# About this Beethoven guy...



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Most people consider Beethoven one of the three greatest composers in history. In the majority of polls I've seen, he takes the first place.

So my question is: Why? What makes Ludwig's music different? Leonard Bernstein tried to answer this and pretty well butchered it. So the field is open. Care to give it a go?

I'll pass for the time being...


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Er ist. 

I have nothing more than that to say...


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

It's not just the music, it's the time he arrived on the scene. He came right at the end of the classical period and was seen as the heir to the earlier classical masters.


----------



## gpaulot (Aug 14, 2013)

I believe the reason is that the usual top 3 'Bach, Mozart, Beethoven' are well above 'competition'.
then every might have a different order between 3 of them but at the end they for most of people stand on top of the list.
I believe it is because they have been successful in all kind of music (piano, vocal, orchestral etc...) and in each of them they bring something unique. Maybe the passion for Beethoven, the 'happiness' with Mozart, the precision of music science with Bach.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Beethoven's personality captured something of his era, and he's the first composer to make himself the subject of his work: he composed in the _first-person_ and had the force of character to make that stick.

His music was a departure because of this, and because he led the way from the pristine condition work of Mozart, into the subjective, personal music of Romanticism. He was independent (maybe because Vienna felt guilt pangs over Wolfie) and so he fit in perfectly here with the new revolutionary mindset.

Plus, his music was gigantic and still is. He was innovative and deliberately trying to stretch the forms. He had plenty of time to compose, it seems, compared with guys who preceded him, and so he could experiment and develop new ideas. He was obviously very successful at this and fortunate that it was appreciated at the time...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Beethoven is at the top of the heap for as many reasons as there are fans of his works, but I have layman's theory that could be one reason. I general we can say great composers fit into two camps, those who perfected and were at the pinnacle of their style or period (i.e. J. S. Bach) and those who innovated and moved music into new styles and new periods (Stravinsky or Schoenberg perhaps). 

Beethoven became both in one. For me his music is at the apex of formal classical music, staying well within that genre, but at the same time moving into a realm well beyond anything heard previously -- perhaps not even Romantic but something outside of classical, romantic or modern either one. A parallel musical road not taken before or after. 

He also seemed to have a knack for writing the universal soundtrack to nearly everyone's inner personal heroic saga.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

This guy need a comb.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

This guy does too.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

Beethoven's music just does something for me that few other composers do, Shostakovitch and Vaughn Williams also do the same I wonder if it is the orchestration or the melancholy (that may not be the right word) sound, I have just called it deep music in the past, and despite what Bernstein thinks in this case he is wrong wrong wrong, I like repeated and expanded motifs so there!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

His music survives bad performances. Also, being the most universal composer, his music is capable of resonating with the common man--emotionally and intellectually.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Most people consider Beethoven one of the three greatest composers in history. In the majority of polls I've seen, he takes the first place.
> 
> So my question is: Why? What makes Ludwig's music different? Leonard Bernstein tried to answer this and pretty well butchered it. So the field is open. Care to give it a go?
> 
> I'll pass for the time being...


Let me play devil's advocate and state that his fame is just the Paris Hilton effect all over again: he has become famous for being famous.

If you don't want to end up every bit as deaf as he was, I suggest listening to Ditters von Dittersdorf instead. Or, if you insist on Beethoven's contemporaries, then try some Hummel, a neglected and underrated composer, probably simply because he had a nice personality and lived a less tragic and tumultuous life.

:angel:


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Beethoven's music is (often) quite dramatic. Certainly it is very expressive and covers a wide range of emotions.

He is not, IMO, a first rate melodist, but what he does with themes is superb. He takes just a few notes and works wonders with them. He's quite rhythmic. Beethoven's music flows very naturally; it doesn't sound like he's forcing the notes. Yet it also isn't predictable. The first time I hear a piece of his, I don't know where it's going, but once I've heard, it feels like it couldn't have gone any other way.


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

Klavierspieler said:


> Er ist.
> 
> I have nothing more than that to say...


Must es ? Es must !


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Let me play devil's advocate and state that his fame is just the Paris Hilton effect all over again: he has become famous for being famous


Ah yes, certainly ! The fact that so many 'greats' such as Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Schubert, Tchaikovsy... etc considered him a god (perhaps with very good reasons) definitely attracted me to Beethoven in a unique way ~


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Let me play devil's advocate and state that his fame is just the Paris Hilton effect all over again: he has become famous for being famous.


Then you'd agree with Glenn Gould: ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip." But Dittersdorf (snicker)? Hummel, who couldn't even write a symphony? Uh....


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The you'd agree with Glenn Gould: ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip." But Dittersdorf (snicker)? Hummel, who couldn't even write a symphony? Uh....


Gould said that? I suddenly question his judgement in many things. Gossip? Ludicrous.

Beethoven was an incredible genius with the force of personality to reach for the stars. His secular music has all the spirituality of Bach's masterpieces. Powerful, dramatic, spiritual, sublime. That is Beethoven to me.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Muddy said:


> Gould said that? I suddenly question his judgement in many things.


You seem surprised. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

KenOC asks why Beethoven comes top in the polls, and what it is about his music. brianvds says,



brianvds said:


> Let me play devil's advocate and state that his fame is just the Paris Hilton effect all over again: he has become famous for being famous.


Perhaps the people to ask this are those who have heard his music and like it, but who know nothing else about classical - who haven't read the books or heard the gossip. The problem with any analysis about his work that refers to the period he ended/initiated/straddled, or with the idea that he was innovative, is that it is meaningless without knowing more about the context. Certainly, I don't prefer Beethoven over most other composers because he was innovative, or because he was the 'first Romantic' or the 'last Classical'.

And yet, it's difficult to extract the man from the reputation. The music I've chosen to listen to has been partly determined by what I've heard around me, and most of us come across Beethoven's 5th well before we hear any (name your favourite underrated composer). I've no opinion on Schubert because I've not yet given him enough of a listen - though in time, I know I will. Perhaps then he will become my preferred composer.

In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the drive, the power, the energy, the 'bigness' (technical term that)...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> The problem with any analysis about his work that refers to the period he ended/initiated/straddled, or with the idea that he was innovative, is that it is meaningless without knowing more about the context. Certainly, I don't prefer Beethoven over most other composers because he was innovative, or because he was the 'first Romantic' or the 'last Classical'.


I agree with this a hundred percent. Beethoven wrote 200 years ago! Those times are dead and gone. Who cares how he bridged the classical and the romantic, how he seized the opportunities of his times, how he was a great innovator, how he fulfilled the promises of Mozart, or whatever. None of that counts any more.

It's the music, first last and always. Just the music. What is it about *the music *that puts him so consistently at the top of our charts?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Kieran said:


> Beethoven's personality captured something of his era, and he's the first composer to make himself the subject of his work: he composed in the _first-person_ and had the force of character to make that stick.


This seems a very big generalisation to me. How do you know that some other composers didn't put something of their personality into their music as well? And some of Beethoven's musical personality is derived from Haydn, as was other music of this period.



KenOC said:


> It's the music, first last and always. Just the music. What is it about *the music *that puts him so consistently at the top of our charts?


But the music isn't produced in a vacuum. I think it is pointless to look at him as looking forward to something, but you can't ignore what led up to him or the consequences of that for the time he lived in.



MacLeod said:


> Perhaps the people to ask this are those who have heard his music and like it, but who know nothing else about classical - who haven't read the books or heard the gossip. The problem with any analysis about his work that refers to the period he ended/initiated/straddled, or with the idea that he was innovative, is that it is meaningless without knowing more about the context. Certainly, I don't prefer Beethoven over most other composers because he was innovative, or because he was the 'first Romantic' or the 'last Classical'.
> 
> And yet, it's difficult to extract the man from the reputation. The music I've chosen to listen to has been partly determined by what I've heard around me, and most of us come across Beethoven's 5th well before we hear any (name your favourite underrated composer). I've no opinion on Schubert because I've not yet given him enough of a listen - though in time, I know I will. Perhaps then he will become my preferred composer.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy the drive, the power, the energy, the 'bigness' (technical term that)...


The context is important as I said before. He followed on from the classical masters and like others (such as Weber and Rossini) he had to establish his own style. In his case it meant breaking away from Mozart and Haydn, while still building on what they did.

Schubert was largely unknown in Beethoven's time, he seemed shy and less confident about his work, and wasn't a virtuoso either. He was largely known for songs as well. So he wasn't a rival for Beethoven in the area that Beethoven worked during his lifetime. Certainly the fact that Beethoven seemed such a larger than life character and had this unusual story of being deaf did help to create more of a legend around him. The music itself luckily _lived up to that_, but that alone didn't propel him above Mozart or Schubert for the Romantics in subsequent decades.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

trazom said:


> You seem surprised. :lol:


I haven't studied Gould, and I have never been a huge fan. I don't know. Gould playing Bach always seems to me to be more about Gould than Bach. 100 years from now, Bach and Beethoven will be cherished and Gould will be forgotten.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

starry said:


> The context is important as I said before.


Sorry starry, but if you said it before, you're repeating an irrelevance.

(BTW, my reference to Schubert was meant as an example of _any _composer you might choose as someone you've not yet come across.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starry said:


> The context is important as I said before. He followed on from the classical masters and like others (such as Weber and Rossini) he had to establish his own style. In his case it meant breaking away from Mozart and Haydn, while still building on what they did.


When somebody who has never heard Beethoven hears his music, the context is absolutely irrelevant. Nothing counts except the music. Haydn? Mozart? And who are they?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I brought Schubert into it because I think it's an interesting comparision, he was obviously underrated subsequently because he wasn't that well known in his lifetime.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

KenOC said:


> When somebody who has never heard Beethoven hears his music, the context is absolutely irrelevant. Nothing counts except the music. Haydn? Mozart? And who are they?


For someone who has never heard Beethoven, as for most other composers, it's probably quite difficult to assess and understand their music without understanding some of the *musical* context. The music is what matters I agree, but a narrow view of it probably makes it harder to enjoy. I know when I first heard his symphonies and quartets they made little sense to me, I needed to know more of the musical context.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

starry said:


> For someone who has never heard Beethoven, as for most other composers, it's probably quite difficult to assess and understand their music without understanding some of the *musical* context. The music is what matters I agree, but a narrow view of it probably makes it harder to enjoy. I know when I first heard his symphonies and quartets they made little sense to me, I needed to know more of the musical context.


When I first heard the Moonlight Sonata - played by a boy at my school - I doubt I had any context. I just liked it.

Reputations do indeed develop in a context, and can include what came before and since. But it seems unlikely that Beethoven (or any of the major composers) could survive on reputation alone.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Personally, I've only learned to enjoy Beethoven after I've listened to Haydn. I do remember liking the piano sonatas though but the symphonies seemed too large and while I did like the Pastoral, for example, I found he took a long time to 'move' me. I have general problem with his symphonies - there are too many fortes and 'explosions', which, in my opinion, don't add anything to the music but contribute to Beethoven's 'reputation' - oooh, look at me, I'm a big bad boy. That's why I haven't listened to his symphonies in a while - I can appreciate their craft and I do really like some moments, especially when Beethoven shifts into the minor, but the fortes are what make them hard to come back to, for me at least. Now, I don't mind fortes at all when they're used properly - here is where I must praise Haydn - the Representation of Chaos, or the Benedictus of the Nelson mass, the Agnus Dei of the Paukenmesse - the forte comes in at an exact, climactic moment. 

I do really like Beethoven's piano concertos 4 and 5 - there is a lot of mastery there, but all in all, it always sounds like he's 'trying too hard' to impress. But I still generally like him and consider him one of my favourite composers, it's just that I get irritated by how much attention he gets in comparison to Haydn.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I never said anywhere that he survived on reputation. Some pieces of Beethoven may be enjoyable straight away based on just the general atmosphere of them, but most probably aren't. There is probably a need to understand where a style comes from to understand more of a composer's music, rather than just enjoying a few of the famous tunes they did.


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

starry said:


> For someone who has never heard Beethoven, as for most other composers, it's probably quite difficult to assess and understand their music without understanding some of the *musical* context. The music is what matters I agree, but a narrow view of it probably makes it harder to enjoy. I know when I first heard his symphonies and quartets they made little sense to me, I needed to know more of the musical context.


I most certainly agree. Although musical contexts may not be necessary to enjoy the understanding of musical notes, it most certainly elevates the experience. Of course, I do not mainly refer merely to the potential 'programmatic' elements, but to the context of composition (e.g. Brahm's A German Requiem was written based on his mother's death as well as Schumann's suicide attempt). As composers were also humans, I repeatedly find myself understanding the human being aspect within the composition. Of course, music speaks only through the notes, but can't the same be said about the alphabet system ? In the end, words are meaningless shapes. Besides, no one is hurt !


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Beethoven was an individual and believed music must have counterpoint in it and he studied Bach. Most of the well known composers were very good contrapuntalists and were also absolutely brilliant at at least one genre which they made their own. For Mozart: concertos and operas and sonatas, Beethoven: symphonies and sonatas and string quartets, Bach: choral music and solo music and concertos, Haydn: symphonies and chamber music (all of these are debatable, yes, but there's no denying that the concept of each composer having particular genres which they are particularly good at is true). 

Another point: Beethoven was an evolutionary. A lot of the composers around the same time as him had similar late Classical and early Romantic sounds, but what Beethoven did with music was prepare it for the future. He is a key figure in the development of form and harmony (the Eroica is a good example: first mvt extends sonata form, has a number of subjects, modulates to keys not closely related to the tonic, the whole symphony was relatively long at the time which helped all the bigness of the Romantic period actually happen) and his music was often looked back upon by later composers of the 19th century for inspiration and also just because he is a very good model to learn from (reasons above).


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2013)

starry said:


> I never said anywhere that he survived on reputation. Some pieces of Beethoven may be enjoyable straight away based on just the general atmosphere of them, but most probably aren't. There is probably a need to understand where a style comes from to understand more of a composer's music, rather than just enjoying a few of the famous tunes they did.


Don't worry, no one suggested you did say that he 'survived on reputation'. But I don't understand why you say that you need to "understand where a style comes from". Why?



LindnerianSea said:


> I most certainly agree. Although musical contexts may not be necessary to enjoy the understanding of musical notes, it most certainly elevates the experience.


I agree that to know more _about _the music can add to the experience _of _the music, but I don't see how this explains Beethoven's longevity or significance.


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Don't worry, no one suggested you did say that he 'survived on reputation'. But I don't understand why you say that you need to "understand where a style comes from". Why?
> 
> I agree that to know more _about _the music can add to the experience _of _the music, but I don't see how this explains Beethoven's longevity or significance.


With regards to Beethoven, it fascinates me greatly of how he was admired by so many other great composers. Thinking that 'Bruckner must have heard this same piece some hundred years ago' has a certain mystical edge. But more pertinantly, Beethoven's image as a (possibly the first great Romantic?) suffering artist definitely impressed me, especially when I was approaching his Missa Solemnis and late quartets. I think all this -quite understandably - contributed to his great reputation. But again, I don't this all would have happened to a second rate composer. This is not to say that he is the 'best' too. As far as musical history goes, all great composers have a certain greatness that cannot be mechanically and reductionistically compared.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

LindnerianSea said:


> ...Beethoven's image as a (possibly the first great Romantic?) suffering artist definitely impressed me, especially when I was approaching his Missa Solemnis and late quartets.


Suffering artist indeed...contemporary accounts have Beethoven quite merry while writing his late quartets, aside from some bouts of sickness and (near the end) major problems with nephew Carl. He happily schmoozed with publishers anxious for his works, wheedling top dollar out of them. Cooper has excellent accounts of this time in his life, when he was hardly isolated from his contemporaries.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Don't worry, no one suggested you did say that he 'survived on reputation'. But I don't understand why you say that you need to "understand where a style comes from". Why?


I think it probably does help because as much as we like to make music (and other things) about heroic individualism the development of art is more about a continuing influence of people on each other.


----------



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

I think Beethoveen (together with Schubert) is first truly modern composer in the sense that he managed to capture modern "Lebensgefühl", which I cannot describe, you just have to feel it.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

For me, the appeal of Beethoven is the directness and forcefulness of his ideas as a symphonist. On top of that, he was a superb craftsman. Only the sixth symphony and the finale of the ninth really force me to think about context. The rest is just music...great music.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

LindnerianSea said:


> Ah yes, certainly ! The fact that so many 'greats' such as Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Schubert, Tchaikovsy... etc considered him a god (perhaps with very good reasons) definitely attracted me to Beethoven in a unique way ~


Which just goes to show that even famous composers are not immune to the Paris Hilton effect. 



KenOC said:


> Then you'd agree with Glenn Gould: ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip." But Dittersdorf (snicker)? Hummel, who couldn't even write a symphony? Uh....


Well, Dittersdorf is but one example. Let's not forget other great masters, such as Wanhal, Salieri, or, my personal favourite, Mauro Giuliani.

In the face of such competition, Beethoven's fame can surely rest on little more than gossip.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

starry said:


> This seems a very big generalisation to me. How do you know that some other composers didn't put something of their personality into their music as well? And some of Beethoven's musical personality is derived from Haydn, as was other music of this period.


Of course it's a generalisation - it's a post on a music forum! :lol:

All composers would have "something of their personality" in their work, but Beethoven became the subject of his work, which is a different thing. He was the first of the great Romantic composers, in temperament and tendency, if not in style...


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

The compositional arena Beethoven excells way beyond his predecessors and contemporaries that no one has so far specifically mentioned in this thread is the breadth and depth of the development sections of his sonata-allegro movements. This is where Beethoven most lets loose his prodigious gifts as an improviser; the myriad inspired ways he expands upon the exposition themes and motifs be it harmonically, rhythmically, contrapuntally, etc., in his developments is what sets him apart from the others and is, I think, his greatest innovation.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

starry said:


> How do you know that some other composers didn't put something of their personality into their music as well?


In a way, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Beethoven was and still is _perceived_ as being the first composer to put his personality in his music. Not that this answers the question, since we now have to ask why he and not someone else is perceived as such. But it's worth reminding ourselves that when it comes to explaining a composer's legacy, the perception of what a composer did counts for way, way more than what a composer actually did.

One avenue we would need to explore in order to answer the question is to figure out when and how greatness or profoundness supplanted beauty and pleasure as the most important values an artist could aspire toward. That has a big role to play in the rise of Beethoven to the top of the heap, since Beethoven was among the first composers to be praised for the former rather than the latter reasons. Many nineteenth century accounts praise the Ninth Symphony for lots of things, but beauty is rarely one of them. In fact, much of the Romantic fascination with the Ninth is that it is so great and profound despite being--especially in the beginning of the last movement--so ugly and terrifying. In this sense, Edmund Burke is an important precedent: though not primarily an aesthetic philosopher, his book _On the Sublime and Beautiful_ helped convince artists and thinkers (including, importantly, Kant) that something threatening or overwhelming could be a source of aesthetic value. From there it is but a short leap to E.T.A. Hoffman, whose praise of Beethoven's music for revealing monstrous, thunderstruck realms threatening to destroy us and so on are well known.

Another change in artistic values that Beethoven benefited from is the belief that the highest form of art is the kind whose meaning can be felt but not put into words. This is what eventually separated Beethoven from Mozart and Haydn, the latter two operating under the older belief that art was supposed to communicate something to the listener. (Nowadays, owing in large part to the romanticized Beethoven, we are probably more likely to praise Mozart and Haydn for writing "absolute music," but that is definitely an anachronism, as evidenced by seventeenth century accounts that praised Mozart and Haydn for all the delightful social codes embedded in their works, even the instrumental music.) The belief that the music alone tells us everything we need to know, and that since it can't be put into words then one either gets it or not, is a crucial plank in the Beethoven legacy, which explains why it's been reiterated a number of times on this very thread.

Both beliefs--the superiority of greatness over beauty and the preference for music to stay untranslatable--can be traced at least to Kant (and, as I mentioned above, Burke), and though Kant is usually considered the prototypical Enlightenment thinker, these two particular beliefs became central to the Romantic period. Once you start believing that art is a kind of truth that supersedes verbal truths--and as any Romantic knows, "beauty _is_ truth, truth beauty"--then it becomes possible to see Beethoven's predilection for instrumental music over vocal music as a strength rather than a weakness. Once you start believing that a mysterious, fear-inspiring artwork is more admirable than a concrete, message-communicating artwork, then it becomes possible to privilege development sections over expositions (to cite a criterion mentioned above; and here it is worth noting that the whole concept of sonata form consisting of expositions, developments, and recaps was also born in the Romantic period). So it's pretty much to the Romantic generation, and the gradual dominance of Romantic thinking, that we have to look if we want to find the origins of Beethoven's legacy.


----------



## smari89 (Jun 5, 2013)

Beethoven's reputation as a tragic and tortured soul has definitely contributed to his lasting fame. His myth makes his character attractive not only as a symbol of his musical era but of the early Romantic period in Europe altogether. However, a tragic life-story, or being famous for being famous, alone couldn't maintain such fame for 200 years. Being immensely innovative, versatile and technically skilled, Beethoven did plenty of the most beautiful AND easily recognizable music of any era.


----------



## musicchambernet (Jul 9, 2013)

Most people consider Beethoven one of the three greatest composers in history and I am from them who thinks that Beethoven is one of the greatest composer in history and there should be no doubt about this. 
But again we cannot say that everyone will think same about him, assumptions may change for everyone.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Eschbeg said:


> In a way, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Beethoven was and still is _perceived_ as being the first composer to put his personality in his music. Not that this answers the question, since we now have to ask why he and not someone else is perceived as such. But it's worth reminding ourselves that when it comes to explaining a composer's legacy, the perception of what a composer did counts for way, way more than what a composer actually did.
> 
> One avenue we would need to explore in order to answer the question is to figure out when and how greatness or profoundness supplanted beauty and pleasure as the most important values an artist could aspire toward. That has a big role to play in the rise of Beethoven to the top of the heap, since Beethoven was among the first composers to be praised for the former rather than the latter reasons. Many nineteenth century accounts praise the Ninth Symphony for lots of things, but beauty is rarely one of them. In fact, much of the Romantic fascination with the Ninth is that it is so great and profound despite being--especially in the beginning of the last movement--so ugly and terrifying. In this sense, Edmund Burke is an important precedent: though not primarily an aesthetic philosopher, his book _On the Sublime and Beautiful_ helped convince artists and thinkers (including, importantly, Kant) that something threatening or overwhelming could be a source of aesthetic value. From there it is but a short leap to E.T.A. Hoffman, whose praise of Beethoven's music for revealing monstrous, thunderstruck realms threatening to destroy us and so on are well known.
> 
> ...


I like your post but I wouldn't go as far as saying that Beethoven had the more impressive development sections - both Mozart and Haydn already wrote very elaborate development sections (for eg. Symphony #40, 1st movement or Haydn's Fifths quartet, first movement). Haydn is usually credited to be the one who raised the importance of the development section, so it would be natural for the next great composer to continue along this path. What Beethoven did do is imbue the classical style with a darker and more epic hue - but both Haydn and Mozart still had these aspects, however they were more restrained.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I like your post but I wouldn't go as far as saying that Beethoven had the more impressive development sections - both Mozart and Haydn already wrote very elaborate development sections (for eg. Symphony #40, 1st movement or Haydn's Fifths quartet, first movement). Haydn is usually credited to be the one who raised the importance of the development section, so it would be natural for the next great composer to continue along this path. What Beethoven did do is imbue the classical style with a darker and more epic hue - but both Haydn and Mozart still had these aspects, however they were more restrained.


Beethoven is often credited with expanding development past the development section into the recapitulation and coda, and I think that's the primary difference between his use of sonata form and Haydn's or Mozart's, both of whom, as you rightly said, did quite a bit to extend the development section. Can people think of any such examples in their works? I would not be surprised if at least a few examples existed.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I wouldn't go as far as saying that Beethoven had the more impressive development sections


Neither would I, but the "impressiveness" of development sections is not really the issue so much as the structural importance put on them when compared to the other sections of the sonata form, as the Romantics perceived it. Beautiful development sections can no doubt be found in abundance in Haydn and Mozart, but few (I wouldn't say none) precedents can be found for the percentage of sonata devoted to development that one finds in Beethoven. The Appassionata effectively begins with a development of the first theme before we even get to the second theme. The Eroica's development section is about twice as long as the exposition and recap combined, and has another development section _after_ the recap, as do the Waldstein, Les Adieux, etc. This sort of thing was definitely attributed more to Beethoven than to his predecessors. Here's how Busoni put it in 1902:

_"Mozart! ...it is he we marvel at, to whom we are devoted; but not his Tonic and Dominant, his Developments and Codas. Such lust filled Beethoven, the romantic revolutionary ...He did not quite reach absolute music, but in certain moments he divined it... Indeed, all composers have drawn nearest the true nature of music in preparatory and intermediary passages (preludes and transitions), where they felt at liberty to disregard symmetrical proportions, and unconsciously drew free breath."_



HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Haydn is usually credited to be the one who raised the importance of the development section


Therein lies the rub: the very notion of sonata form being a three-part structure of exposition, development, and recap is a Romantic notion, invented as a way of analyzing Beethoven's sonatas and then retroactively applied to Haydn and Mozart. Pre-Romantic definitions of sonata form revolved around a two-part structure, the first half moving away from the tonic and the second half finding its way back, with the two halves usually demarcated by a repeat sign. So any praise of Haydn's development sections is praise based on a paradigm of sonata from derived from Beethoven.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Eschbeg said:


> Neither would I, but the "impressiveness" of development sections is not really the issue so much as the structural importance put on them when compared to the other sections of the sonata form, as the Romantics perceived it. Beautiful development sections can no doubt be found in abundance in Haydn and Mozart, but few (I wouldn't say none) precedents can be found for the percentage of sonata devoted to development that one finds in Beethoven. The Appassionata effectively begins with a development of the first theme before we even get to the second theme. The Eroica's development section is about twice as long as the exposition and recap combined, and has another development section _after_ the recap, as do the Waldstein, Les Adieux, etc. This sort of thing was definitely attributed more to Beethoven than to his predecessors. Here's how Busoni put it in 1902:
> 
> _"Mozart! ...it is he we marvel at, to whom we are devoted; but not his Tonic and Dominant, his Developments and Codas. Such lust filled Beethoven, the romantic revolutionary ...He did not quite reach absolute music, but in certain moments he divined it... Indeed, all composers have drawn nearest the true nature of music in preparatory and intermediary passages (preludes and transitions), where they felt at liberty to disregard symmetrical proportions, and unconsciously drew free breath."_
> 
> Therein lies the rub: the very notion of sonata form being a three-part structure of exposition, development, and recap is a Romantic notion, invented as a way of analyzing Beethoven's sonatas and then retroactively applied to Haydn and Mozart. Pre-Romantic definitions of sonata form revolved around a two-part structure, the first half moving away from the tonic and the second half finding its way back, with the two halves usually demarcated by a repeat sign. So any praise of Haydn's development sections is praise based on a paradigm of sonata from derived from Beethoven.


Well yes, but Beethoven's expansion of these sections follows logically from what Mozart and Haydn were doing before him. Beethoven used tons of ideas from both composers - he didn't 'come from nowhere' and 'reinvent everything', which is usually the way people tend to view him. Beethoven was the first true genius, tormented and writing during stormy nights and all before him are depersonalized manequins wearing wigs - not true. Beethoven owes a lot to Haydn's skill in using a single thematic idea and expanding it into entire movements - the 5th symphony is an example, but look at Haydn's Fifths, a no less perfect realisation of this idea.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Beethoven increased the size of everything not just developments, that might even be the major change from what Haydn and Mozart did. Of course bigger doesn't have to mean better, it's just an obvious point of difference at times. And perhaps it was the inevitable follow on from the earlier classical masters who themselves had followed this path somewhat in their own output.



Eschbeg said:


> the very notion of sonata form being a three-part structure of exposition, development, and recap is a Romantic notion


Really?


----------



## Forte (Jul 26, 2013)

I would simply say that Beethoven probably did the most to make composers create music for themselves, rather than always for other people. Obviously he contributed significantly to expanding the scale and grandeur of musical expression as well as challenged previous conventions, those laid down by classical composers, and chamber/symphonic conventions created by Haydn. His greatest contribution to the whole scope of musical history though, is probably the move from "music out of demand" to "personal music" for personal fulfillment.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

starry said:


> Beethoven increased the size of everything not just developments, that might even be the major change from what Haydn and Mozart did. Of course bigger doesn't have to mean better, it's just an obvious point of difference at times. And perhaps it was the inevitable follow on from the earlier classical masters who themselves had followed this path somewhat in their own output.


That's basically the point I was trying to make - bigger and more epic doesn't mean more enjoyable. Maybe to some it does, but this is subjective.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Muddy said:


> Gould said that? I suddenly question his judgement in many things. Gossip? Ludicrous.
> 
> Beethoven was an incredible genius with the force of personality to reach for the stars. His secular music has all the spirituality of Bach's masterpieces. Powerful, dramatic, spiritual, sublime. That is Beethoven to me.


Why suddenly I wonder? I've always thought of him that way.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Beethoven's expansion of these sections follows logically from what Mozart and Haydn were doing before him.


Sure. The Romantics didn't say otherwise. That's sort of the point: it still _is_ the Romantic view. You've recaptured some of the glory for Haydn but it's a definition of glory the Romantic's invented in the first place. Again, any evaluation of what Haydn or Mozart did with "these sections" is an evaluation based on a model derived from Beethoven. Effectively what you're doing is counter-reversing the Romantics' reverse model: they saw in Beethoven a three-part model of sonata form and retroactively traced its roots to Haydn and Mozart, and you've internalized that model when you say it was already perfected by Haydn and Mozart before it led to Beethoven. Your version has the advantage of being chronologically correct, but it's still the Romantic view and still originates with the Romantic reception of Beethoven. Not that we aren't allowed to adopt the Romantic view, of course, and in fact our continuing tendency to do so probably helps answer the OP's question.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

starry said:


> Eschbeg said:
> 
> 
> > the very notion of sonata form being a three-part structure of exposition, development, and recap is a Romantic notion
> ...


Yup. It is usually traced to Czerny's _Practical School of Composition_ (ca. 1837) and A.B. Marx's _Theory of Musical Composition_ (1838). Some historians have argued that a prototype of the three-part model is suggested in Francesco Galeazzi's _Elementary Theory-Practice of Music_ (1796), but it's still just a prototype and still fairly late in the history of sonatas.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Most people consider Beethoven one of the three greatest composers in history. In the majority of polls I've seen, he takes the first place.
> 
> Why?


 Because symphonies are the most popular form of composition, the most popular composer of symphonies is most likely to take first place in a greatest composer poll.

It follows from this that the answer to the KenOC's question could be found by explaining why Beethoven is the most popular composer of symphonies.

But really, who cares?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Beethoven is often credited with expanding development past the development section into the recapitulation and coda, and I think that's the primary difference between his use of sonata form and Haydn's or Mozart's, both of whom, as you rightly said, did quite a bit to extend the development section. Can people think of any such examples in their works? I would not be surprised if at least a few examples existed.


I believe Haydn actually called it "thematic elaboration," nowadays known as "motific development," in which he would contrapuntally explore motifs derived from the exposition and thought of this part as the most important part of sonata form.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

hayd said:


> But really, who cares?


The question was more of an encouragement to think about something we often take for granted, not to just say "who cares."


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

starry said:


> Really?


Before that it was thought of as being in two sections, after all it did actually evolve out of binary form, not ternary!


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

AS in my blog BEETHOVEN is not the best composer out there,other certain composers music sounds better than his.Like other composers he just rehash that is much.People want others to focus on him only & forget about others.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Eschbeg said:


> Sure. The Romantics didn't say otherwise. That's sort of the point: it still _is_ the Romantic view. You've recaptured some of the glory for Haydn but it's a definition of glory the Romantic's invented in the first place. Again, any evaluation of what Haydn or Mozart did with "these sections" is an evaluation based on a model derived from Beethoven. Effectively what you're doing is counter-reversing the Romantics' reverse model: they saw in Beethoven a three-part model of sonata form and retroactively traced its roots to Haydn and Mozart, and you've internalized that model when you say it was already perfected by Haydn and Mozart before it led to Beethoven. Your version has the advantage of being chronologically correct, but it's still the Romantic view and still originates with the Romantic reception of Beethoven. Not that we aren't allowed to adopt the Romantic view, of course, and in fact our continuing tendency to do so probably helps answer the OP's question.


Well, I guess it's silly to debate who's 'the greatest' of the three, since it often ends up being subjective anyway. Point is, Beethoven's great, but so are many other composers.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The question was more of an encouragement to think about something we often take for granted, not to just say "who cares."


Well, the OP (not some of the discussion, but the better stuff isn't relevant to the OP) is getting into Classic FM territory. The fact that a particular composer usually comes top of the charts really tells a serious listener very little of use about that composer.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

hayd said:


> Well, the OP (not some of the discussion, but the better stuff isn't relevant to the OP) is getting into Classic FM territory. The fact that a particular composer usually comes top of the charts really tells a serious listener very little of use about that composer.


No, but it provokes the question, why is this composer so popular, as in the OP, and this has given rise to some illuminating replies about the nature of Beethoven's music and its place in music history.

(Which makes *me* care, anyway. )


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hayd said:


> Well, the OP (not some of the discussion, but the better stuff isn't relevant to the OP) is getting into Classic FM territory.


Maybe that explains why, where I live, the law requires a guy to walk around ahead of me ringing a bell and crying "Unclean!" :tiphat:


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

I think yours Ken is a great question. Context, personality, tortured artist image, influence on later artists, etc, are interesting from an historic viewpoint but I think that in the end, the reason we listen to beethoven music is because it still sounds pretty darn great and him being famous makes people more likely to listen to his works in the first place... and given that everybody tells you that Beethoven is great, people will actually stop and pay more attention than if he weren't famous.

Of course I've just sort of avoided the real question of why does beethoven sound so darn great. I have no other arguments than "I really like it" because I'm not that knowledgeable on the technical stuff.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2013)

hayd said:


> Because symphonies are the most popular form of composition, the most popular composer of symphonies is most likely to take first place in a greatest composer poll.
> 
> It follows from this that the answer to the KenOC's question could be found by explaining why Beethoven is the most popular composer of symphonies.
> 
> But really, who cares?


I 'care'.

I notice that you don't have much else of a stab at working out why B is the most popular composer of symphonies, just tossing in your one bit post dismissing the OP and some posters' subsequent replies. Once you've read the OP, you can choose not to contribute to questions you don't care about.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I 'care'.
> 
> I notice that you don't have much else of a stab at working out why B is the most popular composer of symphonies, just tossing in your one bit post dismissing the OP and some posters' subsequent replies. Once you've read the OP, you can choose not to contribute to questions you don't care about.


A bit of management is required on here at times.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

niv said:


> I think yours Ken is a great question. Context, personality, tortured artist image, influence on later artists, etc, are interesting from an historic viewpoint but I think that in the end, the reason we listen to beethoven music is because it still sounds pretty darn great and him being famous makes people more likely to listen to his works in the first place


The original question wasn't really why people listen to Beethoven but more why over the last 200 years he has often but put forward as the greatest.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Well, I think "people listen to beethoven a lot" and "beethoven is put forward as the greatest" are two highly correlated things, don't you think?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

No. Other people are listened to a lot as well, so that isn't specific to Beethoven.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think we are all in love with this romantic image of the tortured genius overcoming seemingly insuperable handicap to produce some of the greatest music ever written. We cannot listen to the ninth symphony without in our minds eye the image of the stone death Beethoven being turned around by one of the singers so he could see the applause. A true hero! This makes him even more appealing.
Mind you I am glad I never knew Beethoven the man. He sounds utterly impossible!


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

starry said:


> No. Other people are listened to a lot as well, so that isn't specific to Beethoven.


Well, let me respectfully disagree. Which are those other people listened to a lot, as often as beethoven, that aren't put forward as the greatests?


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

I'd be interested in hearing how we ascertain whether Canonical Composer #1 is listened to more or less often than Canonical Composer #2. I'm sure somebody has tried to compile statistics for this sort of thing. Anyone know of any?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

niv said:


> Well, let me respectfully disagree. Which are those other people listened to a lot, as often as beethoven, that aren't put forward as the greatests?


This thread is about Beethoven and why he is the greatest according to the OP, so you are just changing the whole subject and building straw men. Beethoven is listened to a lot and so are other composers. Some composers are also probably listened to too little considering how good they may be. Though exactly how you define 'listened to a lot' will no doubt affect how many composers are great in your terms.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

niv said:


> Well, let me respectfully disagree. Which are those other people listened to a lot, as often as beethoven, that aren't put forward as the greatests?


I would put Vivaldi as one oft-listened to composer who is unlikely to scratch the top 5, let alone the top 10. I remember seeing a top ten list developed by the NY Times several years ago which had Bartok and Stravinsky - both famous and respected, but probably not listened to nearly as much as Beethoven, Bach and Mozart (who consistently dominate the top 3 in no particular order).


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

IBMchicago said:


> I would put Vivaldi as one oft-listened to composer who is unlikely to scratch the top 5, let alone the top 10.


Heh... if elevators, dentists' offices, and classical radio are any indication, the most listened to composers are probably J.C. Bach and G.B. Sammartini, along with Vivaldi. Needless to say, none of them will be crowned king of the canon any time soon.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

starry said:


> This thread is about Beethoven and why he is the greatest according to the OP, so you are just changing the whole subject and building straw men. Beethoven is listened to a lot and so are other composers. Some composers are also probably listened to too little considering how good they may be. Though exactly how you define 'listened to a lot' will no doubt affect how many composers are great in your terms.


I'm not building strawmen, at least I think not. The way I see it, most people on here that consider beethoven as one of the greats have listened a lot to beethoven. There is a deep relationship there. Let me try to show it:

"Beethoven is great" is a belief. Such a belief is held in each individual, yet it somehow exists in the collective minds, we can assert that it's a popular belief, and probably has become more popular as time goes by. From a memetic standpoint, we can argue that "Beethoven is great" is a meme.



wikipedia said:


> A meme (/ˈmiːm/; meem)[1] is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."


That's why Glenn Gould said that Beethoven reputation was entirely based on gossip. There is a lot of people that have heard "beethoven is great", and have claimed that belief as their own, and have subsequently repeated that idea.

Now, this is where I think Glenn has it wrong, I don't think people repeat it just because they're dumb and have no taste, Glenn greatest sin was hubris, if he didn't like something, he thought it bad. But I think that for people to repeat that idea for so long, most people have to actually hear beethoven and actually enjoy it a lot (myself, I love the guy).

But where is Glenn right? *Beethoven reputation itself gives it more "momentum" over some lesser know composer.*

Let me give an example of what I mean by momentum. Let's hypothetically say that there is a Symphony X by composer Y that in average, people can enjoy as much as a Beethoven symphony, and it's as accessible (I know that what I'm saying has a lot of holes, but let's assume that as an hypothesis). If composer Y is lesser known than Beethoven, people will be less likely to hear it, and if they hear it and they don't like it on their first try, they will be more likely to assume that it's because the symphony is bad or unenjoyable and less likely to give it another try, than if it where by Beethoven.

Why? Because people actually pay a lot of attention to what other people say. "Beethoven is great" is something that it is known, so people are less likely to go against that belief... unless they have a lot of hubris! This isn't something particular about beethoven, nor it is specificially about music, it is a studied psychological effect about how people balance their own beliefs with the beliefs of their peers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

IBMchicago said:


> I would put Vivaldi as one oft-listened to composer who is unlikely to scratch the top 5, let alone the top 10. I remember seeing a top ten list developed by the NY Times several years ago which had Bartok and Stravinsky - both famous and respected, but probably not listened to nearly as much as Beethoven, Bach and Mozart (who consistently dominate the top 3 in no particular order).


There are certainly some composers who are rated highly but aren't probably listened to as much as you might expect for their reputation.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

starry said:


> There are certainly some composers who are rated highly but aren't probably listened to as much as you might expect for their reputation.


I think some context is needed though. As far as my parents are concerned, Vivaldi is one of the greats and also one of the most listened... and I don't think they know who Bartok is. A somewhat distinct context would be for example, TalkClassical. I think that in the context of TC, composers listened to often and composers rated highly are very correlated.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

If you want to look at the overall reputation of a composer I don't think you can leave any context out. However even if you only look at this forum I think it should be said that this is the largest classical forum, it comes up first on google. So this is the first point of call for people on this subject, that means it isn't quite as you may be judging it.

But the main point to me is reputation could certainly be spread out fairer among composers, but as with anything like this there is only room for so many in the media and so public spotlight. It's exactly the same with other music and other arts, they have their icons that represent them, more for convenience as anything.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Then you'd agree with Glenn Gould: ''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip." But Dittersdorf (snicker)? Hummel, who couldn't even write a symphony? Uh....


Gould was great as long as he stuck to playing the piano. Unfortunately he did miss too many opportunities at keeping his mouth shut!


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

starry said:


> But the main point to me is reputation could certainly be spread out fairer among composers, but as with anything like this there is only room for so many in the media and so public spotlight. It's exactly the same with other music and other arts, they have their icons that represent them, more for convenience as anything.


Of course it could. I think though, it's is really telling that for example here in TalkClassical Beethoven is pretty well rated, just take a look at the top lists. Let's assume TalkClassical is "among those in the known" (pretty big assumption, huh, alongside the actual existence of a group that can be said is "in the known"). The big question is:

is it highly rated because Beethoven is a media icon (and that makes people more likely to hear his compositions and pay attention to them in the first place)?

Or perhaps the quality of his compositions also plays a role? If so, how big of a role?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Obviously the compositions play a role, but I think it's undeniable that the image makers have also played a role. Exactly how big a part either plays is very hard to say as it differs from person to person. But for the majority of people (who really don't know the music that much) the image plays a huge role. And for someone to have been consistently ranked at or very near the top for 200 years you need a strong image, I'm not sure it would have been possible without that. It helps make someone stand out from the crowd in their own time as well. Beethoven could have stood out for musical quality, but Schubert didn't did he? Let's not pretend that people get the spotlight just based on their work alone, things just don't work like that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2013)

starry said:


> Let's not pretend that people get the spotlight just based on their work alone, things just don't work like that.


You only have to look at the pop stars to see that.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

It's not so hard to grab the spotlight but to keep it on you, you've got to deliver the goods. 'Image' may get you noticed but it won't keep you in the top spot.
I believe that's as true for pop stars as it is for Beethoven.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> It's not so hard to grab the spotlight but to keep it on you, you've got to deliver the goods. 'Image' may get you noticed but it won't keep you in the top spot.
> I believe that's as true for pop stars as it is for Beethoven.


Except that Beethoven is dead.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Andante said:


> Except that Beethoven is dead.


But is he???
..............


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> It's not so hard to grab the spotlight but to keep it on you, you've got to deliver the goods. 'Image' may get you noticed but it won't keep you in the top spot.
> I believe that's as true for pop stars as it is for Beethoven.


You need to get noticed in the first place though, Schubert didn't in his time. And some certainly have had a more varying reputation. JS Bach, Mozart and Haydn haven't had as consistent acclaim as Beethoven. But is that based on their music or just that their lives weren't as interesting sounding? I doubt many here would say Beethoven doesn't deserve his acclaim. But you have to separate that from the actual reasons he was so acclaimed by so many over such a long time. I'm sure the Romantics while they obviously admired the music were probably interested in his life story as well. He neatly represented the image of the suffering artist that they wanted. _None of this is to disparage Beethoven_, but it is to question why an icon becomes an icon.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

So, in relation to the OP...



Petwhac said:


> It's not so hard to grab the spotlight but to keep it on you, you've got to deliver the goods. 'Image' may get you noticed but it won't keep you in the top spot.
> I believe that's as true for pop stars as it is for Beethoven.


Agreed.



starry said:


> Let's not pretend that people get the spotlight just based on their work alone, things just don't work like that.


OP asked about how the _music _justified the rating, not how other factors might have contributed to creating it or sustaining it. Beethoven got the spotlight and kept it because of the music. Now, what was it about the music?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Beethoven got the spotlight and kept it because of the music. Now, what was it about the music?


Thank you MacLeod! That is indeed what the OP asked.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

It's helpful to bring in other factors to have a wider view of an issue, I don't like narrow threads. Trying to keep the discussion narrow can be a way to stop anybody questioning an issue from another perspective, and forums are about discussion.

Oh and some popular music stars in the small number of years they've had so far can definitely live off the inflated reputaion some had got when they were producing their main music. The number of underrated and wrongfully eclipsed popular music artists is quite ridiculous, as anybody who has looked in much detail would surely know.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

starry said:


> It's helpful to bring in other factors to have a wider view of an issue, I don't like narrow threads. Trying to keep the discussion narrow can be a way to stop anybody questioning an issue from another perspective, and forums are about discussion.
> 
> Oh and some popular music stars in the small number of years they've had so far can definitely live off the inflated reputaion some had got when they were producing their main music. The number of underrated and wrongfully eclipsed popular music artists is quite ridiculous, as anybody who has looked in much detail would surely know.


The topic is about a man who composed over 200 years ago. No amount of 'reputation' or 'publicity' can account for that longevity. The pop music comparison is irrelevant (and so is your like/dislike of narrow threads).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I never even brought up the pop comparison, I'm simply replying to what someone else and YOU just brought into it as well. So if you don't want that comparison I suggest you don't mention it yourself.

And reputation and publicity is always important, maybe even more in our world today where there is so much to listen to and promotion is so important to get people to listen to music. You really think the media hasn't played on the image of some composers to those new to classical music? Films alone are evidence of that, as are books and other stuff.

And if you prefer narrower threads that's fine, but I won't be gagged.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

Pop music did not exist 200 years ago unless you classify Folk and what today we call classical as the pop music of the day.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

starry said:


> You really think the media hasn't played on the image of some composers to those new to classical music?


No, nor did I say so.



starry said:


> And if you prefer narrower threads that's fine, but I won't be gagged.


No one's gagging you. You must post as you will.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Let me play devil's advocate and state that his fame is just the Paris Hilton effect all over again: he has become famous for being famous.
> 
> If you don't want to end up every bit as deaf as he was, I suggest listening to Ditters von Dittersdorf instead. Or, if you insist on Beethoven's contemporaries, then try some Hummel, a neglected and underrated composer, probably simply because he had a nice personality and lived a less tragic and tumultuous life.
> 
> :angel:


Thanks I do...there's no comparison in regard of greatness.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

starry said:


> For someone who has never heard Beethoven, as for most other composers, it's probably quite difficult to assess and understand their music without understanding some of the *musical* context. The music is what matters I agree, but a narrow view of it probably makes it harder to enjoy. I know when I first heard his symphonies and quartets they made little sense to me, I needed to know more of the musical context.


When I first liked Beethoven I was about eight,I dont think I knew MY context much less his !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Which just goes to show that even famous composers are not immune to the Paris Hilton effect.
> 
> Well, Dittersdorf is but one example. Let's not forget other great masters, such as Wanhal, Salieri, or, my personal favourite, Mauro Giuliani.
> 
> In the face of such competition, Beethoven's fame can surely rest on little more than gossip.


I really don't understand how you can call these people great.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2013)

moody said:


> When I first liked Beethoven I was about eight,I dont think I knew MY context much less his !


Jeeeez I had never heard of the guy when I was 8, I was too busy with Mahler.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, I guess it's silly to debate who's 'the greatest' of the three, since it often ends up being subjective anyway. Point is, Beethoven's great, but so are many other composers.


No, not really and this is the nonsense of throwing the word "great" in to discussion willy-nilly.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

niv said:


> Well, I think "people listen to beethoven a lot" and "beethoven is put forward as the greatest" are two highly correlated things, don't you think?


People listen to Tchaikovsky perhaps more--is he not then the greatest (nothing against him mind) ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

niv said:


> I'm not building strawmen, at least I think not. The way I see it, most people on here that consider beethoven as one of the greats have listened a lot to beethoven. There is a deep relationship there. Let me try to show it:
> 
> "Beethoven is great" is a belief. Such a belief is held in each individual, yet it somehow exists in the collective minds, we can assert that it's a popular belief, and probably has become more popular as time goes by. From a memetic standpoint, we can argue that "Beethoven is great" is a meme.
> 
> ...


Sounds as if you are talking about Maria Callas and Gould himself .


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

starry said:


> It's helpful to bring in other factors to have a wider view of an issue, I don't like narrow threads. Trying to keep the discussion narrow can be a way to stop anybody questioning an issue from another perspective, and forums are about discussion.
> 
> Oh and some popular music stars in the small number of years they've had so far can definitely live off the inflated reputaion some had got when they were producing their main music. The number of underrated and wrongfully eclipsed popular music artists is quite ridiculous, as anybody who has looked in much detail would surely know.


I think narrow threads are good--stops people from wandering off into the world of contemporary pop music which certainly has no connection with the original question.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Andante said:


> Jeeeez I had never heard of the guy when I was 8, I was too busy with Mahler.


Yes, but you are an exception while I'm a mere follower.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Andante said:


> Jeeeez I had never heard of the guy when I was 8, I was too busy with Mahler.


Busy with Mahler at 8. What a depressing youth you must have had, you poor guy!


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2013)

moody said:


> Yes, but you are an exception while I'm a mere follower.





DavidA said:


> Busy with Mahler at 8. What a depressing youth you must have had, you poor guy!


Yes it's a cross we of high intelligence and impeccable taste have to carry


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Andante said:


> Yes it's a cross we of high intelligence and impeccable taste have to carry


"Would God I hadn't been born with a strong mind and a weak back." --Albert the Alligator


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "Would God I hadn't been born with a strong mind and a weak back." --Albert the Alligator


I would go for the strong back today as I have been cutting and stacking firewood all morning, it's no joke.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Andante said:


> Yes it's a cross we of high intelligence and impeccable taste have to carry


Plus screaming neuroses and Faux-naïf music!


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Plus screaming neuroses and Faux-naïf music!


But you would say that eh Dave


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

100+ posts and nobody has even *tried* to answer the question in the OP... What is it about the *music*?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Andante said:


> But you would say that eh Dave


Just what Mahler is about, isn't it?


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> 100+ posts and nobody has even *tried* to answer the question in the OP... What is it about the *music*?


I made a brief effort in post 18 - last sentence (http://www.talkclassical.com/27346-about-beethoven-guy-2.html#post511771)


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

KenOC said:


> 100+ posts and nobody has even *tried* to answer the question in the OP... What is it about the *music*?


Beethoven's music expresses the hardship of the human condition greater than any other artist in history. There is the answer, my friends.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> 100+ posts and nobody has even *tried* to answer the question in the OP... What is it about the *music*?


I did you must pay more attention young Ken....


Andante said:


> Beethoven's music just does something for me that few other composers do, Shostakovitch and Vaughn Williams also do the same I wonder if it is the orchestration or the melancholy (that may not be the right word) sound, I have just called it deep music in the past, and despite what Bernstein thinks in this case he is wrong wrong wrong, I like repeated and expanded motifs so there!


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Sorry Ken, like I said before, I just can't pinpoint what makes beethoven so great. It's like explaining what love truly is, you could write a thousand pages on the subject, but unless you feel it yourself, you won't get it. I could tell you about my reaction, which I guess I could sum up as "exhilarating"


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I think that one of the reasons why Beethoven stays relevant and fascinates people is that, as a civilization, we are still wrestling with the most basic questions and issues of the Enlightenment and (especially) the French Revolution. And by "Beethoven" I mean Beethoven's music - although it's completely inseparable from the person and the historical context, of course.

None - or very few - of those questions that were posed to the West at the end of the 18th century have been answered. Beethoven would show us the way forward, it's just that we refuse to listen.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Just what Mahler is about, isn't it?


No.

That's as stupid as saying Mozart is about tinkling little pretty tunes.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> No.
> 
> That's as stupid as saying Mozart is about tinkling little pretty tunes.


No less a person than the renowned producer, John Culshaw, said that Mahler made him feel physically sick with 'all his strainings and heavings with basically faux-naïf music.'


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> No less a person than the renowned producer, John Culshaw, said that Mahler made him feel physically sick with 'all his strainings and heavings with basically faux-naïf music.'


Someone famous and musical having said it doesn't make it any more true. The "naive" quality you and he refer to was not feigned, as was suggested both during his lifetime and afterwards for 50 or 60 years. It was an earnest sympathy with a folk-like musical idiom, without the winking quotation marks of a Schnittke or, for that matter, even a Shostakovich. Neither is this the dominant mode in his music throughout his life.

As one who has an animus against Wagner, why are you bringing up Culshaw's musical taste anyway? Why does it have special validity over that of any of the following people:
Bruno Walter
Willem Mengelberg
Otto Klemperer
Arnold Schoenberg
Alban Berg
Anton Webern
Dmitri Shostakovich
Leonard Bernstein
Pierre Boulez
Benjamin Britten
Claudio Abbado
Bernard Haitink
James Levine

I'd be willing to take any of their musical opinions over Culshaw's, personally, and I'm sure you'll find at least a few in there that you have some sympathy with.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Someone famous and musical having said it doesn't make it any more true. The "naive" quality you and he refer to was not feigned, as was suggested both during his lifetime and afterwards for 50 or 60 years. It was an earnest sympathy with a folk-like musical idiom, without the winking quotation marks of a Schnittke or, for that matter, even a Shostakovich. Neither is this the dominant mode in his music throughout his life.
> 
> As one who has an animus against Wagner, why are you bringing up Culshaw's musical taste anyway? Why does it have special validity over that of any of the following people:
> Bruno Walter
> ...


Bernstein described the ninth as the music of anguish and despair which colours the 20th century. Isn't there enough anguish and despair already in the world without listening to it? And what on earth do Culshaw's opinions on Wagner have to do with his opinions on Mahler? 
And why wouldn't any civilised person have an animus against Wagner's obnoxious views on race?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> It was an earnest sympathy with a folk-like musical idiom, without the winking quotation marks of a Schnittke or, for that matter, even a Shostakovich.


Shostakovich sometimes has a shamming quality, but he comes by it honestly--it's a complicated experience hearing him mar his own compositions in order to parody one of Stalin's favorite folk tunes. It's worth mentioning here Shostakovich's passionate interest in Mahler.

It's also worth mentioning a musical similarity between Shostakovich and Beethoven: the inspiration they both had from Bach's works (though some of this has to be conjectured on Beethoven's part). Just as Shostakovich deepened as a composer after hearing Bach's WTC (imo!), Beethoven's late works achieve new power through his experimentation with fugues. Something that broadly characterizes Beethoven's music--in any given piece and over his whole career--is a kind of exploratory quality. I can still be surprised at how a work I know well ends, and the end of his career wasn't predicted by its beginnings. It's a shame he died so young, because I'd love to know where he was headed after the Grosse Fuge.

Just a final point in comparison with Shostakovich. The soviet composer often wrote in a hurry, making an exception (by his standards!) for op.87, which was a challenge for him. His attention to the mechanics of music doesn't seem to have been as deep and longstanding as Beethoven's, who was still consulting scholars about counterpoint after he had demonstrated unprecedented mastery of the subject in his own work. There's the existential and passionate character of his music, but there's also the craftsmanship--and he took pains with it his whole life.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Bernstein described the ninth as the music of anguish and despair which colours the 20th century. Isn't there enough anguish and despair already in the world without listening to it?


Music that represents something is not that thing. Even if one agrees with Bernstein's interpretation here, and we don't necessarily have to, he is not saying that Mahler's music _causes_ anguish or despair. In my case, it causes nothing of the sort.



DavidA said:


> And what on earth do Culshaw's opinions on Wagner have to do with his opinions on Mahler?


One's musical taste is inevitably in comparison to other things. When he evaluates Mahler, it is in light of the music he does enjoy, and this includes Wagner, of course.



DavidA said:


> And why wouldn't any civilised person have an animus against Wagner's obnoxious views on race?


I wasn't referring to this. I was referring to your comments about Wagner the composer. Just today, you said "there are some who would even disagree on that point!" regarding the greatness of his music. That's not an argument, it's a snide remark.

Wagner's views on race are an embarrassment to his fans and a blot on his name (which has a number of them already). We just don't see the need to keep going over the same few points, day in and day out, for pages at a time.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> Shostakovich sometimes has a shamming quality, but he comes by it honestly--it's a complicated experience hearing him mar his own compositions in order to parody one of Stalin's favorite folk tunes. It's worth mentioning here Shostakovich's passionate interest in Mahler.


All true, and I didn't mean to say that the "insincerity" of those quotations somehow makes the music worse. One of my (and Shostakovich's) favorite composers, Igor Stravinsky, would constantly include irony and quotations in his music. I'm only trying to say that the motive and intent are somewhat different (with the exception of the third movement of the First Symphony, of course). Most of the time, Mahler's use of marches and landler seems more like the earnest democratic attitude of an Ives than the winking parody of a Schnittke, although there are elements of that as well.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

For me, Beethoven keeps his motifs more tightly organised than any other composer, more focussed. His harmony always seems to belong. His form is calculated with perfection.

His music just coheres phenomenally well. He seems to have shaved off unnecessary extras, making sure that he is left with only what he wants. This allows it to point beyond itself.

If you wanted me to point at one thing, though, I would say its the contrast in his music. In later idioms, composers felt compelled to begin in a more complex way, which meant that they had to find different ways to achieve contrast - or rather that there isn't so much of it. Beethoven begins with such simplicity, that he leaves himself with a tremendous amount of things to do in the rest of the piece to achieve climaxes etc. And of course, earlier composers didn't have central climaxes so far removed from the simplicity of the opening (except for a few pieces of Mozart).


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Blancrocher said:


> It's a shame he died so young, because I'd love to know where he was headed after the Grosse Fuge.


What do you mean by 'so young'? Beethoven died at 56/57, didn't he?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

trazom said:


> What do you mean by 'so young'? Beethoven died at 56/57, didn't he?


So the guy got past whippersnapper-dom.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Wagner's views on race are an embarrassment to his fans and a blot on his name (which has a number of them already). We just don't see the need to keep going over the same few points, day in and day out, for pages at a time.


Some of the fans simply refuse to be embarassed though, and do not care one bit if anyone would want them to believe that loving Wagner is something to be ashamed of. Sorry for the off-topic post.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> .
> 
> I wasn't referring to this. I was referring to your comments about Wagner the composer. Just today, you said "there are some who would even disagree on that point!" regarding the greatness of his music. That's not an argument, it's a snide remark.
> 
> Wagner's views on race are an embarrassment to his fans and a blot on his name (which has a number of them already). We just don't see the need to keep going over the same few points, day in and day out, for pages at a time.


I said there are some who would disagree which is a statement of fact. Just read people's comments on TC

On your other point, people obviously do see the need to keep going over the same few points because they keep doing so as infinitum!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> 100+ posts and nobody has even *tried* to answer the question in the OP... What is it about the *music*?


If you have to ask, you don't get it.

Seriously though, for me the middle period is full of power and purpose, invention and pure strength of musical ideas. The late period inhabits a universe all to itself, profound and personal. But mostly I feel Beethoven could extract more, express more with less material than any composer who followed. A good example is the monumental Diabelli Variations the jolly theme of which is as simple as can. Beethoven takes us through every nuance of human emotion from humour to deep contemplation and that ethereal 'other world' that only he has access to.

That all sounds like a lot of pretentious waffle but that's what happens when you try to verbalise a non verbal art I suppose.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

trazom said:


> What do you mean by 'so young'? Beethoven died at 56/57, didn't he?


I won't ask how old you are--but I'll hazard a guess you're not 55!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> I won't ask how old you are--but I'll hazard a guess you're not 55!


Indeed. Beethoven died at 56. When Haydn was 56, he had not yet written the twelve London Symphonies, the Op. 76 string quartets, or any of his late masses and oratorios. And Janacek, well....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Indeed. Beethoven died at 56. When Haydn was 56, he had not yet written the twelve London Symphonies, the Op. 76 string quartets, or any of his late masses and oratorios. And Janacek, well....


Got to remember, however, that life expectancy was much lower in 1827. 56 was a reasonable age then, especially for someone as prone to self-neglect as Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Got to remember, however, that life expectancy was much lower in 1827. 56 was a reasonable age then, especially for someone as prone to self-neglect as Beethoven.


True. But the definition of "old age" hasn't changed since biblical times -- threescore and ten. Lower average life expectancy in times since is due to diseases and illnesses that are often treatable (sometimes easily) now. A couple of doses of penicillin would have done Schubert quite nicely.

BTW Beethoven had quite a few doctors over his adult life due to his various illnesses. He wasn't totally oblivious to his health by any means. But his health problems seem to have been of a nature that was beyond their skills.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> True. But the definition of "old age" hasn't changed since biblical times -- threescore and ten. Lower average life expectancy in times since is due to diseases and illnesses that are often treatable (sometimes easily) now. A couple of doses of penicillin would have done Schubert quite nicely.
> 
> BTW Beethoven had quite a few doctors over his adult life due to his various illnesses. He wasn't totally oblivious to his health by any means. But his health problems seem to have been of a nature that was beyond their skills.


He appears to have been a heavy drinker and as wine in those days was sometimes plumbed, then that would have done nothing for his health!


----------

