# Why do you think Beethoven was such a genius?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

That he was can hardly be contested. There is one interesting answer to this question:

Bach.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

The best answer I ever heard to that question was simple; he just got it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Which Bach do you mean? What does Bach have to do with it?


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Which Bach do you mean? What does Bach have to do with it?


Beethoven played Das Wohltemperierte when he was 11 years old.


----------



## micro (Jun 18, 2016)

He got the right genes. He was autistic. He was born to the right father. He was trained to be a genius for his birth. He was a very hard working guy. He learned from Haydn and Mozart and built his own world upon theirs. He had the chance to live long enough to compose many works.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2016)

micro said:


> He got the right genes. He was autistic. He was born to the right father. He was trained to be a genius for his birth. He was a very hard working guy. He learned from Haydn and Mozart and built his own world upon theirs. He had the chance to live long enough to compose many works.


There are many more people with a mental disorder who had a the worst upbringing and still not becoming a genius.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven was autistic? That's a fact that has, unaccountably, escaped all of his biographers so far as I know.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Traverso said:


> Beethoven played Das Wohltemperierte when he was 11 years old.


So any prodigy child that can play that work can be a genius like Beethoven?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was autistic? That's a fact that has, unaccountably, escaped all of his biographers so far as I know.


He was autistic because he created aut. He was an autist.

Obviously you aren't from Noo Yauk.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Beethoven is one of the most creative minds in all human endeavor. Fact.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's impossible to define an inborn propensity that with the right training blossoms into genius. As Peter Schaffer tried to examine in "Amadeus," God-given talents are not dispensed equally -- nor even necessarily fairly. Nevertheless, he couldn't have derived gravity, nor Newton written a symphony, nor either of them hit a major league fastball. And the rest of us just do the best we can with what we have.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven is one of the most creative minds in all human endeavor. Fact.


Yes and playing das wohltemperierte was part of his development.It is impossible to gues how Beethoven developped without hearing Bach's music.
There is so much that we dont know so let us not speculate.
What makes a genius,impossible question I think.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Traverso said:


> Beethoven played Das Wohltemperierte when he was 11 years old.


Yes, and played it from memory for connoisseurs on a number of occasions. How is that an explanation for "his genius?" There is a missing step somewhere, as in the underpants gnomes' business plan:

Phase 1: Steal underpants
Phase 2: - - - - - - - - - - 
Phase 3: Profit

In this case:

Phase 1: Play Bach
Phase 2: - - - - - - - 
Phase 3. Genius


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I did not know about the underpants gnomes. Should I worry when showering?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Because these days genius means nothing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I did not know about the underpants gnomes. Should I worry when showering?


You should probably worry when you're _not _showering.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> He was autistic because he created aut. He was an autist.


Ooo, dat's good! :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MarkW said:


> ...he couldn't have derived gravity, nor Newton written a symphony...


However, William Herschel, possibly the greatest astronomer who ever lived, wrote 24 of them.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Klassic said:


> That he was can hardly be contested. There is one interesting answer to this question:
> 
> Bach.


No, Bach is why Haydn and Mozart were geniuses. Haydn and Mozart are why Beethoven was a genius.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just a note: Swafford notes that Beethoven was the first major composer, aside from the Bach boys, to be brought up with the music of J.S. Bach. Time is worth thinking about too. Haydn was 18 when old Bach died. Mozart was born six years after Bach's death and Beethoven 14 years after that. I'm not sure what it all means, but it's interesting (to me).

Between Bach's death and Beethoven's death there were 76 years, which looking back today puts us in 1940, the heyday of middle-period Stravinsky and populist Copland, with both Prokofiev and Shostakovich in official favor, and with Bartok struggling in America, having not long to live.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Traverso said:


> Yes and playing das wohltemperierte was part of his development.It is impossible to gues how Beethoven developped without hearing Bach's music.
> There is so much that we dont know so let us not speculate.
> What makes a genius,impossible question I think.


Yes, what makes a genius is difficult to answer. But the existence of one is easier to verify by his work. Beethoven's is no contest.


----------



## MalariaMan (Aug 30, 2016)

To me Beethoven is a genius because either purposely or intuitively he knew how to create everything out of nothing. The most banal 3 note sequence could be developed into larger and larger motives and shapes until it would become the most epic of works.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> No, Bach is why Haydn and Mozart were geniuses. Haydn and Mozart are why Beethoven was a genius.


Bach, CPE Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were all geniuses because they had great natural gifts and were each apprenticed into the family business from birth. And they all told themselves at a young age: "I better work my a$$ off or I am going to end up like dad.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> No, Bach is why Haydn and Mozart were geniuses. Haydn and Mozart are why Beethoven was a genius.


No. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven don't owe their genius to Bach, they were born with it.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

jdec said:


> No. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven don't owe their genius to Bach, they were born with it.


Let's not forget that they worked tirelessly too, Beethoven especially. He would develop and sketch ideas hundreds of times.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Traverso said:


> Beethoven played Das Wohltemperierte when he was 11 years old.


Someone who knows the facts.
Other then that, Beethoven is great in his own way.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A related question: What is it about Beethoven's music that makes us think he was a genius?


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven is one of the most creative minds in all human endeavour. _Opinion_.


There, fixed that for you.


----------



## zachybinx (Sep 13, 2016)

Beethoven: somehow encapsulated everything worth keeping from before his time, invented a whole new plane/spectrum of extremes and subtleties in dramatic expression, did so as a totally independent freelancer, and managed to influence every single composer (whether theyll admit it or not) after him. He's the crux of whatever "classical" is and he probably always will be. If you believe in the idea of a "genius" he exemplifies all that stuff.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A related question: What is it about Beethoven's music that makes us think he was a genius?


That's what I interpreted the sense of the original question to be. Some good things (and some curious things) were said on this thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/43877-why-dont-i-like.html?highlight=why+not+like+beethoven


----------



## zachybinx (Sep 13, 2016)

and by very similar standards you basically also gotta call kanye west a genius.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

To quote Leonard Cohen:

I was born like this, I had no choice
I was born with the gift of a golden voice.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Bach, CPE Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven were all geniuses because they had great natural gifts and were each apprenticed into the family business from birth.


Note that, perhaps significantly, the only one of those who actually apprenticed with a great genius ended up being indisputably the least great of the four.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

zachybinx said:


> Beethoven: somehow encapsulated everything worth keeping from before his time


I don't think Beethoven encapsulates everything worth keeping from Pérotin, Ockeghem, Josquin, Palestrina, Lassus, and Monteverdi. And then there's melody - if Rossini and Schubert hadn't picked up where Mozart stopped, leaving the world with nothing to start on but Beethoven, there goes Bellini, Chopin, Verdi, Tchaikovksy, Fauré, Ravel...



zachybinx said:


> did so as a totally independent freelancer


Archduke Rudolf says, "If he's a totally independent freelancer, who keeps cashing my checks?"



zachybinx said:


> and managed to influence every single composer (whether theyll admit it or not) after him.


Eh. I guess a significant part of him gets into Verdi by way Berlioz, but I don't hear much of him in the Italians before that.



zachybinx said:


> He's the crux of whatever "classical" is and he probably always will be.


This is probably true.



zachybinx said:


> and by very similar standards you basically also gotta call kanye west a genius.


Well he is.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Genius was there. He came along at just the right time to display it as we see it. Had he been born 100 years earlier, or later, what form would his genius have taken?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Note that, perhaps significantly, the only one of those who actually apprenticed with a great genius ended up being indisputably the least great of the four.


Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and much of the rest of Europe considered him the most important composer of instrumental music in the early classical era.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well he is.


Hi Kanye - didn't expect to see you here.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

The same question about the underlying nature of their genius could be asked of any of the great composers: J S Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, Haydn, Brahms etc. 

It's very difficult to come up with an answer specifically for Beethoven that doesn't also apply to these others as well. 

One possibility is that Beethoven was able to extract every possible nuance out his ideas, by forming ever so clever variations which he worked out to perfection. But it could be said that Bach and Brahms had a similar gift and were just as meticulous in leaving their works in highly polished form. 

A different kind of genius was exhibited by Schubert who was able to switch from mood to mood so smoothly that, blink, and you've missed how he achieved it. He was far more expansive and wandering than Beethoven. Mozart had the gift of imparting into his music sheer elegance and grace probably in slightly greater measure than the others, but that's a matter of opinion entirely.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

zachybinx said:


> and by very similar standards you basically also gotta call kanye west a genius.


He must be on such a high level of genius that he has literally redefined the concept to include idiocy.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

The power, clarity and simplicity of Beethoven's musical ideas is extraordinary. However, I can hear both Bach and Mozart in his music quite well. Beethoven had the intelligence (and courage) to go where neither Bach or Mozart dared to go. He must have felt this, I believe he consciously understood this. The truth about Beethoven is that he was a madman.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and much of the rest of Europe considered him the most important composer of instrumental music in the early classical era.


Of course. He was a great composer. He's still not as great as JS Bach, Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

"...I only remember that one night I for the first time heard a symphony of Beethoven's performed, that it set me in a fever, I fell ill, and on my recovery had become a musician." Richard Wagner, A Pilgrimage to Beethoven


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

bz3 said:


> He must be on such a high level of genius that he has literally redefined the concept to include idiocy.


Genius always included idiocy. See Michelangelo, Milton, Wagner.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Genius always included idiocy. See Michelangelo, Milton, Wagner.


Fortunately you do not have to be a genius to be a complete idiot.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> There, fixed that for you.


Semantics. A universal truth, good enough for music students to be studying and playing for centuries to come. We don't waste time playing and studying mediocrity.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Genius always included idiocy. See Michelangelo, Milton, Wagner.


Sounds vaguely like a common patrician critique of artists outside the critic's own social and intellectual strata. The same line of thought has dragged culture into convincing one another that Emily Dickinson and Harmony Korine are "profound voices."


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

bz3 said:


> Sounds vaguely like a common patrician critique of artists outside the critic's own social and intellectual strata.


It's not a critique. The point is that it doesn't matter whether a genius is an idiot or not.



bz3 said:


> Emily Dickinson and Harmony Korine


One of these things is not like the other.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> It's not a critique. The point is that it doesn't matter whether a genius is an idiot or not.


Ah so this is some sort of pomo idea, that genius is divorced from intellect. I still think my criticism stands and I don't consider any of the four you mentioned to be idiots, but I can see we're unlikely to find common ground here.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Okay, before we go any further, let's play a game. I'll paraphrase a line by Dickinson that anybody who's actually spent any time reading her will immediately know, and then you can tell me what the original line is.
> 
> "crowns fall and captains defer"


Oh boy a poetry game! It's been 15 years since I studied any poetry formally, and even longer since I bothered to look at Dickinson's works. It doesn't surprise me that you enjoy her though (should you be Harold, that is). I confess I'm stumped though! No idea which among her ~1500 poems you're referring to - especially considering I avoid them altogether!

But how about this personally abridged prompt I made up from one of my favorite Shakespeare sonnets?

"In adulation your love assembles and my tongue receives."

Good luck!


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Again, that Beethoven was a genius cannot be contested successfully. Further, knowing why would be valuable to humanity.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

bz3 said:


> Ah so this is some sort of pomo idea, that genius is divorced from intellect.


No, that's a Romantic idea.

See, the joke here is, you think I'm being Postmodern, and between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually hates Postmodernism. You just call things you don't like "Postmodern."



bz3 said:


> It doesn't surprise me that you enjoy her though


Why?



bz3 said:


> I confess I'm stumped though! No idea which among her ~1500 poems you're referring to - especially considering I avoid them altogether!


And yet you're sharing your opinions.



bz3 said:


> But how about this personally abridged prompt I made up from one of my favorite Shakespeare sonnets?
> 
> "In adulation your love assembles and my tongue receives."


I have no idea what a "personally abridged prompt" is supposed to be.

Anyway, my reference was to one of the most well known lines in one of the poet's most well known poems - something anybody who's gone beyond reading "I'm nobody!" in high school should have been able to get ("diadems drop and doges surrender") - and even if you can say the same, which I doubt, it doesn't matter, because I'm not presuming to attack Shakespeare.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> See, the joke here is, you think I'm being Postmodern, and between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually hates Postmodernism. You just call things you don't like "Postmodern."


I do? I'm perfectly fine with postmodern literature, even enjoy some of it greatly. Poetry and philosophy is an entirely other matter.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Why?


Goofy inward esotericism. I'd put odds on you being a Joyce fan as well. (For the record, I am too.)



Magnum Miserium said:


> And yet you're sharing your opinions.


Yep! 40 or 50 poems are plenty good enough for judgment. If one can't make his or her case by that point then the other 1350 can comfortably sit idly in waiting for the true fans - such as yourself. No doubt there are many that consider her a great poet, though I'm certainly not one of them. A genius? You need a much more liberal definition I think before very many people begin to agree with you.



Magnum Miserium said:


> I have no idea what a "personally abridged prompt" is supposed to be.


Exactly the same abridgment as you gave.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Anyway, my reference was to one of the most well known lines in one of the poet's most well known poems - something anybody who's gone beyond reading "I'm nobody!" in high school should have been able to get ("diadems drop and doges surrender") - and even if you can say the same, which I doubt, it doesn't matter, because I'm not presuming to attack Shakespeare.


Ah okay, well I didn't read her in high school at all. Poetry and Literature was one of my Bachelor degrees, not that I believe that confers some sort of authority on any matter - nor do I claim such. But that I don't get your oblique references hardly means I never read any Dickinson, just as you not recognizing my opaque Shakespeare reference hardly means you haven't read any of his sonnets.

Like her or love her, she hardly has anything to do with Kanye West - whose defense of genius I've never seen before. Maybe you're right, I'm not married to a particular view of this man. I've listened to all 4 of his first albums in total and find them all relatively pedantic, and not the least bit indicative of genius. If I were even to confer that label on hip-hop albums from 1995-present I'd include Outkast or Wu-Tang related outfits far before Kanye's junk. I'm informed that I mustn't listen to his lyrics, his words in interviews, or really anything except for the album drones he's created from other peoples' music. Well okay, I guess if it floats your boat but I like DJ Shadow better if I've got hear that sort of stuff. It's hard to extrapolate genius to the rest of it.

Certainly many disagree with me, but genius on the order of the people spoken of in this thread? Maybe, but a tall order. I doubt many would mention him in the same sentence/paragraph/book as Wagner or Michelangelo however.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> *Semantics*. A universal truth, good enough for music students to be studying and playing for centuries to come. We don't waste time playing and studying mediocrity.


"Semantics"? An easy cop-out if you don't want to discuss properly why (or whether) Beethoven was a genius, but just accept it as a 'universal truth'.

It's not a 'universal truth' (I'm not even sure what one of those is) and it's arguable that in fact, Beethoven was not at all 'creative' either, that he just happened to build on an already existing tradition - there was nothing wholly new in what he composed, he simply took the various components and rearranged them into interesting variations.


----------



## zachybinx (Sep 13, 2016)

You're totally that right he doesn't do anything to carry on those early composers. but they also seem slightly out of reach for what he was participating in at the time (in the heyday of sonata form). I think this would be a little like saying, 'well, Led Zeppelin, you're influenced by the blues, but why don't you cover spirituals?' 
yes- he had patronage, of course. Though, he is lauded as being one of the more/most independent musicians of his time, right? Definitely correct me if I'm wrong! anyway I appreciate the critical response to my hammy oversimplification.


----------



## zachybinx (Sep 13, 2016)

damn I was trying to respond to magnum mysterium. I'm such a n00b.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

bz3 said:


> I do? I'm perfectly fine with postmodern literature


I'm not.



bz3 said:


> Goofy inward esotericism. I'd put odds on you being a Joyce fan as well. (For the record, I am too.)


I don't like Joyce - which is not to say I'm dumb enough to deny his greatness - and he and Dickinson have nothing to do with each other.



bz3 said:


> Yep! 40 or 50 poems are plenty good enough for judgment.


Yes they are. But like I already said, I chose a well known line from a well known poem. A Shakespeare equivalent would be to write "naked degraded ensembles" and ask you to identify that. I note you haven't said what Shakespeare line you were paraphrasing.



bz3 said:


> true fans - such as yourself


I don't enjoy Dickinson enough, and am not nearly well versed enough in her work, to call myself a "true fan."



bz3 said:


> A genius? You need a much more liberal definition I think before very many people begin to agree with you.


Uh yeah no. If you're saying Dickinson isn't a genius, that makes you the eccentric. Everybody agrees she's a genius.



bz3 said:


> I've listened to all 4 of his first albums in total and find them all relatively pedantic, and not the least bit indicative of genius.


I have no idea what "pedantic" means in this context. Anyway, West's by-consensus most important album is certainly his 5th.



bz3 said:


> Certainly many disagree with me, but genius on the order of the people spoken of in this thread? Maybe, but a tall order. I doubt many would mention him in the same sentence/paragraph/book as Wagner or Michelangelo however.


Obviously West isn't in Wagner or Michelangelo's league, or for that matter Dickinson's. So, okay, if you want to say the term "genius" is reserved for the very few who are THAT great, fine, but then, like, Prokofiev, Edward Hopper, and Philip Roth aren't in those leagues either. Are we going to deny them even the status of minor genius? (Is Kanye West's greatness comparable to Prokofiev's? Quite possibly not, but then, people used to think it was ridiculous to judge Verdi as important as Mendelssohn.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

zachybinx said:


> yes- he had patronage, of course. Though, he is lauded as being one of the more/most independent musicians of his time, right?


He is, though I don't think he deserves it. A lot of composers at that time lived by some combination of public performance, selling compositions to publishers or directly to buyers, giving music lessons, and loans or gifts from friends. And then of course others were theater people. Basically, I think we want Beethoven and Mozart to be brave rebels for democracy, and so we interpret their careers somewhat out of context in order to make them look as rebellious as possible.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

"Why do you think Beethoven was such a genius?"

I don't think Beethoven was a genius.

Why does "Klassic" think that all members of TalkClassical automatically consider Beethoven as a genius?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Prodromides said:


> I don't think Beethoven was a genius.


Out of interest, which composer(s) do you think WAS a genius?


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Out of interest, which composer(s) do you think WAS a genius?


These are composers I think most highly of (but then, I'm no genius ... it takes one to know one.  )

Charles Koechlin
Aarre Merikanto
Richard Rodney Bennett
Alex North
Arne Nordheim
Meyer Kupferman
Toru Takemitsu
Roberto Gerhard
Jean Prodromides
Luigi Dallapiccola
Pierre Jansen
Tristram Cary
Edgard Varese
Erik Bergman
Fartein Valen
Leonard Rosenman
Luis De Pablo
Isang Yun
Morton Feldman


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Obviously West isn't in Wagner or Michelangelo's league, or for that matter Dickinson's. So, okay, if you want to say the term "genius" is reserved for the very few who are THAT great, fine, but then, like, Prokofiev, Edward Hopper, and Philip Roth aren't in those leagues either. Are we going to deny them even the status of minor genius? (Is Kanye West's greatness comparable to Prokofiev's? Quite possibly not, but then, people used to think it was ridiculous to judge Verdi as important as Mendelssohn.)


If we've gotten to the point where Roth and Hopper are geniuses, even "minor" like West, then I'm not sure we have anything close to the same definition of "genius." I like John Frusciante's albums, I think they're very good and indicative of immense talent, but I don't think he's a genius even if many of his fans call him one. I'm also a fan of Roth, having read 15 or 20 of his novels, but I don't think he's any more of a genius than Updike or Franzen or even Grisham (who is, at least, a much greater storyteller).

As far as West's pedantry:


> Met her at a beauty salon
> With a baby Louis Vuitton
> Under her underarm
> She said I can tell you rock
> I can tell by your charm


If that's genius lyricism then our dialogue here rise to the level of a Socratic dialogue. I just don't see how an artist can be a genius when he has less than nothing to say, and doesn't even succeed at doing that particularly well. It seems as though you're tapping into some authoritative consensus on genius and not genius, one I have no access to. For better or worse that is okay with me, I canceled my subscription to the New Yorker years ago.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Everybody agrees she's [Dickinson] a genius.


Unlikely Harold. We can't even get everyone on this forum to agree that Beethoven is a genius.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Unlikely Harold. We can't even get everyone on this forum to agree that Beethoven is a genius.


It doesn't matter, this cannot be successfully contested. Denying Beethoven's genius is like denying the power of the sun.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm not a fan of using the term "genius", but I'll play along on this thread. With the Diabelli Variations, Beethoven made a profound work based on nothing more than a simple basic theme. That is genius.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> "Semantics"? An easy cop-out if you don't want to discuss properly why (or whether) Beethoven was a genius, but just accept it as a 'universal truth'.
> 
> It's not a 'universal truth' (I'm not even sure what one of those is) and it's arguable that in fact, Beethoven was not at all 'creative' either, that he just happened to build on an already existing tradition - there was nothing wholly new in what he composed, he simply took the various components and rearranged them into interesting variations.


Yes, and Einstein just rearranged a few already known parameters to come up with the Theory of Relativity and Michaelangelo traced out a few already familiar characters to cover the Sistine Chapel and...


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> It's not a 'universal truth' (I'm not even sure what one of those is) and it's arguable that in fact, Beethoven was not at all 'creative' either, that he just happened to build on an already existing tradition - there was nothing wholly new in what he composed, he simply took the various components and rearranged them into interesting variations.


*Everyone* builds on an existing tradition, everyone! Next you will tell us he was not a genius because he did not build his own pianos.


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Yes, and Einstein just rearranged a few already known parameters to come up with the Theory of Relativity and Michaelangelo traced out a few already familiar characters to cover the Sistine Chapel and...


That's right...you catch on quick! ☺


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

Klassic said:


> *Everyone* builds on an existing tradition, everyone!


Precisely !


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

bz3 said:


> I'm also a fan of Roth, having read 15 or 20 of his novels, *but I don't think he's any more of a genius than* Updike or Franzen or even Grisham (*who is, at least, a much greater storyteller*).


"don't think he's any more of a genius than" "who is, at least, a much greater storyteller" Okay! Your remarks on Dickinson sounded like mere ignorance. Your remarks on Roth sound like nitpicking, which is to say resentment, which is more interesting.



bz3 said:


> As far as West's pedantry:
> 
> If that's genius lyricism


We're talking about music here.

On a separate point, I note you still haven't identified what Shakespeare line you were referencing.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Unlikely Harold.


?



DaveM said:


> We can't even get everyone on this forum to agree that Beethoven is a genius.


It doesn't matter how people posture about the word "genius." Everyone on this forum knows that everyone agrees Beethoven was a genius.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Precisely !


MacLeon, to say that Beethoven simply "took the various components and rearranged them into interesting variations," is a gross reduction of what he actually did. The man did create things that were totally original. Surely you have heard of his piano sonatas?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Yes, and Einstein just rearranged a few already known parameters to come up with the Theory of Relativity and Michaelangelo traced out a few already familiar characters to cover the Sistine Chapel and...


Yup. And Beethoven just used the same old notes that everybody had used for years! How original is that?? I'll admit that he arranged them in some interesting ways. In fact, I do believe some that of his music is still heard occasionally. :tiphat:


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Without doubting for one moment that Beethoven was a musical genius (one of the very best), I've always been somewhat puzzled as to why it took him so long to get around to producing any noteworthy works. I believe it wasn't until 1792, at age 22, that he produced his Op 1, a set of piano trios. 

Mozart, by comparison, was more the archetypal musical genius, with music flowing from him from the age of 6. By the age of 22, Mozart was up to what we now refer to as K 313 or thereabouts, which included a good number of high quality works, especially from K 200 upwards. By the age of his death he had produced far more than Beethoven, who outlived him by some 22 years. Schubert was another archetypal musical genius who showed considerable ability from an early age, with music spewing out of him almost ceaselessly. Mendelssohn was another.

Perhaps Beethoven was a bit of a dumb kid, but I very much doubt it. Maybe he was shy, and I doubt that even more. What was he up to, I wonder? We know where he was at various times in his early career, but this doesn't explain why it took him so long to write anything noteworthy that is now recognised as such.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> Without doubting for one moment that Beethoven was a musical genius (one of the very best), I've always been somewhat puzzled as to why it took him so long to get around to producing any noteworthy works. I believe it wasn't until 1792, at age 22, that he produced his Op 1, a set of piano trios.


Beethoven was recognized as an unusual talent early on, which is why the Elector paid to send him to Vienna for lessons two times - the first to learn from Mozart and the second to learn from Haydn. Some of his earlier work from Bonn is well worth hearing: the "Electoral" piano sonatas, the piano quartets, and a big cantata, one of two from 1790, "Funeral cantata on the Death of Emperor Joseph II."

Beethoven had actually published an Opus 1 while still in Bonn - was it the Dressler Variations? - but he withdrew that opus number when his career in Vienna started in earnest.

Also, most of his 2nd Piano Concerto was written in Bonn in 1787-1789, before he went to Vienna


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Genoveva said:


> Without doubting for one moment that Beethoven was a musical genius (one of the very best), I've always been somewhat puzzled as to why it took him so long to get around to producing any noteworthy works. I believe it wasn't until 1792, at age 22, that he produced his Op 1, a set of piano trios.
> 
> Mozart, by comparison, was more the archetypal musical genius, with music flowing from him from the age of 6. By the age of 22, Mozart was up to what we now refer to as K 313 or thereabouts, which included a good number of high quality works, especially from K 200 upwards. By the age of his death he had produced far more than Beethoven, who outlived him by some 22 years. Schubert was another archetypal musical genius who showed considerable ability from an early age, with music spewing out of him almost ceaselessly. Mendelssohn was another.
> 
> Perhaps Beethoven was a bit of a dumb kid, but I very much doubt it. Maybe he was shy, and I doubt that even more. What was he up to, I wonder? We know where he was at various times in his early career, but this doesn't explain why it took him so long to write anything noteworthy that is now recognised as such.


Mozart and Mendelssohn were prodigies. Prodigies are abnormal by definition. (So are geniuses.)

I'm thinking that most artists are in their twenties when they first come out with stuff that secures their place in the culture. Where's KenOC with his statistics?

EDIT: I spoke too soon. So where are the _rest_ of his statistics?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Genoveva said:


> Without doubting for one moment that Beethoven was a musical genius (one of the very best), I've always been somewhat puzzled as to why it took him so long to get around to producing any noteworthy works.


Perhaps it has more to do with "number of attempts" rather than chronological age. Beethoven only needed two or three goes before he stunned the world with _Eroica_, but Mozart needed 20+ attempts before he produced symphonies of comparable impact and quality. Even so, most of these could easily have come straight from Haydn's sketchbook if we didn't know better and, magnificent as they are, none are as mould-breaking as the _Eroica_ would be. We need to wait until K550 and K551, towards the end of Mozart's life, for symphonies that might bear comparison with Beethoven's Third.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

OK, another statistic. Beethoven wrote his three piano quartets in 1785, when he was 14 (he was a December baby). So far as I know he had no model, since Mozart didn’t write his 1st Piano Quartet until the same year, and it seems unlikely that it was known at all out in the hinterlands of Bonn, at least until a year or two later.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> We need to wait until K550 and K551, towards the end of Mozart's life, for symphonies that might bear comparison with Beethoven's Third.


K504 at least "bear comparison" with Beethoven. And Mozart's best symphony is K545.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Magnum Miserium said:


> K504 at least "bear comparison" with Beethoven. And Mozart's best symphony is K545.




K504 (the "Prague") has a great first movement (the most elaborate such before the "Eroica"?). K545 is a piano sonata.

EDIT: The Prague's first movement is my favorite movement in any symphony before Beethoven. Mozart didn't figure out how to balance a movement like that until his last symphony, but then it wasn't in the Classical idea of a symphony to try to do so.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> K504 at least "bear comparison" with Beethoven. And Mozart's best symphony is K545.



K504 is a great work for sure, but still comparatively late and Haydnesque. K545 is a piano sonata - a very famous one - and I love it, but it's not Mozart's best symphony by any stretch. It might not even be his best piano sonata.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> K504 is a great work for sure, but still comparatively late and Haydnesque.


K504 is no more Haydenesque than Mozart's last three symphonies. Haydn's London symphonies are K504esque.



Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> K545 is a piano sonata - a very famous one - and I love it, but it's not Mozart's best symphony by any stretch. It might not even be his best piano sonata.


It's certainly not Mozart's best piano sonata, because that's K576. It's probably not even in his top five piano sonatas.

But come on, re: the symphony, y'all know I meant K543. Which, again, is his best.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The best of the best symphonies!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> OK, another statistic. Beethoven wrote his three piano quartets in 1785, when he was 14 (he was a December baby). So far as I know he had no model, since Mozart didn't write his 1st Piano Quartet until the same year, and it seems unlikely that it was known at all out in the hinterlands of Bonn, at least until a year or two later.


And what's more, those piano quartets are not half bad and already contain, at least here and there, some of the hallmarks of his later style.

I have long thought that this notion that Beethoven wasn't a child prodigy is somewhat mythical. He wasn't very widely recognized as one at the time, but that tells you more about the obtuseness of the folks around him than it does about him.

By the time he was around 11 or 12, he could play Bach WTC, a not half bad achievement even by today's standards, and many of his early works seem to me far more mature and original than most of Mozart's early output. How many of the works Mozart composed in his youth are still regularly performed? But recordings of Beethoven's early piano quartets and Kurfürstensonaten are far from mere curiosities.

I grant that he was not quite as astonishingly precocious as some others, but I think his genius manifested very early. What is more remarkable is that it matured, given the gross abuse and neglect he suffered as a child.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven's daddy took him on tour as a virtuoso prodigy, trying to copy Leopold Mozart's example. It wasn't much of a success, since Beethoven was something of a dark, sullen child, not like the cute and lovable Wolfgang. Also, he mostly played Bach's 48, impressive for sure but probably not very popular among the royalty of the time.

So far as I know, that tour was solely to show off Beethoven as a pianist and not a composer. His own early music never had the easy perfection of Mozart's, which cost him a great struggle for most of the rest of his life. What Mozart was given for free, he had to fight every inch of the way for. But like many composers since, he worshipped Mozart.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

brianvds said:


> By the time he was around 11 or 12, he could play Bach WTC, a not half bad achievement even by today's standards, and many of his early works seem to me far more mature and original than most of Mozart's early output. How many of the works Mozart composed in his youth are still regularly performed? But recordings of Beethoven's early piano quartets and Kurfürstensonaten are far from mere curiosities.


That depends on what age you mean by "youth." Mozart didn't start composing great works with regularity until the age of 18, there are a few works from his 16th year as well like the Jubilate motet and the D-major sonata for four hands (k.381) ,but if you mean the age where Beethoven wrote those piano quartets and piano sonatas, there's a cassation, one or two serenades and one or two short sacred works. Although maybe the greatest work Mozart wrote by age 12 is the C-minor mass k.139 which is much more ambitious or "mature" in its technical accomplishment than what Beethoven wrote at the same age. There's a missa brevis in d minor and g major from around his 12th or 13th year, both short, but I only find parts of the g major moving.

Forgot to add this little gem from Mozart's 11th year: The "Grabmusik" cantata with recitatives omitted: 



. There are little glimmers there of Mozart's budding operatic genius.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2016)

Klassic said:


> MacLeon, to say that Beethoven simply "took the various components and rearranged them into interesting variations," is a gross reduction of what he actually did. *The man did create things that were totally original*. *Surely you have heard of his piano sonatas*?


I haven't just heard _of _the piano sonatas, I've listened to them too. Are you claiming that he created the piano sonata, then?

This is, of course, a fruitless exercise. In the face of extensive insistence that he is a genius, and dumb pointing to a piece of work and saying, "There, see!" all that seems to be presented is the continuation of an inherited uncritical acceptance that this is so. My earlier point began, "It is arguable that..." (not, "I argue that...") but I'll not maintain a role as a devil's advocate.

I'd just ask that those who advocate his genius and whose knowledge of music and musical history is more extensive than mine would offer some specific musical evidence to support this received wisdom.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I'd just ask that those who advocate his genius and whose knowledge of music and musical history is more extensive than mine would offer some specific musical evidence to support this received wisdom.


Music consists entirely of what we hear in it. The consensus judgment of history seems to be that Beethoven's sonatas are the "New Testament" of the piano after Bach's 48. And that's how it seems to me as well. If you hear differently, I know of no argument to refute your opinion, and perhaps there is none. In short, nobody can prove that you're wrong, or that they're right.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I haven't just heard _of _the piano sonatas, I've listened to them too. Are you claiming that he created the piano sonata, then?
> 
> This is, of course, a fruitless exercise. In the face of extensive insistence that he is a genius, and dumb pointing to a piece of work and saying, "There, see!" all that seems to be argued is the continuation of an inherited uncritical acceptance that this is so. My earlier point began, "It is arguable that..." (not, "I argue that...") but I'll not maintain a role as a devil's advocate.
> 
> I'd just ask that those who advocate his genius and whose knowledge of music and musical history is more extensive than mine would offer some specific musical evidence to support this received wisdom.


It is an old ploy to put others on the defensive by making one's own position as obscure as possible and in addition demanding that everyone else prove their position. So far, your comments that appear to diminish Beethoven's unique gifts indicate an ignorance that could be remedied by a little self-education rather than expecting others to do it for you.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Music consists entirely of what we hear in it. The consensus judgment of history seems to be that Beethoven's sonatas are the "New Testament" of the piano after Bach's 48. And that's how it seems to me as well. If you hear differently, I know of no argument to refute your opinion, and perhaps there is none. In short, nobody can prove that you're wrong.


Well my untrained ear can't distinguish between the pleasure I get from listening to Haydn's piano sonatas (62 of them) and Mozart's piano sonatas (including K545) and Beethoven's. Perhaps you can point to the genius that marks LvB's out from those of contemporaries?

As for 'originality', if Bach's 48 is the so-called Old Testament, then the creation of a New Testament (semantics aside) rather suggest that Ludwig was building on an evolving tradition, not creating something wholly original - which appeared to be Klassic's claim.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps you can point to the genius that marks LvB's out from those of contemporaries?


As I just wrote, that I cannot do. You'd have to do that yourself.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2016)

DaveM said:


> It is an old ploy to put others on the defensive by making one's own position as obscure as possible and in addition demanding that everyone else prove their position. So far, your comments that appear to diminish Beethoven's unique gifts indicate an ignorance that could be remedied by a little self-education rather than expecting others to do it for you.


Well I guess I can hardly take exception to the accusation of 'ignorance' when I already own up to it. But the rest of your post is just rhetorical posturing. The OP poses a question and I see no legitimacy to the argument that the OP must now make his position clear before anyone else offers any evidence in response.

My 'position', since you fail to see it, is that claims of genius are not evidenced here - only continually asserted. I don't like the term 'genius' at all (never mind its application to LvB), and have, I think you will find, consistently held this position. If you care to do your own research, you will also be able to deduce my views of Beethoven with ease. I see no reason to do the work for you.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2016)

KenOC said:


> As I just wrote, that I cannot do. You'd have to do that yourself.


That's OK Ken - if, as it seems, neither of us can do it, we can wait until someone shows up who can. Until then, I remain a sceptic, not an adherent.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was recognized as an unusual talent early on, which is why the Elector paid to send him to Vienna for lessons two times - the first to learn from Mozart and the second to learn from Haydn. Some of his earlier work from Bonn is well worth hearing: the "Electoral" piano sonatas, the piano quartets, and a big cantata, one of two from 1790, "Funeral cantata on the Death of Emperor Joseph II."
> 
> Beethoven had actually published an Opus 1 while still in Bonn - was it the Dressler Variations? - but he withdrew that opus number when his career in Vienna started in earnest.
> 
> Also, most of his 2nd Piano Concerto was written in Bonn in 1787-1789, before he went to Vienna


I'm quite an avid collector of Beethoven material and have all these works. There are only a small number of WoO and Hess that I'm still tracking down.

Having checked my Excel spreadsheet, I accept that there are several works that pre-date 1792, including those you mention. In fact, according to my records, the piano concerto in Eb (WoO 4) was produced in 1784 when Beethoven could have been either 14 or 15. I also accept that some of these early works are pretty good, but the point is that there aren't many of them, there's not a steady flow, and none them is well-known in a general sense today.

Previously, I mentioned Op 1 being published in 1792. I see now that it was actaully Op 3 that was published in 1792. Op 1 was published in 1794/95. Op 2 was published over the period 1793/5. It's not until 1795 and beyond that Beethoven started to turn out some of his more more notable works, e.g. Piano Sonata No 7 was published in 1797/8.

As I said earlier, I'm not in the slightest disputing Beethoven's genius. All I meant was that, unlike Mozart, Schubert and Mendelssohn, he was a bit slow getting off the mark in terms of producing a list of noteworthy output that is recognised as such today compared with these three.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> That's OK Ken - if, as it seems, neither of us can do it, we can wait until someone who shows up who can. Until then, I remain a sceptic, not an adherent.


Which is as it should be. Your opinion of Beethoven, and his piano sonatas, is really important to only one person.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Genoveva said:


> Previously, I mentioned Op 1 being published in 1792. I see now that it was actaully Op 3 that was published in 1792. Op 1 was published in 1794/95. ...he was a bit slow getting off the mark in terms of producing a list of noteworthy output that is recognised as such today compared with these three.


Beethoven's Op. 1 Piano Trios were published in 1795, per Wiki. According to Cooper, the were valued highly and yielded Beethoven a fee sufficient for half a year's living. They are still high in the repertoire for that combination of instruments and are often performed.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Which is as it should be. Your opinion of Beethoven, and his piano sonatas, is really important to only one person.


What a curious idea; this Forum survives precisely because the opinions of its members are of interest to more than just one person.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Well I guess I can hardly take exception to the accusation of 'ignorance' when I already own up to it...
> 
> My 'position', since you fail to see it, is that claims of genius are not evidenced here - only continually asserted. I don't like the term 'genius' at all (never mind its application to LvB), and have, I think you will find, consistently held this position. If you care to do your own research, you will also be able to deduce my views of Beethoven with ease. I see no reason to do the work for you.


Oh, I remember your 'position'. In the past, there were several attempts to support the 'genius' premise in response to your now repeated demand, but you dismissed all of them. It's tiresome, but your opening statement explains it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> What a curious idea; this Forum survives precisely because the opinions of its members are of interest to more than just one person.


 As I said, "important to," not "of interest to." Certainly I don't expect my opinions of music are important to you, nor of course yours to me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Oh, I remember your 'position'. In the past, there were several attempts to support the 'genius' premise in response to your now repeated demand, but you dismissed all of them.


I think I probably did.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

trazom said:


> That depends on what age you mean by "youth." Mozart didn't start composing great works with regularity until the age of 18, there are a few works from his 16th year as well like the Jubilate motet and the D-major sonata for four hands (k.381) ,but if you mean the age where Beethoven wrote those piano quartets and piano sonatas, there's a cassation, one or two serenades and one or two short sacred works. Although maybe the greatest work Mozart wrote by age 12 is the C-minor mass k.139 which is much more ambitious or "mature" in its technical accomplishment than what Beethoven wrote at the same age. There's a missa brevis in d minor and g major from around his 12th or 13th year, both short, but I only find parts of the g major moving.
> 
> Forgot to add this little gem from Mozart's 11th year: The "Grabmusik" cantata with recitatives omitted:
> 
> ...


All good points. But as I said, I would agree that Beethoven was not precocious at quite the scale that some others were, but I think it is a mistake to think that he wasn't precocious at all. By his mid-teens, he was a professional musician, pretty much in charge of his whole family. He had also written some very solid pieces, some of which are still played today, and not just because the name Beethoven is attached to them. Who knows what might have happened, had his early career been overseen and administered by a Leopold Mozart rather than a semi-psychopathic dipsomaniac?

Of course, on the other hand, history is littered with the sad remains of child prodigies who burned out because of too much pressure too soon.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> As I said earlier, I'm not in the slightest disputing Beethoven's genius. All I meant was that, unlike Mozart, Schubert and Mendelssohn, he was a bit slow getting off the mark in terms of producing a list of noteworthy output that is recognised as such today compared with these three.


I would suggest that this may be partly because of the complete shambles his personal life was in at the time. I'm not too sure about Schubert, but Mozart and Mendelssohn both grew up in stable, supportive homes, and didn't have to face adult responsibilities at the age Beethoven had to.

Well, who knows? Even as adult, his output tended to go up and down; between his second and third period, for several years, he produced almost nothing and people said he was all written out. Boy, were they wrong. ;-)

Mind you, that hiatus also coincided with yet another bout of instability in the form of political turmoil, financial difficulties and, probably most of all, his stormy relationship with his nephew and the struggles to gain sole guardianship.


----------



## zachybinx (Sep 13, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Basically, I think we want Beethoven and Mozart to be brave rebels for democracy, and so we interpret their careers somewhat out of context in order to make them look as rebellious as possible.


capitalism is so much tastier when it makes us feel like we are breaking the system.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Magnum Miserium said:


> He is, though I don't think he deserves it. A lot of composers at that time lived by some combination of public performance, selling compositions to publishers or directly to buyers, giving music lessons, and loans or gifts from friends. And then of course others were theater people. Basically, I think we want Beethoven and Mozart to be brave rebels for democracy, and so we interpret their careers somewhat out of context in order to make them look as rebellious as possible.


People forget that one of Beethoven''s big ambitions was to get a post as kapellmeister or something similar, an ambition which, mercifully, he never fulfilled. 

And yes, his supposed rebellious independence is indeed somewhat (although not completely) overstated. It was also not that unique; long before either Beethoven or Mozart, the relatively obscure figure of Boismortier made a small fortune as completely independent and patron-free composer, and later on Vanhal (or Wanhal, as they spell it nowadays) also managed to spend his last few decades independent of patrons or formal positions.


----------



## zachybinx (Sep 13, 2016)

bz3 said:


> He must be on such a high level of genius that he has literally redefined the concept to include idiocy.


And so beethoven was never even slightly idiotic/absurd? I mean... not even when he was composing huge freakin' way too long orchestra pieces which climax on trash themes that were probably lifted directly out of a german kindergarten party?
( i love the symphonies )

I don't know. I don't think genius always has to be perfect and it certainly doesn't always have to be mature. The scope of what kanye's created appears totally gigantic and culturally significant to me... but to be honest, I really don't know that much of his work. I just freaked when I heard the college drop out for the first time and love that he called out bush during katrina. I think there's something to be said for when an artist is able to reach so many audience members while also having a very tangible, seminal influence on the artists in their field.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

brianvds said:


> I would suggest that this may be partly because of the complete shambles his personal life was in at the time. I'm not too sure about Schubert, but Mozart and Mendelssohn both grew up in stable, supportive homes, and didn't have to face adult responsibilities at the age Beethoven had to.
> 
> Well, who knows? Even as adult, his output tended to go up and down; between his second and third period, for several years, he produced almost nothing and people said he was all written out. Boy, were they wrong. ;-)
> 
> Mind you, that hiatus also coincided with yet another bout of instability in the form of political turmoil, financial difficulties and, probably most of all, his stormy relationship with his nephew and the struggles to gain sole guardianship.


I understand that Mendelssohn had quite a cosseted upbringing, coming from quite a well-to-do family.

Schubert's early life and career was hardly a bed of roses. His poor family fortunes meant that he was unable to pursue his musical ambitions as he would have liked. Instead he chose school teaching but this ended miserably after a few years. When he was 24 or thereabout he contracted syphilis, that caused several bouts of ill-health during his remaining 7 years. Unlike Beethoven, he achieved much less fame in his own lifetime, earned relatively little and yet he continued to pour out works of often astounding quality, especially towards the end of his life.

But nothing compares with Beethoven's increasing deafness (by 1816 totally deaf) which was obviously a major difficulty that would have led most others to abandon any musical ambitions they may have had. The extremely high quality of what he achieved against this enormous impediment is one of the most inexplicable achievements in classical music history, in my opinion.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Perhaps it has more to do with "number of attempts" rather than chronological age. Beethoven only needed two or three goes before he stunned the world with _Eroica_, but Mozart needed 20+ attempts before he produced symphonies of comparable impact and quality. Even so, most of these could easily have come straight from Haydn's sketchbook if we didn't know better and, magnificent as they are, none are as mould-breaking as the _Eroica_ would be. We need to wait until K550 and K551, towards the end of Mozart's life, for symphonies that might bear comparison with Beethoven's Third.


But wouldn't it be fairer to say that the reason it took Beethoven fewer attempts to stun the world with a symphony was that Mozart (and Haydn) in their late symphonies had already laid the groundwork? Yes, one needed to be a great composer to produce the _Eroica_, but nevertheless Beethoven was able to expand on existing examples rather than having to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## MalariaMan (Aug 30, 2016)

zachybinx said:


> And so beethoven was never even slightly idiotic/absurd?


Of course he was. Beethoven must have been completely obnoxious and a stuck-up little brat, according to all his biographers, but we cannot really include a discussion of his personality in the middle of a discussion on his skills and, yes, genius, as a musician. They are connected entities, yes, but the fact that he did a few idiotic and even questionable things in his life (his nephew comes to mind) cannot tarnish his genius at the craft of making music. Or for that matter that of any musician or artist or other fields. I think of Wagner, Balakirev, Chopin, etc...


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Magnum Miserium said:


> K504 is no more Haydenesque than Mozart's last three symphonies.


We'll have to agree to differ on that.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Yes, one needed to be a great composer to produce the _Eroica_, but nevertheless Beethoven was able to expand on existing examples rather than having to reinvent the wheel.


But Beethoven didn't expand on existing examples; his 3rd symphony broke serious new ground. To be slightly hyperbolic, I sometimes consider the _Eroica_ to be the _Rite of Spring_ of the 19th Century.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> But Beethoven didn't expand on existing examples; his 3rd symphony broke serious new ground. To be slightly hyperbolic, I sometimes consider the _Eroica_ to be the _Rite of Spring_ of the 19th Century.


Yeah, "expand on" was a bit weak, I won't deny the significance of the Eroica, but it still was composed in the context of those previous works, is all I'm saying. If Mozart and Haydn had stopped writing symphonies in the mid-1780s, would - or _could_ - Beethoven have written the Eroica?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> If Mozart and Haydn had stopped writing symphonies in the mid-1780s, would - or _could_ - Beethoven have written the Eroica?


I think so. Neither Haydn nor Mozart did much with the symphony after the 1780s, beyond refining the form. Beethoven's _Eroica_ redefined the symphony, raising it to an entirely different level; something he continued to do in his later symphonies. To a large extent, Beethoven provided his _own_ context; from the _Eroica_ onwards, he didn't much "need" Haydn or Mozart any more.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Let me remind everyone of the incontestable fact: Beethoven was a genius. One might not like him, but why do you think he was a genius?


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

I don't think Beethoven was a genius ... just as subjective opinions are not facts.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Prodromides said:


> I don't think Beethoven was a genius ... just as subjective opinions are not facts.


Sorry friend, but this is like saying you don't believe the sun is hot.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I believe that Beethoven composed all of his numerous supreme works of genius with the sole purpose of eventually being able to get away with composing Wellington's Victory. In that sense, at least, I think we have to consider him a failure.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Let me remind everyone of the incontestable fact: Beethoven was a genius. One might not like him, but why do you think he was a genius?


Why do _you_ think he was a genius?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

...because he wrote 16 string quartets


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Genius? Of course! But if I wrote a thank you note to send back in time to Beethoven it would say the following;

Herr Beethoven,

Thank you for dedicating hours upon hours of your life to the art of music. I imagine writing down an entire symphony, concerto or opera on manuscript paper must have been an extremely slow tedious process. And based on the thousands of times you sketched and revised your music I thank you for your patience and never settling for anything less than perfection. That you were a genius would have meant next to nothing had you not been an extraordinarily hard worker, and for that I thank you. 

Sincerely,

Matt


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Because of the music he wrote?

Similar questions:
Why was Newton a genius?
Why was Einstein a genius?
Why was Da Vinci a genius?
etc.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Why do _you_ think he was a genius?


Because he had cool hair.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Why do _you_ think he was a genius?


A warning to everyone: Do not take the bait! (Good for you Klassic) No matter how logical or profound your responses, none of them will work. We've been through this before and you will only end up in crazyland.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

This is not in response to 'Why do you think he [Beethoven] was a genius?' In fact, I don't believe anyone has to give reasons or prove it as if it is open to question. The fact is that, contrary to comments otherwise, calling Beethoven a genius is not subjective.

Let's look at some definitions of genius:
_-'exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.'
-'a very smart or talented person : a person who has a level of talent or intelligence that is very rare or remarkable'
-'a genius is a person who displays exceptional intellectual ability, creative productivity, universality in genres or originality, typically to a degree that is associated with the achievement of new advances in a domain of knowledge.'_

If one were to declare as a genius a composer of the last few years, that might be considered subjective because there has not been both the test of time and a consensus of experts and, to some extent, the general music-listening public over many years. But, the incontrovertible fact is that the experts and classical music listeners worldwide have come to a consensus about Beethoven and his place in classical music history as a genius of creation and innovation over almost 2 centuries.

And, while we're at it, let's put to bed the dismissive attitude towards the word, 'genius', by some here. It doesn't matter what the word is that is used. Inevitably, even if that word was thrown out, an alternative that has the same definition would be used to describe giants like Einstein, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci and, yes, Beethoven.

So, to those few here to like to question Beethoven's place as a genius-level classical composer, it is not up to the great majority to prove anything; it is up to you explain why Beethoven appears on so many 'genius lists', why so many composers who followed Beethoven idolized him as an influence of genius proportions and why he has moved millions upon millions of people over 200 years in a way that only a genius could. On this subject the naysayers are the outliers: Live with it!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

arnerich said:


> Thank you for dedicating hours upon hours of your life to the art of music. I imagine writing down an entire symphony, concerto or opera on manuscript paper must have been an extremely slow tedious process. And based on the thousands of times you sketched and revised your music I thank you for your patience and never settling for anything less than perfection. That you were a genius would have meant next to nothing had you not been an extraordinarily hard worker, and for that I thank you.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Matt


A very important point. People like the idea of divine inspiration in the arts, but often completely overlook just how tedious this business of being a creative genius can be. Of course, it's even worse for the non-genii; Beethoven at least had the assurance that at the end of all the scribbling, he'd have an actual masterpiece.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." --Thomas Alva Edison

Always thought this applied, to some extent, to Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." --Thomas Alva Edison
> Always thought this applied, to some extent, to Beethoven.


I know what you're saying and others have mentioned how much Beethoven apparently agonized over the finished product. My view is that while that may be true, Beethoven's first efforts were like an uncut diamond, the elements of perfection were already there; the rest of the effort was to make it perfectly cut. Even then, he was probably never satisfied with many of his final results.

An example that can be examined are the Leonore Overtures 1, 2, 3. You can hear the development from 1 to the 3rd which is obviously the best of the three. But Beethoven was still not satisfied with it as the overture to Fidelio and wrote a totally new overture for that purpose. Of course, he had also rewritten the Leonore opera which ended up as Fidelio, but there again, the original Leonore opera (which I have) was not a bad opera to begin with; Fidelio was the perfected product.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." --Thomas Alva Edison
> 
> Always thought this applied, to some extent, to Beethoven.


Edison didn't know how much anyone else perspired.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." --Thomas Alva Edison


Good that I have a sauna then.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kivimees said:


> Good that I have a sauna then.


I knew there had to be some explanation for Sibelius.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2016)

Perhaps if we could design a sweat-o-meter, we could determine the extent of genius...the level of sweat detected in inverse proportion to the length, times the complexity multiplied ...no, divided by an originality quotient...

I mean, Beethoven must have sweated twice as much as his predecessors in composing Eroica...:lol:


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Edison didn't know how much anyone else perspired.


And seeing as he stole many of his patents, he himself probably did not perspire quite as much as he would like us to think either...


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2016)

[deleted ]


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

For me the beauty of Beethoven's work does not lie on it's surface but deep within. I don't think there's one Beethoven piece that I found appealing by first hearing, on the contrary, mostly they sounded a bit recalcitrant. I can totally understand people who don't like his music at all but when you listen long enough, EVERY piano sonata and EVERY string quartet WILL reveal it's abstract beauty to you, that's the genius of it.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> "don't think he's any more of a genius than" "who is, at least, a much greater storyteller" Okay! Your remarks on Dickinson sounded like mere ignorance. Your remarks on Roth sound like nitpicking, which is to say resentment, which is more interesting.


Your remarks on what constitutes genius sounds like imperiousness, which is to say resentment, which is interesting. Roth and West? Fine, you can stand by your "genius" moniker but it's not like this is some grand consensus.

If there's a latter half of 20th century Jewish literary genius it's Bellow or Kafka. If there's a hip hop genius from its genesis to present it's Dr. Dre, Andre 3000, or RZA. In my opinion, I don't think we're at a point where any of the aforementioned can be called unequivocally "genius" yet, which was the point.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

bz3 said:


> If there's a *latter half of 20th century* Jewish literary genius it's Bellow or *Kafka*.


Uh.....



bz3 said:


> If there's a hip hop genius from its genesis to present it's Dr. Dre, Andre 3000, or RZA.


Andre 3000 is a "genius" to people who are scared of hip hop and reassured by him because he plays guitar. Dr. Dre and RZA (musicians of limited scope compared to West) were snubbed during their heyday by the same kind of middlebrows who now snub West - but now they're old, so now they're safe to like.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Uh.....


Edit mistake, I'd stand by the point though and I'm a big Roth fan.



Magnum Miserium said:


> Andre 3000 is a "genius" to people who are scared of hip hop and reassured by him because he plays guitar. Dr. Dre and RZA (musicians of limited scope compared to West) were snubbed during their heyday by the same kind of middlebrows who now snub West - but now they're old, so now they're safe to like.


Heh well I don't know what the middlebrows thought, you seem more tapped into the collective middlebrow consciousness as well as the (presumably) highbrow critics' consciousness with regards to genius. But there's not much more middlebrow than West's musical concepts, songwriting, and self-promotion - and I'm not even touching his marriage to one of the trashiest and most loathed women of our time.

Dre and RZA limited? Definitely doesn't apply to RZA if you've followed his career but I assume you mean Dre stuck to the 4 minute songwriting mode instead of West's concept album stuff. That's true but it's like saying Mahler's symphonies are better than Beethoven's because they're bigger in scope. The former might be true but it's not because of the latter.

Anyway all this is neither here nor there to the thread topic or even whether West is a genius or not.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

bz3 said:


> But there's not much more middlebrow than West's musical concepts, songwriting, and self-promotion - and I'm not even touching his marriage to one of the trashiest and most loathed women of our time.


The second half of your sentence - implying it reflects badly on West's music that he married a *low*brow celebrity - undermines the first half (which was of course also wrong to begin with).



bz3 said:


> Dre and RZA limited? Definitely doesn't apply to RZA if you've followed his career but I assume you mean Dre stuck to the 4 minute songwriting mode instead of West's concept album stuff.


No I don't.

Here's something I wrote when I was still more interested in this subject:



> So there's part of your answer above. Re criteria, we've discussed part of it already: Artworks, including bad artworks, imply their own criteria. Re Kanye West, his masterful use of "space" and his distinctive approach to sampling have been widely commented on. I would add that from his first album onward he's had an inclination and talent for making music that comments on the words in a way that changes over the course of the song (common in rock since in the late '60s, less so in hip hop).
> 
> e.g. in "Jesus Walks," after "leave you breathless" the beat briefly stops twice while somebody gasps for air; this both emphasizes the word and provides a break in the otherwise relentlessly increasing intensity of the track - more and more layers being added over the half gospel, half military drums (or, in one case, one layer - the squealing synthesizer, being subtracted again, only to be immediately replaced by the solo singer ("I want Jesus…") - this matters later).
> 
> ...


----------

