# Composers That Mastered Beauty



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

In your opinion, for a large body of their work: 
(I define beauty as delicate in the light, rather whimsical (Beethoven's 6th) and heavy in the dark (Chopin's Nocturnes)).

Beethoven
Chopin


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I know there is a lot of subjectivity in assessing beauty, though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I find lots of Bach and Mozart filled with strength and vigor, and don't associate it with beauty as much, though others might with different interpretations of the word beauty.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I find lots of Bach and Mozart filled with strength and vigor, and don't associate it with beauty as much, though others might with different interpretations of the word beauty.












?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

If Bach and Mozart mastered beauty, then I haven't any words for what Beethoven mastered. Perhaps my username knows better.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

BachIsBest said:


> ?


They both feel to be pulled more from methodology and technique vs. passion which I think defines the different eras in a lot of ways.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Is Beethoven's 6th SQ when he first started getting more defined in his melodies within this specific genre? The 6th and 7th are making it feel that way, certainly.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'd be careful positing a connection between #6 and #7. #6, the last-completed of his Op. 18 set, was probably finished in 1800. The Op. 18, in general, stands at the head of his 1st-period works.

#7, the first of his Op. 59 set, was written in 1806 and is solidly 2nd-period Beethoven, a world apart from #6.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> I'd be careful positing a connection between #6 and #7. #6, the last-completed of his Op. 18 set, was probably finished in 1800. The Op. 18, in general, stands at the head of his 1st-period works.
> 
> #7, the first of his Op. 59 set, was written in 1806 and is solidly 2nd-period Beethoven, a world apart from #6.


I just hear him starting to evolve a bit in SQ #6.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just hear him starting to evolve a bit in SQ #6.


Could well be. The final movement, _La Melanchonia_, is striking in a very Romantic fashion. Wiki says it is "possibly the highlight of Op. 18." I'm not sure, though, that's the direction Beethoven took as he advanced into his middle period. That would be an interesting discussion!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Could well be. The final movement, _La Melanchonia_, is striking in a very Romantic fashion. Wiki says it is "possibly the highlight of Op. 18." I'm not sure, though, that's the direction Beethoven took as he advanced into his middle period. That would be an interesting discussion!


The Op. 18 are very Classical, but they are much more emotionally driven than Mozart or Haydn in my opinion.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

My vote is for Sam Barber as a composer that nails "beauty" ... I think Decca felt similarly back in 1999 when programming this release ...









Tracklist

1	Adagio For Strings From String Quartet Op. 11	
2	Violin Concerto - Andante
Violin - Joshua Bell
Symphony No. 1, Op. 9	
3	Andante Tranquillo	
4	Con Moto	
5	First Essay For Orchestra, Op. 12	
6	Knoxville: Summer Of 1915	
7	Second Essay For Orchestra, Op. 17	
8	Adagio For Strings (Vocal Version)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Late Romantic moments with, say, much _emotion_ as a source of beauty:


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> If Bach and Mozart mastered beauty, then I haven't any words for what Beethoven mastered. Perhaps my username knows better.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. The soprano solo in Mozart's Kyrie in his mass in c minor is, to me, more beautiful than anything Beethoven wrote (at least anything I've heard which, as far as I know, is pretty much everything he wrote that is remotely well known).


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> They both feel to be pulled more from methodology and technique vs. passion which I think defines the different eras in a lot of ways.


Mozart wrote the soprano solo in the Kyrie for his wife to sing, as an act of love. Combined with the fact he was personally going through a religious period in his life (and the incredible results) I find it difficult to believe that this wasn't inspired by passion.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

The issue I think, is that Mozart piece doesn't 'go' anywhere compared to later pieces, so it doesn't quite tug and twist around into greater levels of development of beauty and imagination, but in fact remains stiff and predictable. Much of the issue I find with Bach and Mozart; I think Beethoven was the first who really understood the scope of development and its impact on the emotions and imagination. He really invented a whole new formula for writing music, that perhaps is difficult to see if you're too zoomed into each note. Composers before Beethoven were really rather too predictable in each moment of their counterpoint leading to be "striking" or "beautiful" imo. This is like the crux of my issue, their techniques to me are almost repetitive.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Lots of composes for me. Mozart, Ravel, Vaughan Williams, Delius, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and some of Beethoven, Liszt and Debussy.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Bach's Air isn't famous for nothing. But I can't say only certain composers mastered beauty.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Delius,


Talk about a composer obsessed with the idea of beauty lol. Not as much structure or elegance though.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

The 2nd movement of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is as close to my personal definition of beauty as I can get. Dvorak's Cello Concerto comes the next closest.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> The issue I think, is that Mozart piece doesn't 'go' anywhere compared to later pieces, so it doesn't quite tug and twist around into greater levels of development of beauty and imagination, but in fact remains stiff and predictable. Much of the issue I find with Bach and Mozart; I think Beethoven was the first who really understood the scope of development and its impact on the emotions and imagination. He really invented a whole new formula for writing music, that perhaps is difficult to see if you're too zoomed into each note. Composers before Beethoven were really rather too predictable in each moment of their counterpoint leading to be "striking" or "beautiful" imo. Their techniques to me are almost repetitive.


The moment in the Kyrie I referenced was a soprano solo so I'm very unsure why it isn't beautiful because it has predictable counterpoint.

Do the structures that Mozart and Bach wrote within constrain it and thus make certain elements predictable? Certainly, but this hardly means the entirety of their music is predictable and virtually every composer that isn't composing random noise has elements of predictability in their music. Beethoven, for example, rarely fakes a climax. When the music starts to build up you almost certainly know a climax is coming (not that this lessens the impact of the climax when it does come), you can contrast this to later composers like Berlioz or Bruckner who would often throw in 'head-fakes' where they made out to be building up to a climax and then would taper off. Beethoven's development techniques were certainly novel for the time but he was hardly the first to fully understand development; although Mozart's development sections were sometimes not extensive (his melodies didn't really need them) Haydn was certainly a master of thematic development.

The idea that Beethoven invented a whole new formula for writing music is really just kind of silly. He was certainly a very original composer, probably more so than Bach or Mozart, but I'm not sure this really matters now that we've become accustomed to all the 'originalities' of Beethoven's music. The idea that Beethoven's system is just better unless you are "too zoomed in on each note" is almost certainly wrong. A Bach fugue hardly makes sense unless you perceive it holistically.

As a final note, I wish to add that I find a lot of Beethoven's compositions very beautiful. The third movement of the 15th String Quartet, the second movement of the Emporer concerto, and the Benedictus from his mass are all extraordinarily beautiful pieces of music.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I just don't see where your comments are coming from. I have to disagree with the following, but I can't interpret how you hear music.



BachIsBest said:


> Beethoven's development techniques were certainly novel for the time but he was hardly the first to fully understand development; although Mozart's development sections were sometimes not extensive (his melodies didn't really need them) Haydn was certainly a master of thematic development.


I don't think anyone is ever using the term "invent" in that way. I agree that Haydn was a master in development _ for his time,_ but it hardly meets the meaning of the term when philosophized by Beethoven, despite his utter humility and appreciation for Haydn, his interpretation of development encompassed whole new qualia and dimensions beyond anything anyone would ever think of. Haydn didn't invent development, just like Bach didn't invent harmony. To me they were masters, but when compared to Beethoven, these aspects are more like over-obsessions than masteries.



BachIsBest said:


> The idea that Beethoven's system is just better unless you are "too zoomed in on each note" is almost certainly wrong. A Bach fugue hardly makes sense unless you perceive it holistically.


This confuses me, perhaps you can show me an example? I'd like to hear your reasoning. The only fair point I can agree on this current post is:



BachIsBest said:


> He was certainly a very original composer, probably more so than Bach or Mozart, but I'm not sure this really matters now that we've become accustomed to all the 'originalities' of Beethoven's music.


Yes I'm sure some can grow accustomed to the more striking originalities of Beethoven, or perhaps they can not even recognize what they are to a minimal extent, like the video I posted on the previous page, confusing them with another category altogether. It's subjective in the end. I'm just trying to understand why.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> I don't think anyone is ever using the term "invent" in that way. I agree that Haydn was a master in development _ for his time,_ but it hardly meets the meaning of the term when philosophized by Beethoven, despite his utter humility and appreciation for Haydn, his interpretation of development encompassed whole new qualia and dimensions beyond anything anyone would ever think of. Haydn didn't invent development, just like Bach didn't invent harmony. To me they were masters, but when compared to Beethoven, these aspects are more like over-obsessions than masteries.


You said that Beethoven "invented a whole new formula for writing music". I'm not sure how one is supposed to interpret the word 'invent' here other than how I did. If you meant that Beethoven invented new techniques which brought a more diverse palette of colours for composers to paint their compositions with I neither disagree nor have any issue with this statement.

I just think you are exaggerating some of Beethoven's inventiveness. I don't at all disagree that he changed music radically but to say Haydn was merely a master in development for his time before Beethoven showed everyone how to really develop themes: I can't agree with this.



Ethereality said:


> This confuses me, perhaps you can show me an example? I'd like to hear your reasoning.


I simply mean that to listen to, and hopefully enjoy, a fugue (I really didn't need to add in Bach fugue) one should listen to the whole thing and observe how the subject is transformed and developed throughout the piece. If you zoom in on a specific note the fugue, in essence, becomes largely meaningless as the point is how the subject interacts with the other material. Most fugal subjects are not, by themselves, very interesting. In keeping with the theme of the thread (which maybe is getting a bit lost), you could listen to the final fugue of Bach's Mass in B minor which the composer himself considered his finest choral fugue. It might not be the best example of what I'm talking about, but I want to keep on the topic of beautiful music.



Ethereality said:


> Yes I'm sure some can grow accustomed to the more striking originalities of Beethoven, or perhaps they can not even recognize what they are to a minimal extent, like the video I posted on the previous page, confusing them with another category altogether. It's subjective in the end. I'm just trying to understand why.


As I said, I really do like Beethoven. I just think some of your comments about pre-Beethoven composers weren't really accurate or a bit unfair. That's all.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tchaikovsky yet. He really had a remarkable ability to consistently come up with beautiful melodies.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

John Jenkins music in 5 parts

David Kellner's fantasies

Giaches de Wert Book 1


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

13hm13 said:


> My vote is for Sam Barber as a composer that nails "beauty" ... I think Decca felt similarly back in 1999 when programming this release ...
> 
> View attachment 124415
> 
> ...


To the point! :tiphat:

I could add my Master and William Wallace to this list.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Ravel, of course. Palestrina. Perhaps even Scriabin. And I guess Mozart probably deserves a mention, too. Just listen to that clarinet quintet. In the end, I don't think one can "master" beauty, just like man can never "master" nature.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> The issue I think, is that Mozart piece doesn't 'go' anywhere compared to later pieces, so it doesn't quite tug and twist around into greater levels of development of beauty and imagination, but in fact remains stiff and predictable. Much of the issue I find with Bach and Mozart; I think Beethoven was the first who really understood the scope of development and its impact on the emotions and imagination. He really invented a whole new formula for writing music, that perhaps is difficult to see if you're too zoomed into each note. Composers before Beethoven were really rather too predictable in each moment of their counterpoint leading to be "striking" or "beautiful" imo. This is like the crux of my issue, their techniques to me are almost repetitive.


I can understand people finding Beethoven's skillful use of minimalism "transcendental" in moments such as Arietta of Op.111 and First movement of 6th symphony, but I occasionally find the "minimalist tendencies" a little tiresome. I think when Brahms criticized Beethoven comparing with Bach, Mozart, Haydn, he had these things in mind. At times, Beethoven goes on and on for too long without adding "spice" in the music. 
Another thing I'm not impressed with Beethoven is his use of the choir. 
Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn seem to actually care to write elaborately to reach some kind of "proper resolution" in their writing for the choir.
Whereas Beethoven, given the same situation, likes to have the entire choir yell in fortissimo "AHHHH~!", not just once, it's often done multiple times consecutively at a time "AHHHH~! AHHHH~! AHHHH~!". Sure it's dramatic, but hurts my ears every time.

Listen to these sections, for example:
6:40
14:20
17:20
23:40
27:50




Op.80: 



Op.123: 











Op.125: 




After all it makes sense cause Beethoven admitted himself he could not imitate Haydn's late masses in writing Mass Op.86. I think Verdi commented on Beethoven's use of the choir in the ninth symphony as well. I still think Op.80, Op.125 would have been much better works if Beethoven didn't use the choir in them. Personally I'm not really fond of the post-classical concept of "choral symphony" either, even though I acknowledge it as one of Beethoven's influential innovations.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Gabriel Faure:

Violin and Piano Sonata in A Major 
Piano Quartet in C Minor 
Requiem Mass, e.g. In Paridisium
Songs, e.g. Apres un Reve, Clair de Lune


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The idea of "mastering beauty" is a strange one for me. Does it mean more than "wrote some beautiful music"? Whatever the case, Stravinsky should be included in the discussion. The austere beauty of works like the Mass and much of Orpheus is remarkable. And there are many less austere but still beautiful works like Persephone.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

I’m honestly shocked that Schubert hasn’t been mentioned yet.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Lots of composes for me. Mozart, Ravel, Vaughan Williams, Delius, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and some of Beethoven, Liszt and Debussy.


This. .....................................


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Beauty is a vague word. Mastering it is a vague notion.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Mahler. He did say, "Interesting is easy, beautiful is difficult."
And then Elgar, Stanford, Raff, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninoff, Saint-Saens, Glazunov, Victor Herbert, Bruch...


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

For those who say Bach didn't master beauty:














Not to mention the Book 1 Prelude, Air on G String, Chaconne, Sheep may Safely Graze, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, etc...

Bach is THE master of profound beauty. At least in my opinion. Just because he wasn't sentimental, melodramatic, or romantic doesn't mean his music lacked beauty. I don't understand it when people say he wasn't a melodist- he wasn't _primarily_ a melodist only because he was so good at harmony and counterpoint.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

chu42 said:


> For those who say Bach didn't master beauty:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These are great examples of Bach's beauty, thanks!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

He, who combined Italian vividness with Russian sensitivity, wins easily.

The great TSCH is the ultimate master of beauty.


----------

