions. Not that I'm saying he's not entitled to them, but I have the impression that he sometimes tends to view certain composers not in the proper historical context of the general idiom they worked in. The first half of the 18th century, in Bach's case. It's worth asking, who in that time and before that time were "great melodists"? Are we thinking of them in terms of the modern day prejudices and stereotypes of what "great melody" is supposed to be? (I'm just asking).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe part of the reason why Handel's 4-hour long operas are "cut to shreds" is because he's not any better than Bach (aside from a few famous arias)? Also think of Bach's instrumental music in general vs. Handel's. Aside from the famous G minor suite, which of Handel's would you consider to be superior to Bach in that department?


"Brief musicological diversion: I feel pretty strongly encouraged by various scholars (who have presumably done their homework) that Bach was aware of a set of variations by Handel written some decades earlier, published in 1733. It so happens—by a twist of fate—that these variations are on the same first eight bass notes as the Goldbergs, and moreover that the last variation of the 62 (!) is a kind of canon, sort of a primitive harbinger of the amazing canons of the Goldbergs, etc. etc., blah blah blah. The upshot being: if you ever want to suffer an incredibly tedious time, if you want to be impelled to stick a fork in your brain just to stop the endless flood of mundanity, listen to Handel's 62 Variations." -Denk (from Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations')


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Everyone knows the current state of AI. Are you trying to say AI will stay that way in the next hundreds of years? I'm just asking - by the time AI has what it takes to do things creatively, will music written by the rules of counterpoint, for instance, still be viewed as having the same significance as it is now?
> 
> I think what you're saying is a non-argument, like "Bach was not a great melodist" in this thread. I'm reminded of Xisten's reservations about Mozart, which he expressed on various occasions. Not that I'm saying he's not entitled to them, but I have the impression that he sometimes tends to view certain composers not in the proper historical context of the general idiom they worked in. The first half of the 18th century, in Bach's case. It's worth asking, who in that time and before that time were "great melodists"? Are we thinking of them in terms of the modern day prejudices and stereotypes of what "great melody" is supposed to be? (I'm just asking).


I am not making any arguments. I am telling you of the results of this project. When we heard the news and listened to the clip of the scherzo, we all knew it would be a failure but not how it would be a failure.

Personally, I think we'll need to invent AGI to get great AI compositions that can rival the classics.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm reminded of Xisten's reservations about Mozart, which he expressed on various occasions.


Just to make it clear: Mozart is one of my favorite composers, and I love his music, listening to it very often. If by "reservations" you mean "not enjoying him as much as Beethoven, Bach, Wagner or, maybe, Brahms", then so be it, because these are the only musicians I may put above him. As far as I remember, the few times I sort of criticized Mozart in the past, it was comparing him to one of these composers (there's one exception to this, but I already clarified back in the day that I wasn't in a good moment when that happened).



hammeredklavier said:


> Not that I'm saying he's not entitled to them, but I have the impression that he sometimes tends to view certain composers not in the proper historical context of the general idiom they worked in.


Well, I have exactly the same impression about you every time you talk about any music composed after the _Eroica_. Maybe we both have our bias, huh?



hammeredklavier said:


> I think what you're saying is a non-argument, like "Bach was not a great melodist" in this thread. (...) It's worth asking, who in that time and before that time were "great melodists"? Are we thinking of them in terms of the modern day prejudices and stereotypes of what "great melody" is supposed to be? (I'm just asking).


I only saw someone arguing that Bach wasn't a great melodist in this thread so far in post #78 (and that person wasn't me), so I think you're overreacting. And my point some posts ago was that Johann Sebastian seems to me to always have been more recognized as a great harmonist and contrapuntist than as a melodist, not that he wasn't capable of creating memorable melodies. You seem to be misreading me.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EdwardBast said:


> The notes of an orchestral work are not abstract pitches. They don't exist "beyond the instrumentation." They are notes written for specific instruments. That's what it means to write a work for orchestra. Your statement is nearly as absurd as stating that the "Moonlight" is really bad because it isn't orchestral in conception.


No, the notes exist beyond the instrumentation because they are pitches and not timbres. The instruments are timbres, not pitches.

I agree that the timbres/instruments are important for the mood of the piece, but a real melody exists beyond the instrumentation: it's a singable melody.

Eine Kleine Nachtmusik for example is an orchestral piece, but it works with a piano MIDI too.







It is also true for the symphony 25 of Mozart, just to do an other example.









> First and foremost, sound like they are suitable for and like they were composed for the instruments to which they are given.



This is correct, because a melody has a mood and the instruments, with their particular timbres, must reinforce the mood of the melody. Furthermore, you can not play very long notes with all instruments.

However I was evaluating the symphony "Eroica" for the original orchestral arrangement, not for the piano version. There are many symphonies with more singable and memorable melodies, for example the "Symphony Fantastique" of Berlioz, but I could also mention the ninth symphony of Beethoven and all orchestral pieces of Mozart.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^ Only if you value melody above all other elements in music. My appreciation of the Eroica takes account of rhythm, texture, timbre, pace, key, energy, mood...(more besides I'm sure).


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Yes, "a genius of counterpoint and harmony".
> 
> But Bach "not a good melodist"? Bah!
> 
> ...


To evaluate a composer you must listen to all pieces and not only to masterpieces. In average, I think that Mozart was a better melodist than Bach. Why? Because if you take a random piece of Mozart and a random piece of Bach, it's likely that the one of Mozart has a better melody (more catchy and distinctive). Bach can however compete with Mozart as a melodist with his masterpieces.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> ^ Only if you value melody above all other elements in music. My appreciation of the Eroica takes account of rhythm, texture, timbre, pace, key, energy, mood...(more besides I'm sure).


First of all, I evaluate a piece for what I hear and not for what I read. I don't evaluate a piece ONLY for the melody, but ALSO (and in great part) for the melody, because it's a part of the music that I can hear. I can also hear the instruments and infact I have never said that they are not important, but they do a team game with the melody.

I can hear counterpoints, but I see the texture as a neutral part of the music. Why? Because a polyphony is good if the melodies of it are good. You can not say "my piece is good because it is polyphonic". It's good if the melodies are good.

I can hear the rythm, but this is created by the melody. A bad melody can have a good rythm, but also a good melody can have a good rythm. Why should I prefer a bad melody with a good rythm rather than a good melody with a good rythm? For example, why should I prefer "Eroica" rather than the ninth symphony of Beethoven, if the latter has a good rythm but better melodies?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

All fundamental aspects of music, including texture, can be heard. An active listener may find counterpoint very rewarding in the long run because there are many ways of hearing it (it's possible to focus in any of the separate voices at a time, or in the effect of all of them together, or in two of them at a time etc.). I don't think that melody necessarily is the most important of the basic features of music, but it seems logical to me that those who think it is (usually novices in classical music, I suppose) may have a better time with the famous melodists, Mozart, Schubert and Tchaikovsky included among them (I'm not saying that these composers are great only at melody).


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> All fundamental aspects of music, including texture, can be heard. An active listener may find counterpoint very rewarding because there are many ways of hearing it (it's possible to focus in any of the separate voices at a time, or in the effect of all of them together, or in two of them at a time etc.). I don't think that melody necessarily is the most important of the basic features of music, but it seems logical to me that those who think it is (usually novices in classical music, I suppose) may have a better time with the famous melodists, Mozart, Schubert and Tchaikovsky included among them (I'm not saying that these composers are great only at melody).


You should include Beethoven in the list of good melodists. I am saying that this symphony, according to me, is not the best piece of Beethoven, and not that Beethoven was not a great composer.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> You should include Beethoven in the list of good melodists. I am saying that this symphony, according to me, is not the best piece of Beethoven, and not that Beethoven was not a great composer.


I do think that Beethoven was a great melodist, but it's true that his usual method of composing tends to involve much more small motifs that are more rhythmical than melodic in nature, than elaborated, long themes, and so I think that the composers I cited tend to be viewed as more "natural" melodists than him. Beethoven could write gorgeous cantabile melodies when he wished though.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> First of all, I evaluate a piece for what I hear and not for what I read.


Who said anything about what you read (or what I read)?



HansZimmer said:


> I don't evaluate a piece ONLY for the melody, but ALSO (and in great part) for the melody, because it's a part of the music that I can hear. I can also hear the instruments and infact I have never said that they are not important, but they do a team game with the melody.


I didn't say you said the instruments are not important. But you did say, "For me the melody is the most important ingredient."



HansZimmer said:


> I can hear the rythm, but this is created by the melody. A bad melody can have a good rythm, but also a good melody can have a good rythm. Why should I prefer a bad melody with a good rythm rather than a good melody with a good rythm? For example, why should I prefer "Eroica" rather than the ninth symphony of Beethoven, if the latter has a good rythm but better melodies?


This is just riddle-me-ree. By all means prefer what you want, but please try not to present your preferences and the curious rules on which they are based as rules for everyone else.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> This is just riddle-me-ree. By all means prefer what you want, but please try not to present your preferences and the curious rules on which they are based as rules for everyone else.


I think that to prefer one piece of Beethoven more than an other one is a question of subjective tastes, while all pieces of Beethoven have objectively a higher quality than junk music like Gangnam Style (unless we want to state that the high culture is not objectively better than low culture).


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> I do think that Beethoven was a great melodist, but it's true that his usual method of composing tends to involve much more small motifs that are more rhythmical than melodic in nature, than elaborated, long themes, and so I think that the composers I cited tend to be viewed as more "natural" melodists than him. Beethoven could write gorgeous cantabile melodies when he wished though.


Are you speaking about symphonies or about all pieces of Beethoven? The symphonies are only nine pieces out of thousands.

I've heard many Mozartic melodies in violin sonatas, string quartets, ballets, rondos, minuets, dances and piano concertos of Beethoven. I could also mention the romances, but it would by an obvious statement.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> _Titanic_ is not a movie I particularly enjoy (mostly because, despite the historical aspect, it's main story is a romance, and romances in the seventh art are not my cup of tea), but I can agree that it's a great movie. It's "great" in the sense that it's well-made, that it's a product of quality, and indicatives of this are that many critics are enthusiasts of it, and that it even won several academy awards. As I said before, I don't think that personal taste and perception of greatness need to coincide.


The main story of the Titanic is the tragedy, not the romance. If it was only for the romance, it wouldn't have had all this success.

As explained by Cameron, the love story INSIDE the tragedy is functional to enlight the tragedy of the separation. You could replace Jack and Rose with a family where some members survive and other die and this would be even more effective, so I agree that this is not a great choice, but it's wrong to portray the movie as a romance film: it's a tragedy film.
I don't like romantic movies, but I love Titanic because it is one of the best tragedy movies ever produced in the history of cinema. I wouldn't like it if it was only a love story.

Anyway, in the classical music there is a lot of romance.



> As far as I can tell, the first movement of the _Eroica_ symphony has more motivic development than any piece composed prior to it, including the _Moonlight_ sonata.


In this case I'm not speaking about the elaboration of the melody, but more about the feeling of the melody. It's true that each movement of the Moonlight Sonata is quite repetitive, but the themes are singable and memorable. Of course it would be better with more development.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> The main story of the Titanic is the tragedy, not the romance. If it was only for the romance, it wouldn't have had all this success.
> 
> As explained by Cameron, the love story INSIDE the tragedy is functional to enlight the tragedy of the separation. You could replace Jack and Rose with a family where some members survive and other die and this would be even more effective, so I agree that this is not a great choice, but it's wrong to portray the movie as a romance film: it's a tragedy film.
> I don't like romantic movies, but I love Titanic because it is one of the best tragedy movies ever produced in the history of cinema. I wouldn't like it if it was only a love story.
> ...


With respect, it would be different, not "better".


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that to prefer one piece of Beethoven more than an other one is a question of subjective tastes, while all pieces of Beethoven have objectively a higher quality than junk music like Gangnam Style (unless we want to state that the high culture is not objectively better than low culture).


I've not said anything about preferring one piece of Beethoven over another. What I thought we were discussing was your rules for deciding how music works - such as the idea that melody is the priority, and that melody makes rhythm.

And this thread is about what we think of the Eroica. No one needs to bring in tired nonsense about pop songs or film music (again!)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

HansZimmer said:


> No, the notes exist beyond the instrumentation because they are pitches and not timbres.


Timbre is the foundation of any sound.



Xisten267 said:


> I only saw someone arguing that Bach wasn't a great melodist in this thread so far in post #78 (and that person wasn't me),


Someone claimed Bach was an "extraordinary melodist," and I had to disagree, especially if melody doesn't proactively aim to cooperate with ideas of surrounding timbre, larger development and expression, it becomes more limited by the medium it is composed for, compared to my current favorite composer Brahms who understood very proficiently the foundation of sound.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> Are you speaking about symphonies or about all pieces of Beethoven? The symphonies are only nine pieces out of thousands.


Thousands? Beethoven has about seven hundred pieces, including here those with and those without opus numbers.



HansZimmer said:


> I've heard many Mozartic melodies in violin sonatas, string quartets, ballets, rondos, minuets, dances and piano concertos of Beethoven. I could also mention the romances, but it would by an obvious statement.


Beethoven has a single published ballet, "The Creatures of Prometheus". And yes, the two romances for violin and orchestra show Beethoven's melodic gift. As I said, he could write gorgeous cantabile melodies when he wished, although his usual method of composition, as opposed to Mozart's, was more about working with small motifs, that are better suited for development.



HansZimmer said:


> In this case I'm not speaking about the elaboration of the melody, but more about the feeling of the melody. It's true that each movement of the Moonlight Sonata is quite repetitive, but the themes are singable and memorable. Of course it would be better with more development.


I don't think that "each movement of the Moonlight Sonata is quite repetitive". The first movement has no repeats, the second omits the usual first repeat of a typical scherzo and the last has only the common repeat of the exposition in a sonata form. I also don't believe that necessarily the piece would "be better with more development", and it should be noted that, in relative terms, it's development sections aren't short.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> Thousands? Beethoven has about seven hundred pieces, including here those with and those without opus numbers.


Hundreds... sorry, english is not my native language and I sometimes invert "thousand" and "hundred".


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> Hundreds... sorry, english is not my native language and I sometimes invert "thousand" and "hundred".


We are in the same boat then.  English is not my native language either, and one of my secundary goals participating of TC is to improve my ability with it. It's not unusual that I have to keep fixing my texts even after posting them because of grammar mistakes I find when reading them again.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> I don't think that "each movement of the Moonlight Sonata is quite repetitive". The first movement has no repeats, the second omits the usual first repeat of a typical scherzo and the last has only the common repeat of the exposition in a sonata form. I also don't believe that necessarily the piece would "be better with more development", and it should be noted that, in relative terms, it's development sections aren't short.


STRUCTURE OF THE THIRD MOVEMENT
0:05 - Exposition pt.1
0:34 - Exposition pt.2, in fifth key
1:30 - Development 1
1:43 - Repeating back to Exposition pt.1
3:09 - Development 2
3:21 - Recapitulation (alternate version of exposition)
3:30 - Exposition pt.2, in fourth key
3:36 - Right hand swaps with left hand
3:43 - exposition key changes to G major, a semitone below the fifth
3:49 - back to fourth key
3:53 - back to tonic, also starting the bridge, or possibly 3rd development
4:22 - Exposition pt.1 again
4:43 - Main pattern doesn't repeat, goes straight to Exposition pt.2, this time in tonic key.
5:38 - Development 1 again?
5:51 - Main pattern with different chords
5:57 - Development 4
6:06 - Hand-swapped Exposition pt.2 in tonic key
6:12 - Exposition pt.2, un-hand-swapped, slightly altered again, still in tonic key
6:23 - DEVELOPMENT 5
6:52 - Development 1, altered slightly at the end.
7:02 - Giant arpeggios at the end of Development 1

The exposition is frequently repeated and the recapitulations are similar to the exposition. Only in the developments there is new melodic material (instead of slight variations of the main theme), but they are short.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> No, the notes exist beyond the instrumentation because they are pitches and not timbres. The instruments are timbres, not pitches.
> 
> I agree that the timbres/instruments are important for the mood of the piece, but *a real melody exists beyond the instrumentation: it's a singable melody.*
> 
> ...


Every statement you've made is poorly reasoned or just plain silly. Line by line:

No. Every pitch written by Beethoven in the Eroica is a pitch of a specific timbre. "The instruments are timbres, not pitches?"  Obviously, every note produced by any instrument is a pitch of a certain timbre. When a composer writes a part in an orchestral work it is always pitch plus timbre. If you change the instrumentation and perform it, you are no longer playing the work, you are playing an unauthorized arrangement of it.

"Important for the mood?" You can't be serious. Timbre is absolutely essential to the sound! "A real melody exists beyond the instrumentation: it's a singable melody." Melodies for instruments don't have to be singable. Why on earth should they be? What about a melody for strings in tremolo? Would every quarter note be sung "ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha?"  Better hire Elmer Fudd. How about a piano melody that covers four octaves? This idea is dead on arrival. 

See the bit about unauthorized arrangements. It's debatable whether it works as an orchestral work, unless works means causes annoyance. 

Another example doesn't help.

Melodies have moods? One melody can have multiple moods or no distinct mood whatever.  "Furthermore, you can not play very long notes with all instruments." Thanks, you just made nonsense of your whole argument. The piano can't sustain pitches at a steady volume, nor can it do swells or other kinds of controlled changes in volume on single notes, so it's wrong for virtually every orchestral part.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> STRUCTURE OF THE THIRD MOVEMENT
> 0:05 - Exposition pt.1
> 0:34 - Exposition pt.2, in fifth key
> 1:30 - Development 1
> ...


I think that this analysis of the third movement of the _Moonlight_ sonata by you is quite strange. For example, what you're calling "development" is actually the second part of the second subject of the material of the exposition/recapitulation, and what you're calling "recapitulation" is actually the repeat of the exposition, typical in instrumental music not only by Beethoven but also by any other composer of the Classical era, including Mozart and Haydn. The movement has a clear sonata form, that is ternary (ABA), divided into exposition-development-recapitulation. There's also a coda.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> I think that this analysis of the third movement of the _Moonlight_ sonata by you is quite strange. For example, what you're calling "development" is actually the second part of the second subject of the material of the exposition/recapitulation, and what you're calling "recapitulation" is actually the repeat of the exposition


I'm not the author of the analysis and I agree that the parts indicated as "development 1" and "development 2" are in reality a part of the main themes, but what I wanted to enlight is that the development sections are short and the main themes are prevalent.

However, isn't the recapitulation a reprise of the main themes in an altered form? Are you saying that they are not recapitulations, but repetitions of the exposition, because the themes are repeated in the same way?



> The movement has a clear sonata form, that is ternary (ABA), divided into exposition-development-recapitulation. There's also a coda.


If the sonata form is ternary, what's the difference in respect to a rondo?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not the author of the analysis


Then you should cite your source. Otherwise, it appears that you're claiming that you are.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> However, isn't the recapitulation a reprise of the main themes in an altered form? Are you saying that they are not recapitulations, but repetitions of the exposition, because the themes are repeated in the same way?


In sonata form, the recapitulation section is a reprise of the exposition, usually with some modifications, that occurs directly after the development section. It leads the music towards it's end or to a coda. I've seem some people call the repeat of the exposition that occurs before the development section as a "reexposition", but I don't think it's correct to call it a "recapitulation".

Beethoven is famous for his development sections and codas, usually much longer and exploratory than those of his predecessors.



HansZimmer said:


> If the sonata form is ternary, what's the difference in respect to a rondo?


What characterises the rondo is the presence of a theme (sometimes called a "refrain") that alternates with contrasting themes (called "episodes"). For example, the ABACA of _Für Elise_ is a rondo, with "A" being the refrain and "B" and "C" being episodes. It is blended with sonata form sometimes, such as in the finales of Mozart's string quintet in G minor and Beethoven's _Eroica_ symphony.

I suggest you to read the book "What to Listen for in Music", by the famous american composer Aaron Copland. It surely helped me a lot to better understand important aspects of classical music (I've never attended a class of music theory in my life, unfortunately). There's a chapter explaining all the most usual forms, including sonata form, rondo, theme and variations, minuet/scherzo, fantasia, as well as many others.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Xisten267 said:


> Melody is one and only one of the fundamental aspects of music - others include rhythm, harmony, texture, tone color, dynamics, and form. To always stress only one aspect over the others in art appreciation makes no sense to me. If only cantabile melody in a piano is what matters, then Ludovico Einaudi must be a better composer than Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms. What seems odd, no?


I don't know so much about the music of Ludovico Einaudi, but there is one piece I've heard more times: "Nuvole Bianche".

The melody might be catchy, but it's also quite simple.






When I speak about good melodists I am thinking about composers like Mozart: composers who write catchy AND elaborated themes, not melodies that look like melodies of pop songs.


----------

