# My "Problem" with Beethoven



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This will fall on many deaf ears, but my "problem" with Beethoven is that most of the music never really "recedes" into a background of wave-like contours; it's so rhythmic and up-front that this is never allowed to happen, as it does in Robert Schumann, Mahler, or Debussy.

That's why I always say that Beethoven is a "harmonic" composer, not so much linear. His ideas always have a vertical significance, rather than a "wandering linearity" like the other composers mentioned.

In Beethoven, we are confronted with idea after idea, always so clearly and succinctly stated, usually cadencing in neat little "packets" of ideas, that my brain is never allowed to "let go" and submit to an "ocean" of sound. It's very rhythmic; if not continuously, then in "bursts" of rhythmic phrases and ideas. It's like a machine-gun of ideas.

Maybe this is the key to Beethoven's appeal; we are so surrounded by rhythmic popular music with incessant background tempo, that Beethoven is a good introduction to CM for many listeners who have not yet shaken-off "the beat."

Of course, I love the music, especially the late string quartets, where much rhythmic leeway is inherent in the sustained tones of violins; but the "Harp" quartet shows once again how Beethoven subverts the "possible smooth washes of strings" into a pluck-fest of pointillistic phrases.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this, which I'm sure we will hear about. The closest I've heard Beethoven come to "letting go" of this forward rhythmic drive and "bursts" of phrases is, ironically, The Grosse Fugue, where the bursts of rhythms become so repetitive and incessant that they become a continuous "wave" of sound.

The Grosse Fugue is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Whatever structure that is in the music begins to emerge between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures, and it is propelled by a repetitive rhythmic cell. This is unusual for Beethoven, as his music is usually a series of self-contained, successive gestures.

In the Grosse Fugue, a virtually static rhythmic element is expanded to encompass an entire piece. It _does_ exhibit large-scale closure, and it _does_ build to a climax, but for me does not set up the usual internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension in the usual ways, but just keeps "going and going" and does not "climax" so much as simply "end."
It generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we easily lose our sense of perspective. This is not bad; just different for Beethoven, and I can see why many die-hard Beethoven fans seem to have a problem with it, or at least a "struggle."


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> This will fall on many deaf ears...


I see what you did there.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ribonucleic said:


> I see what you did there.


What?..............(after reflection).....

Snap! I really did not realize it was a pun, but thanks for giving me credit.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> What?..............


Made a lame joke at the expense of Beethoven's deafness?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Made a lame joke at the expense of Beethoven's deafness?


No, of course not, but thank you for your support. It sounds like you've been on that Furtwangler thread for too long.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

I don't see what you have described a "problem".


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_His ideas always have a vertical significance, rather than a "wandering linearity" like the other composers mentioned._

I think your wandering linearity is a hallmark of romanticism and beyond, the time frame all of Robert Schumann, Mahler, or Debussy fit into. Among others, Franz Liszt also demonstrated this type of movement in music. If you look at pre-Beethovenian composers from either the baroque or classical periods you probably won't find anyone doing this.

Beethoven, we all know, wrote the first romantic symphony and was with Schubert the first major romantic composers. Beethoven stayed grounded in classicism, however, never moving to the trappings of romanticism: excesses. The floating line of music you are describing came later.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Hey! You want " wave-like contours" from Beethoven?

Don those headphones, crank up one of the mighty Nine, or the _Missa Solemnis_, or the _Egmont_ Overture, or even the _Grosse Fugue_ whatever … grab your board and hit the surf!









It don't get more "rhythmic and up-front" than that, dude!


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

larold said:


> Beethoven stayed grounded in classicism, however, never moving to the trappings of romanticism: excesses. The floating line of music you are describing came later.


I also think the "problem" boils down to this. Beethoven did not fall into the trap Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, or Mahler fell into. If someone happens to enjoy the layout of the trap, they will wish he did.

I wonder what does OP think of Mendelssohn. Is there a similar problem with Mendelssohn's music?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> I also think the "problem" boils down to this. Beethoven did not fall into the trap Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, or Mahler fell into. If someone happens to enjoy the layout of the trap, they will wish he did.


What shall I do if I like both the Romantics and Beethoven? Beethoven is one of my absolutely favourite composers but so are also Mahler, Bruckner and Wagner. I wouldn't necessarily describe the flow of late Romantics as a "trap", rather as a different approach and a different way of self-expression. I also don't think the greats of late Romanticism used emotions excessively, they were displayed differently but whether in excess or with great taste is a matter of personal opinions.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

This ought to be a good show...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I wonder what does OP think of Mendelssohn. Is there a similar problem with Mendelssohn's music?_

Are you comparing Mendelssohn to Beethoven? I have done so for years typically to dismissals and shouts of rubbish. I have always believed Mendelssohn was the first of the name composers to follow in Ludwig's footsteps.

Their violin concertos are copies of each other. Felix's Lobgesang symphony would never have been written had not it been for Beethoven's 9th. His Piano Sonata Op. 6 is virtually a remake of an early yet mature Beethoven sonata. There is a close relationship between Beethoven's Second Piano Concerto and those of Mendelssohn. Much of Mendelssohn's chamber, solo piano and orchestral music mimics Beethoven in style.

Mendelssohn did occasionally show a flight of fancy, though. The Midsummer Night's Dream and First Walpurgis Night set plays are far from Beethovenian though rhythmically they stay in the ballpark. Even here, however, a relationship exists between these compositions and Beethoven's only ballet, the Creatures Of Prometheus.

Other composers that followed Ludwig were Bruckner -- he started all his symphonies but one with the cadence from Beethoven's 9th -- and the 20th century modernist Robert Simpson whose first symphony mimics the energy of many Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

larold said:


> Are you comparing Mendelssohn to Beethoven? I have done so for years typically to dismissals and shouts of rubbish.


It does not discourage me in the slightest. Mendelssohn was one of the greatest composers to ever live, and in the merits of his orchestral works certainly the closest to Beethoven we have gotten since Beethoven.

Unless one subscribes to the "different but equal", "similar cannot be equal", or some other double speak.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> my "problem" with Beethoven is that most of the music never really "recedes" into a background of wave-like contours; it's so rhythmic and up-front that this is never allowed to happen,





larold said:


> I think your wandering linearity is a hallmark of romanticism and beyond,


True, though one can't necessarily drag Mozart and Bach into his whole description.

As the user hammeredklaviers put it, Zomart's music is commonly clanky and plunky, as though writing short-hand harmonic ideas, while with the former two you can easily _let go_ or whatever your concept, and be taken along their colors and contours.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2020)

Well, if you love the music, but find you need a rest, do what the rest of us do.

Listen to something else, or nothing at all.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

"Mendelssohn was one of the greatest composers to ever live, and in the merits of his orchestral works certainly the closest to Beethoven we have gotten since Beethoven."


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Well, I always think of the slow sections of the _Heiliger Dankgesang_ as a kind of flux or wave of golden, atmospheric, almost timeless sounds. I love it beyond what words can express. It's true that the _Neue Kraft fühlend _ sections have some rhythmic drive though.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OT: Maybe you just haven't heard anything approaching the objective truth.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I have a similar problem with middle period Beethoven. As much as I recognize its greatness, I almost never choose to listen to it.

Late period Beethoven is a different story.

Mozart's music, though also Classical, does not come across as "blocks of ideas" in this way. I'm not sure I could exactly explain why.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2020)

The 'problem' with Beethoven is that there is no problem.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> In Beethoven, we are confronted with idea after idea, always so clearly and succinctly stated, usually cadencing in neat little "packets" of ideas, that my brain is never allowed to "let go" and submit to an "ocean" of sound. It's very rhythmic; if not continuously, then in "bursts" of rhythmic phrases and ideas. It's like a machine-gun of ideas.
> "


and this is why I love him so much.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> That's why I always say that Beethoven is a "harmonic" composer, not so much linear. His ideas always have a vertical significance, rather than a "wandering linearity" like the other composers mentioned.


I think people are not really "getting" the OP because they're not thinking about his real motive in starting this thread. 
If you have observed the way our dear friend MR talk long enough on this forum (on topics of such as "common practice vs modernity", "Wagner vs Debussy" and many others), you'll know he has a constant "ulterior motive": to prove that, in classical music history, "contrapuntal thinking" was destined to go "obsolete" from the start, only to be eventually replaced by "harmonic thinking", which he believes is an "advancement" from "contrapuntal thinking". (I think other members such as EdwardBast, mikeh375, Woodduck, etc also know well about this behavior of MR). Sort of like how Marx believed that communism was the inevitable final stage of human society's economic and political evolution, MR often argues something to the effect that the more imaginative and flexible a composer gets with his thinking of harmony, he would move farther away from "the boring old voice leading rules".
(Likewise, I know that Luchesi often wants to prove in his argument that "Chopin is better than the Classicists because he came later than them").



millionrainbows said:


> My views are more progressive than yours, and I hope camus will seek out a flexible teacher, not someone who comes across as a nun, complete with guilt-tripping and knuckle-rapping.
> Sure, I know what polyphony is, and how it could be transformed into some conservative version of what you think it should be. Also, I think you should not teach any guitarist if your main instrument is piano. Yes, "warm chords" are nice, but from what you have said, you would not encourage free-modal thinking, and in fact discourage it, as we just heard. You prefer Wagner to Debussy, after all.





millionrainbows said:


> Polyphony is overrated. Counterpoint is too strict. If you've got melody on the brain it's for you, but Debussy? Was his music full of counterpoint? Satie?
> There's really no need for "counterpoint" as a separate category, now that _harmony_ has progressed to the point it has now. What used to be a "passing tone" B-C is now a major seventh chord.
> You polyphony guys are old hat. The study of it is really more of a historical pursuit than it is a vital, living style of music.
> Row, row, row your boat, gently into obsolescence.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Until the nineteenth century, music education began with what is called species counterpoint. In this exercise the student is given a simple phrase of long, even notes like part of a Gregorian chant, called a cantus firmus, and is asked to write another phrase of long, even notes that could be played or sung with it. The first species is one note of the countermelody for one note of the cantus firmus; the different species then advance in rhythmic complexity, the last being a free rhythm against the original cantus firmus. The student advances from two voices to three-, four-, and five-part counterpoint." 
<The Romantic Generation, By Charles Rosen, Page 553>

"He [Chopin] said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint."
<The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57>


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> you'll know he has an "ulterior motive" to prove that, in classical music history, "contrapuntal thinking" was destined to go "obsolete" from the start, only to be eventually replaced by "harmonic thinking", which he believes is an "advancement" from "contrapuntal thinking".


I think many people, especially musicians in general - from modern times in most genres, not only classical, agree with that. Or else, we would be hearing more counterpoint in other genres which reach wider audiences like rock, metal, etc 
I wish that was no truth though. I think counterpoint was the pinnacle of western musical composition, and it is so sad that after Bach has peaked this art, it has become so forgotten.
Since Bach was the most superior musician and composer ever, it is quite possible that no-one felt they would achieve better results than him, who perfected polyphony. 
Also, since it is a complicated art form, while awesome, people were not willing to master it, create it and hear it, which is sad.

See, Beethoven who would struggle to compose most of his best stuff, was not able to write a fugue. And to Bach, who was truly a genius, that was like humming while in the shower.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

aioriacont said:


> I think many people, especially musicians in general - from modern times in most genres, not only classical, agree with that. Or else, we would be hearing more counterpoint in other genres which reach wider audiences like rock, metal, etc
> I wish that was no truth though. I think counterpoint was the pinnacle of western musical composition, and it is so sad that after Bach has peaked this art, it has become so forgotten.
> Since Bach was the most superior musician and composer ever, it is quite possible that no-one felt they would achieve better results than him, who perfected polyphony.
> Also, since it is a complicated art form, while awesome, people were not willing to master it, create it and hear it, which is sad.
> ...


Actually he was and did compose, and some of his fugues are as dear to me as J.S. Bach's. Beethoven's music, particularly in the late period, has a lot of beautiful counterpoint.


----------



## ribonucleic (Aug 20, 2014)

aioriacont said:


> See, Beethoven who would struggle to compose most of his best stuff, was not able to write a fugue. And to Bach, who was truly a genius, that was like humming while in the shower.


The shower wasn't invented until 17 years after Bach's death. But I take your point.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

ribonucleic said:


> The shower wasn't invented until 17 years after Bach's death. But I take your point.


indeed! Baroque and Bach were too old-school to be placed in the same year as the shower.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Actually he was and did compose, and some of his fugues are as dear to me as J.S. Bach's. Beethoven's music, particularly in the late period, has a lot of beautiful counterpoint.


It was not his focus to compose within this framework. And no, those examples would never be comparable to Bach's achievements within this art form.
Beethoven is one of my top composers, but I love him for his other stuff, when he was composing to other forms not related to Bach's times.

Grosse Fugue is just cacophony, but since it is by Beethoven, people hail it as genius.
Can you imagine if it was one of the less hailed composers who composed the same piece? People would mock it a lot. 
I also believe some of them would do much better than Beethoven. Brahms, for example, was much better in counterpoint in some of this attempts to it. 
Let's not be deaf or blind or fanatics. Each composer is a genius in their specific art form.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

millionrainbows said:


> In Beethoven, we are confronted with idea after idea, always so clearly and succinctly stated, usually cadencing in neat little "packets" of ideas, that my brain is never allowed to "let go" and submit to an "ocean" of sound. It's very rhythmic; if not continuously, then in "bursts" of rhythmic phrases and ideas. It's like a machine-gun of ideas.


This is an excellent observation. If we liken music to conversation, Beethoven's music would be like a conversation with no lulls or extended pauses. Passive moments like that, in conversation, let people process what's been said. Does that mean casual, pensive conversation is better or worse than say a speech? NO. It becomes a matter of preference what people prefer in their listening.

I personally have a preference to music with some lulls. And I'll be the first to admit that maybe I need music with passive moments because my attention span is **SQUIRREL!!**


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

aioriacont said:


> It was not his focus to compose within this framework. And no, those examples would never be comparable to Bach's achievements within this art form.
> Beethoven is one of my top composers, but I love him for his other stuff, when he was composing to other forms not related to Bach's times.
> 
> *Grosse Fugue is just cacophony, but since it is by Beethoven, people hail it as genius*.
> ...


To me the _Grosse Fuge_ is the work of a man who is in the edge, in middle of much turmoil and struggling to keep his life going on. I think that it's a very expressive work of art that was many years ahead of it's composition time, and it's a great personal experience to listen to it. I prefer it over many Bach fugues, and it seems that other people also hold it in high steem. I think that liking it has nothing to do with being fanatic or blind.

"More than anything else in music ... it [the Grosse Fuge] justifies the ways of God to men" - Leonard Ratner.

"[It] is one of the great artistic testaments to the human capacity for meaning in the face of the threat of chaos. Abiding faith in the relevance of visionary struggle in our lives powerfully informs the structure and character of the music" - Mark Steinberg.

"The Great Fugue ... now seems to me the most perfect miracle in music. It is also the most absolutely contemporary piece of music I know, and contemporary forever ... Hardly birthmarked by its age, the Great Fugue is, in rhythm alone, more subtle than any music of my own century ... I love it beyond everything." - Igor Stravinsky.

"For me, the 'Grosse Fuge' is not only the greatest work Beethoven ever wrote but just about the most astonishing piece in musical literature." - Glenn Gould.

*Source of the citations here.*


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

An entertaining analysis of the Grosse Fuge by Richard Atkinson. Worth watching!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

^ Grosse Fuge is really a work to be appreciated by composer not average listeners. It sounds especially awful on the synthesizer on the computer when I tried to study it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ^ Grosse Fuge is really a work to be appreciated by composer not average listeners. It sounds especially awful on the synthesizer on the computer when I tried to study it.


Near the end of the 19th century, critics were fond of saying that the late quartets were better appreciated by reading the scores than by listening. Times change. When I checked a few years ago, recordings of the set of the late quartets outnumbered recordings of the middle quartets, suggesting that "average listeners" were quite capable of enjoying them. I don't think this has changed.

And BTW. most listeners seem to prefer the Grosse Fuge to be played as the finale of the Op. 130 rather than the nifty "replacement" Beethoven wrote, which tells its own story.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2020)

ribonucleic said:


> The shower wasn't invented until 17 years after Bach's death. But I take your point.


You have this confused with showering composers with praise, surely!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2020)

Allerius said:


> Actually he was and did compose, and some of his fugues are as dear to me as J.S. Bach's. Beethoven's music, particularly in the late period, has a lot of beautiful counterpoint.


The guy who puts these analyses together is very clever. He's done one for Mozart's "Jupiter" which is very good. I really enjoy these and didn't know this one was available.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> In Beethoven, we are confronted with idea after idea, always so clearly and succinctly stated, usually cadencing in neat little "packets" of ideas, that my brain is never allowed to "let go" and submit to an "ocean" of sound. It's very rhythmic; if not continuously, then in "bursts" of rhythmic phrases and ideas. It's like a machine-gun of ideas.


You could also note that the "packets of ideas" tend to be very contrasting, yet the movement from one to another seems absolutely natural. Making unlike things sound as if they belong together, and moving between them with an effect of rightness and inevitability, is a compositonal challenge characteristic of the Classical style, particularly of sonata form, and one that no one met better than Beethoven. His thematic "packets" engage in dialogues and dramas of such point and purpose that they become members of a family: loving each other, fighting with each other, interrupting or continuing each other's thoughts, and ultimately united in a common destiny.



> Maybe this is the key to Beethoven's appeal; we are so surrounded by rhythmic popular music with incessant background tempo, that Beethoven is a good introduction to CM for many listeners who have not yet shaken-off "the beat."


I'm sure Beethoven's rhythmic drive is part of his appeal. This seems a different matter from the question of structure raised above - rhythmic popular music doesn't exhibit that kind of structure - though it's related to rhythm in the sense that it can be easier to hear the structure in music that's rhythmically strong and clear. Beethoven's clarity of structure, in and of itself, must be quite perceptible and impressive to many new listeners as well as to the more experienced and knowledgeable.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

So, we still like Beethoven. Right?


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> So, we still like Beethoven. Right?


yes, except his miserable attempts at counterpoint


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2020)

aioriacont said:


> yes, except his miserable attempts at counterpoint


a) I daresay Bach had some miserable attempts too, as well as his sublime ones - even geniuses had to start somewhere.
b) Is counterpoint the be-all and end-all of CM?
c)


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> a) I daresay Bach had some miserable attempts too, as well as his sublime ones - even geniuses had to start somewhere.
> b) Is counterpoint the be-all and end-all of CM?
> c)


a) No
b) Yes
c)


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Oldhoosierdude said:


> So, we still like Beethoven. Right?


best post I've read all day!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

aioriacont said:


> yes, except his miserable attempts at counterpoint


I think all composers have made miserable attempts at many things but I wouldn't call at least his Große Fuge a miserable attempt at counterpoint. While it remains quite controversial, I think that describing it as "Armageddon", as it has been described, is quite appropriate. While Beethoven might not have been as comfortable or natural with counterpoint as was its great master Bach (but who was as natural at it as Bach?!), the way he used it is utterly genius.

It starts off as a battle of contrasting themes and ideas which evolve until they come together in coda to end the fugue in a very Beethovenianly (is this a word?) victorious manner. During the finale, the first subject is played below the soaring violin line playing a variant of the second subject - the same themes that created the tensity and chaos in the beginning are used to create something exceptionally noble and grand during the coda. If you listen just the first variant of the first (and the main) chromatic motif and then compare it to what Beethoven managed to achieve in the finale, it's quite strikingly different. I think this ability to control theme development and do it very profoundly was one of the great merits of Beethoven. His skills to convey emotions through purely orchestral music were truly exceptional.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> This will fall on many deaf ears, but my "problem" with Beethoven is that most of the music never really "recedes" into a background of wave-like contours; it's so rhythmic and up-front that this is never allowed to happen, as it does in Robert Schumann, Mahler, or Debussy.


This idea of wave lake contours made me think of Steve Reich's 1968 essay _Music as a Gradual Process _ where he explores music which is like "placing your feet in the sand by the ocean's edge and watching, feeling, and listening to the waves gradually bury them."

What I'm basically saying is that there are two ideas which are very different in your intro: the waves and the machine gun of ideas.

And yet, Beethoven can be very repetitious, like in the first movement of the Waldstein. Though I always think that when he does this, it just comes from wanting to really milk an idea for more than it's really worth, rather than for anything interesting poetically.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

As we know the later Beethoven used fugues to express (or work through) personal distress. I'm not sure where those who say his counterpoint is awful and poorly done want to take that argument or what they would have liked him to do with his fugues. They are filled with angst and with the sense of facing up to a bitter challenge (no, I don't mean the challenge of writing a fugue as well as Bach) and enormously powerful. To want technically correct counterpoint seriously misses the point. 

This seems to me yet another example of coming at masterpieces from the viewpoint of theory instead of getting the music and how it works for the listener and only then looking at the more theoretical aspects to see how the music's impact is achieved.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> who was as natural at it as Bach?!


The 18th century masters (including Bach's sons, Haydn's brother, Mozart's father) _generally_ feel like counterpoint is their "first language"* , more so than the early 19th century ones (except maybe Mendelssohn), for the reasons I described in an earlier post. It wasn't until the second half of the 1790s, Beethoven studied the art seriously with Haydn and Albrechtsberger in Vienna.

I also acknowledge the artistry of Grosse Fuge: with narrative sections of "marches" and the final "consolation", it seems to foreshadow Berlioz's fantastic symphony. What if it was not named "fugue", but something like "fantasia for string quartet"? Would we have judged the work differently? The finale of Mozart K.464 is said to incorporate "every form of contrapuntal device" (Reginald Barrett-Ayres, Joseph Haydn and the String Quartet. London: Barrie & Jenkins (1974): 197.), but the movement is still not named "fugue". What if it was? Would we have judged the work differently? 
We should not obsess ourselves too much over titles; they are not what decide the intrinsic value of a work. A work can be titled "fugue", but can still be a parody on the fugue form, artistically.
I agree with Richard Atkinson that many of the themes in Grosse Fugue are "groovy and hummable", and they enhance the emotional expression of the work. Sure, the work feels a little "messy", but the expression and spirit are somewhat like those of the 9th symphony scherzo, which I also appreciate.

*


hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart wrote this at 10:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> _"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
> [10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
> as if "darkness" wasn't yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
> [13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
> ...


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_The 'problem' with Beethoven is that there is no problem._

I think that is probably true yet there are times when his stormy heroics are too much for me.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

larold said:


> _I wonder what does OP think of Mendelssohn. Is there a similar problem with Mendelssohn's music?_
> 
> Are you comparing Mendelssohn to Beethoven? I have done so for years typically to dismissals and shouts of rubbish. I have always believed Mendelssohn was the first of the name composers to follow in Ludwig's footsteps.
> 
> *Their violin concertos are copies of each other.*


I hear them as totally different pieces; perhaps you are focusing on a something specific?



> Felix's Lobgesang symphony would never have been written had not it been for Beethoven's 9th. His Piano Sonata Op. 6 is virtually a remake of an early yet mature Beethoven sonata. There is a close relationship between Beethoven's Second Piano Concerto and those of Mendelssohn. Much of Mendelssohn's chamber, solo piano and orchestral music mimics Beethoven in style.
> 
> Mendelssohn did occasionally show a flight of fancy, though. The Midsummer Night's Dream and First Walpurgis Night set plays are far from Beethovenian though rhythmically they stay in the ballpark. Even here, however, a relationship exists between these compositions and Beethoven's only ballet, the Creatures Of Prometheus.
> 
> Other composers that followed Ludwig were Bruckner -- *he started all his symphonies but one with the cadence from Beethoven's 9th* -- and the 20th century modernist Robert Simpson whose first symphony mimics the energy of many Beethoven symphonies.


Not sure what 'cadence' you are referring to...just listened to the beginning of Bruckner's 8th and 9th...so you mean the perfect fifth A - E that begins Beethoven's? Very interesting.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

aioriacont said:


> yes, except his miserable attempts at counterpoint


I'm guessing either you don't know Beethoven's late music or you don't understand what the word counterpoint means. Can you use the first movement of Op. 131, the finale (or any other movement) of Op. 101, or the finale of Op. 106 to explain in what way Beethoven's contrapuntal skills are lacking?


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I'm guessing either you don't know Beethoven's late music or you don't understand what the word counterpoint means. Can you use the first movement of Op. 131, the finale (or any other movement) of Op. 101, or the finale of Op. 106 to explain in what way Beethoven's contrapuntal skills are lacking?


You seem to have a lot of free time in your hands in the middle of the week, so you can do it. ;-)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

aioriacont said:


> You seem to have a lot of free time in your hands in the middle of the week, so you can do it. ;-)


It seems that we all (except for health care workers) have some free time these days, so I'll second EdwardBast's question: can you use some specific movements of specific works to show in what way Beethoven's contrapuntal skills are lacking? Can you explain Beethoven's alleged deficiencies in valid and comprehensible terms?

Some others have expressed views similar to yours, that Beethoven "was not able to write a fugue." I've always thought that they are merely blaming him for writing fugues that don't conform to a certain idea of what a fugue should sound like.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

No "problem." You're allowed to like or dislike any composer for whatever reason suits your taste.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> It seems that we all (except for health care workers) have some free time these days, so I'll second EdwardBast's question: can you use some specific movements of specific works to show in what way Beethoven's contrapuntal skills are lacking? Can you explain Beethoven's alleged deficiencies in valid and comprehensible terms?
> 
> Some others have expressed views similar to yours, that Beethoven "was not able to write a fugue." I've always thought that they are merely blaming him for writing fugues that don't conform to a certain idea of what a fugue should sound like.


In his never completed book on Beethoven, Tovey addressed the "can't write a fugue" question by admitting that Beethoven couldn't write a Bach fugue, but he could write a Beethoven fugue better than anyone!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

aioriacont said:


> You seem to have a lot of free time in your hands in the middle of the week, so you can do it. ;-)


I've spent a lot less time on this thread than you have. About one minute so far. You've also claimed Schubert could have managed to quickly and more successfully finish works Beethoven took a long time to complete. Could you please pick any of Beethoven's last 15 sonatas and tell us what Schubert could have done better? Or any of the mature quartets or symphonies?


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I've spent a lot less time on this thread than you have. About one minute so far. You've also claimed Schubert could have managed to quickly and more successfully finish works Beethoven took a long time to complete. Could you please pick any of Beethoven's last 15 sonatas and tell us what Schubert could have done better? Or any of the mature quartets or symphonies?


I won't bother.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I've spent a lot less time on this thread than you have. About one minute so far. You've also claimed Schubert could have managed to quickly and more successfully finish works Beethoven took a long time to complete. Could you please pick any of Beethoven's last 15 sonatas and tell us what Schubert could have done better? Or any of the mature quartets or symphonies?


I think it's a mistake to take aioriacont seriously on any subject.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> This will fall on many deaf ears, but my "problem" with Beethoven is that most of the music never really "recedes" into a background of wave-like contours; it's so rhythmic and up-front that this is never allowed to happen, as it does in Robert Schumann, Mahler, or Debussy.
> 
> That's why I always say that Beethoven is a "harmonic" composer, not so much linear. His ideas always have a vertical significance, rather than a "wandering linearity" like the other composers mentioned.
> 
> ...


That's very interesting!

My primary interest has always been extreme metal to the point where I don't really have much time or energy for becoming engrossed in other areas of music like classical and jazz, which have steadily remained of mere secondary importance. I've always explained the appeal of my favourite genre precisely in the terms you state:
- constant motion
- propelled by repetitive rhythmic cells
- idea after idea without that much articulation
- one is never allowed to "let go".

Coincidentally, Beethoven has been one of the few composers whose pieces have brought truly intense emotional experiences, to the point of bringing me to tears sometimes. And I've often thought about what makes him so different from so much other classical music. I like your description of it and would propose that it's precisely this never allowing the listener to "let go" that makes his music significant. I don't want to meditate on music, I want to be moved and carried by it. I like physical movement and associate meditation and contemplation with anxiety and self-deception. Beethoven and metal and some of the more energetic and hot jazz convey precisely this sense of physical movement and excitement for me.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I think it's a mistake to take aioriacont seriously on any subject.


I like to start by giving the benefit of the doubt.  It only took a couple of minutes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I'm sure Beethoven's rhythmic drive is part of his appeal. This seems a different matter from the question of structure raised above - rhythmic popular music doesn't exhibit that kind of structure - though it's related to rhythm in the sense that it can be easier to hear the structure in music that's rhythmically strong and clear. Beethoven's clarity of structure, in and of itself, must be quite perceptible and impressive to many new listeners as well as to the more experienced and knowledgeable.





Boychev said:


> That's very interesting!
> 
> My primary interest has always been extreme metal to the point where I don't really have much time or energy for becoming engrossed in other areas of music like classical and jazz, which have steadily remained of mere secondary importance. I've always explained the appeal of my favourite genre precisely in the terms you state:
> - constant motion
> ...


So maybe, to an extent, we are all hearing the same thing in Beethoven, or in any good music.

That being said, it's time for the hard-core Classical listeners here to reciprocate, and listen to some extreme metal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*While not wanting to turn this into a continuation of the Furtwangler thread/fiasco), *and being on-topic, If any listener has any "problem" with the Grosse Fugue, or wants a good introduction, might I suggest Furtwangler's 1954 reading with the Wiener Philharmonic. It's the string orchestra version (of course) and a lot of the themes and their transformations are more clearly audible and comprehensible than the string quartet versions I've heard.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

_*"Seid umschlungen, millionenregenbogen"*_

I think one of the most glorious moments of Beethoven's counterpoint can be found near the ending of the 9th symphony, where it feels like countless thematic figures shaped like rainbows "rain down upon the listener".

*[ 17:00 ]*






Btw, on youtube there's a guy named "K A Nesiah" who keeps claiming that the _Dona nobis pacem_ from Mozart's _Missa en honorem sanctissimae trinitatis (1773)_ was the source of inspiration for Beethoven's _"Seid umschlungen, millionenregenbogen"_. While there's some aesthetical similarity, I don't think it's something to write home about.

*[ 28:30 ]*


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> *While not wanting to turn this into a continuation of the Furtwangler thread/fiasco), *and being on-topic, If any listener has any "problem" with the Grosse Fugue, or wants a good introduction, might I suggest Furtwangler's 1954 reading with the Wiener Philharmonic. It's the string orchestra version (of course) and a lot of the themes and their transformations are more clearly audible and comprehensible than the string quartet versions I've heard.


Jeez, you just can't escape from that thread.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Merl said:


> Jeez, you just can't escape from that thread.


No, that post is about the Grosse Fugue, not about whether conducting is objective or subjective, combined with philosophy, Platonism, etc.


----------



## aioriacont (Jul 23, 2018)

I dont know in which thread i am, fartwanglors everywehre


----------

