# A Question of Melodists: Is Schubert really a more talented melodist than Beethoven?



## Bach

Franz Schubert is regarded as the supreme melodist among the great composers. It is said that he sometimes jotted down melodies on the backs of cafe menus or any other scrap of paper that came to hand. Many of his melodies do sound effortless: they flow from his symphonies, string quartets, sonatas and other instrumental works and from the music he wrote for the stage. But his talent shone the brightest in his famous Lieder, or songs. 

Yet, I still far more frequently find the melodic character of Beethoven far more compelling.


----------



## Herzeleide

People also say Brahms couldn't write melodies but I love some of his melodies.

I'm not sure, maybe because the likes of Beethoven and Brahms are more constructivist in their approach, using small motivic cells, whereas Schubert is more 'natural' in his melodic language?


----------



## Bach

Yes, I actually agree with every word of that. Still, the seventh symphony of Beethoven, for example, is rife in melodic character.

Brahms, I always thought was the most beautiful melodist, although I can see how his melodies are less accessible than say Dvorak or Faure.

I know this is probably a moot point, but I can far more easily recall the melodies of Beethoven and Brahms than Schubert.


----------



## JTech82

I don't think Schubert wrote better melodies than Beethoven, in fact I'll go even further and say that Schubert wasn't that great of a composer compared to Beethoven.

Listen to Beethoven's symphonies and concertos they are oozing with melody. Schubert wasn't even in the same league as Beethoven.


----------



## Bach

I certainly don't disagree with you, I suppose it depends on the definition of melody. I'd be interested to hear any attempts. 

The Oxford American Dictionary defines melody as "a sequence of single notes that are musically satisfying" - by that definition Beethoven, in my view, is more satisfying. However, I don't think that's a particularly musicological definition..


----------



## JTech82

Bach said:


> I certainly don't disagree with you, I suppose it depends on the definition of melody. I'd be interested to hear any attempts.
> 
> The Oxford American Dictionary defines melody as "a sequence of single notes that are musically satisfying" - by that definition Beethoven, in my view, is more satisfying. However, I don't think that's a particularly musicological definition..


Yeah, I don't like the sound of that definition. In my own words, I would say a melody is a sequence of notes that form a musical idea or make a specific musical statement.

That Oxford definition sounds like it's basing its notion of melody on something that is subjective. Like it seems they're saying a melody has to be satisfying in order for it to be called a "melody." That's certainly not true.


----------



## handlebar

Schubert concentrated so much on Lieder and the piano that he excelled at melodic thought in my opinion.
His orchestration was not near as good as Beethoven's. Not even close.

But listen to those delightful songs and one knows that his composing was certainly melodic.

Over 600 songs!!



Jim


----------



## Lisztfreak

I'd say one might like Beethoven's melodies better because they are usually 'reinforced' by his well-known rhythmic vigour. The Master of Masters he is, as I've already said elsewhere.

But Schubert's melodic gift nonetheless seems more close to the common man. And his music is wonderfully warm and communicative. Especially the Lieder and the chamber works.


----------



## Weston

I have to agree - Beethoven's melodies are more compelling to me than Schubert's, with very few exceptions, though I am not that familiar with Schubert's songs, admittedly. Even when we set orchestration aside and examine the piano sonatas, Beethoven's are rich with melody.

I don't feel a great melody has to flow in long continuous phrases, so there is nothing wrong with building it up with short motivic building blocks. I think the strength of Beethoven's melodies is that he could compose deceptively simple ones, seemingly almost nursery rhymes on the surface -- then he proceeds to wreak havoc with them!

Schubert is no tyro however. I don't think anyone is saying that.

(Forgive the rambling unfocused post. I was up LATE last night filing taxes. I am in a stupor.)


----------



## trazom

Actually, if you look at Beethoven's work as a whole, melodies weren't his strong point. I'm not trying to state this as an obvious fact, but it is pretty well-known among fans who've managed to get past Fur Elise and Moonlight Sonata.. The second movement of the Pathetique sonata was about as melodic as he got. Most of the melodies that he does have are actually more reminiscent of hymns, NOT simple and pure melodies and some that he did attempt were less than stellar: the third movement of his famous violin concerto. The first two movements were gorgeous but that 5-note melody in the last movement was not only childlike, but bland and repetitive and completely incongruous with the rest of the concerto leading some scholars to believe the last movement was a rush job.

Edit: Despite the melodic inconsistencies, though, I think he was excellent at pretty much everything else. I especially like his middle to late piano sonatas, which took the piano sonata to much greater emotional and intellectual heights.


----------



## Edward Elgar

One may be able to sing back a Schubert melody with ease (considering they're mostly songs!), but Beethoven's talent for the interlectual assimilation of all of all musical parameters gives him the edge. In this respect, Beethoven's music is less forgettable, I find, than Schubert (in my own subjective experience). I do love them both though!


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

JTech82 said:


> I don't think Schubert wrote better melodies than Beethoven,


How do you know? You ignore his songs, which is exactly where you will find the beautiful melodies Bach must be talking about.


----------



## handlebar

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> How do you know? You ignore his songs, which is exactly where you will find the beautiful melodies Bach must be talking about.


Thanks you!!!! The songs are among the best ever composed and form a large part of the musical Lieder of the entire 19th century. Their impact on future composers cannot be overstated.

Jim


----------



## Sid James

I agree that Schubert's songs show his talent to write good melodies, but beyond that, no-one has mentioned the way his other works looked towards the future, beyond the classical era which he was part of. The _Symphony No. 8 'Unfinished' _was a score that pointed towards what Bruckner and Mahler would do later in the Romantic era. Same could be said of much of his chamber music, especially the _String Quintet_. I think Beethoven's music is more bound to the classical era, by comparison, even though the symphonies in particular bear his unmistakable mark.


----------



## JTech82

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> How do you know? You ignore his songs, which is exactly where you will find the beautiful melodies Bach must be talking about.


In an orchestral framework, Schubert doesn't hold a candle to Beethoven period. You're absolutely right I haven't heard Schubert's songs, but neither have you, so what's your point?


----------



## Sid James

JTech82 said:


> In an orchestral framework, Schubert doesn't hold a candle to Beethoven period. You're absolutely right I haven't heard Schubert's songs, but neither have you, so what's your point?
> 
> Anyway, Beethoven beats Schubert any day of the week, especially in terms of influence.


As I suggested above, although Schubert's cycle of symphonies don't match those of Beethoven's for sheer originality and emotional impact, his _*Symphony No. 8 'Unfinished' *_really pointed towards the Romantic era. It is a score that neither Bruckner or Mahler could have faulted. & I think his late chamber works, the string quartets & especially the _String Quintet _make just as much of an emotional impact on the listener as those by Beethoven. Schubert's late works show a maturity beyond his years, and obviously his early death robbed us of a musical genius.


----------



## JTech82

Andre said:


> As I suggested above, although Schubert's cycle of symphonies don't match those of Beethoven's for sheer originality and emotional impact, his _*Symphony No. 8 'Unfinished' *_really pointed towards the Romantic era. It is a score that neither Bruckner or Mahler could have faulted. & I think his late chamber works, the string quartets & especially the _String Quintet _make just as much of an emotional impact on the listener as those by Beethoven. Schubert's late works show a maturity beyond his years, and obviously his early death robbed us of a musical genius.


Well I'm not a big Schubert fan anyway so forgive me for my bias.  I'm also not a Beethoven fan, but I guess you already knew that.


----------



## Lisztfreak

trazom said:


> Most of the melodies that he does have are actually more reminiscent of hymns, NOT simple and pure melodies and some that he did attempt were less than stellar: the third movement of his famous violin concerto. The first two movements were gorgeous but that 5-note melody in the last movement was not only childlike, but bland and repetitive and completely incongruous with the rest of the concerto leading some scholars to believe the last movement was a rush job.


That movement is excellent, catchy and the last minute or so is absolutely blissful with happiness.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

JTech82 said:


> You're absolutely right I haven't heard Schubert's songs, but neither have you,


Actually, I have, and I know them pretty well. I've played a few of them accompanying a singer, and I've played some of the Liszt transcriptions as well.



JTech82 said:


> so what's your point?


That your position here is completely unsupported, as you ignore the hundreds of songs Schubert wrote.


----------



## Atabey

Hell no!!!


----------



## Herzeleide

JTech82 said:


> Listen to Beethoven's symphonies and concertos they are oozing with melody. Schubert wasn't even in the same league as Beethoven.


Try some of Schubert's Lieder.


----------



## JTech82

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Actually, I have, and I know them pretty well. I've played a few of them accompanying a singer, and I've played some of the Liszt transcriptions as well.
> 
> That your position here is completely unsupported, as you ignore the hundreds of songs Schubert wrote.


I'm not ignoring anything, Ysaye. You've played some of Schubert's songs? Wow, how many people were in the audience? Your Mom and Dad don't count.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

JTech82 said:


> You*'re* Mom and Dad don't count.


It appears to me the sentence I quote doesn't make sense.

My knowledge of the Schubert songs is not relevant, though, as I haven't said anything on this thread's subject yet. I was simply pointing out that you rapidly disqualify Schubert's ability to write melodies, even though you don't really know his works.
There is nothing substantial in whatever notes you can post about the compositions by Franz Schubert. And as you are aware of this you resort to personal attacks. But this attitude does more to prove you are a child, than to prove my position on this debate wrong.


----------



## Sid James

Last night I just happened to hear two of Beethoven's songs: _New Love, New Life & Tender Love_. I only know a few Schubert songs to compare, but as far as I can tell, the Beethoven songs were equally good (especially the latter, which was very lyrical).

I think it is important to note that Beethoven was in demand and popular at the time, so he was encouraged to produce large scale works (symphonies, concertos), and publishers also liked his instrumental & chamber works. In comparison to that, Schubert found it hard to get his symphonies performed (some were not played during his lifetime), and so the intimate social gatherings, the _Schubertiads_, were the perfect vehicle for him to write many songs.

It is also interesting that the two actually met, around 1826, but by then Beethoven was completely deaf. Schubert was also a torchbearer at Beethoven's funeral.


----------



## JTech82

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> It appears to me the sentence I quote doesn't make sense.
> 
> My knowledge of the Schubert songs is not relevant, though, as I haven't said anything on this thread's subject yet. I was simply pointing out that you rapidly disqualify Schubert's ability to write melodies, even though you don't really know his works.
> There is nothing substantial in whatever notes you can post about the compositions by Franz Schubert. And as you are aware of this you resort to personal attacks. But this attitude does more to prove you are a child, than to prove my position on this debate wrong.


I'm not worried about it. If your only argument is to correct someone's obvious typo, then have fun. I'll just leave you to debating yourself, which you basically have done anyway, because I don't debate with people who don't even know what in the world they're talking about.


----------



## Edmond-Dantes

Dear lord people. Why one earth must we all debate everything off topic idea that comes to mind? All it does is make the thread hit a very unpleasant and unrelated snag. Who CARES if somebody does or does not have an exceptional or even average knowledge on a topic? If you don't trust what they say, ignore them. It's that simple. If you don't want to ignore them, state an on topic opinion that opposes theirs.

Look at this thread as an example. We WERE talking about two very talented historical individuals and their differences. What happened to that topic?

Well, I'm going to go back to the topic.

Andre:
AH! I didn't realize that Schubert and Beethoven met. =D Very interesting. I'd have loved to hear their conversation. I wonder if they even spoke of music at all, or if the whole thing was very formal..


----------



## Guest

JTech82 said:


> In my own words, I would say a melody is a sequence of notes that form a musical idea or make a specific musical statement.
> 
> .


I think it is a matter of phrasing more than notes, just listen to Winterreise and of course Rosamunde, perhaps not the driving rhythm of Beethoven but melodically superb


----------



## Artemis

Although to some extent influenced by Beethoven, Schubert wrote music in a different style compared with Beethoven. Beethoven's melody was based largely on motivic development, involving very efficiently crafted combinations of relatively simple motifs, which imparts a strong dynamic forward feel. On the other hand, Schubert's style was closer to the music of Mozart than Beethoven. Schubert however developed his own expansive lyrical style which is quite unlike the far more tightly conceived and economical forms that Beethoven developed. To this extent, it is not easy to make a direct comparison between the melody crafting ability of Beethoven and Schubert. They are different but both of very high quality. Which is the better style is a matter of taste. I now prefer Schubert's after years of adoration at the feet of Beethoven

Personally, I enjoy Schubert's music greatly. But I am not hamstrung by liking only orchestral music, so therefore I can judge his output across all the relevant genres in which he wrote. Not only that but I also have the advantage, unlike some members here, of having been strongly exposed to classical music for over 20 years. Therefore, I know only too well how fickle and uncertain one's tastes can be, especially in the early stages of gaining familiarity and knowledge of what's available. Bearing in mind the dictum that _"a little knowledge is a dangerous thing",_ it is so easy to make highly dismissive comments about a particular composer, or era, or genre only to regret it greatly a year or so later. In this context, and without wishing to get involved in any kind of debate, I do find it odd that some people feel qualified to make quite heavy criticism of Schubert, who is a widely acknowledged very great composer, whilst clearly they haven't a clue what they are talking about, and almost admit it.

Contrary to one suggestion made earlier in this thread, I do not think that there is anything remotely inferior about Schubert's orchestral writing. On the contrary I think it is absolutely superb and I enjoy his symphonies and other orchestral works just as much, if not more, than Beethoven's. The earlier suggestion that Schubert was a relatively poor orchestrator is utter nonsense, as this is one of the features he is well regarded for. Schubert's chamber works are a treasure trove of sheer delight, and for someone wanting to explore chamber music with an accessible but high quality flavour I can't think of a better composer than Schubert: the piano trios, string quartets, piano and string quintets are all excellent. I also enjoy his piano sonatas greatly and there is material among them which is a match for anything written by Beethoven. His various miniature pieces such as the Impromptus are inspirational and extremely accomplished. His work for piano for 4 hands unmatched in quality by others. As for his lieder, I do know what I am talking about here as I have most of them (including all the song cycles) and they often feature in my listening. They are an utter joy, and in general surpass in quality anything by other composers. Many of his sacred works (e.g. the late Masses) are extremely beautiful. All these works are brimming with fabulous melodic lines which appeared to flow so effortlessly from the pen of this extremely talented composer.
There is an article about Schubert HERE which some members may have missed, even though it is in a prominent position on this Board. It discusses certain aspects of his character, life and achievements which some may not be familiar with.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

JTech82 said:


> I don't debate with people who don't even know what in the world they're talking about.


I quote you:



> I haven't heard Schubert's songs


And yet you dare bash him.


----------



## JTech82

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> And yet you dare bash him.


You haven't heard them either, but you continue to talk about it? Hmmm...let me quote you now:



YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> You ignore his songs, which is exactly where you will find the beautiful melodies Bach must be talking about.


When you say what someone *MUST BE* talking about, then you DON'T know. You haven't heard Schubert's songs either.


----------



## TresPicos

JTech82 said:


> I don't think Schubert wrote better melodies than Beethoven, in fact I'll go even further and say that Schubert wasn't that great of a composer compared to Beethoven.
> 
> Listen to Beethoven's symphonies and concertos they are oozing with melody. Schubert wasn't even in the same league as Beethoven.


Beethoven wrote a few good symphonies, and so did Schubert. No big difference there. I think they play in the same league. At their worst, Schubert is plain, while Beethoven is clumsy. At their best, both of them are great melodists.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

JTech82 said:


> You haven't heard them either, but you continue to talk about it?


I already said I know them.



JTech82 said:


> When you say what someone *MUST BE* talking about, then you DON'T know. You haven't heard Schubert's songs either.


Actually, that phrase means I was supposing Bach was, in part, referring to the lieder by Schubert, on his recognition of the composer's talent.

Please stop the bashing and the gratuitous rants, direct your energy to posting constructive comments. You have managed to infect every thread in which you are present with your insidious manners.


----------



## Guest

Why don't you both get a CD of *Winterreise*? a very good version by Peter Schreier on Decca 436-122, then you will both have listening experiance to call upon


----------



## Edmond-Dantes

Good one Andante. =_=;

(Actually, I think I'll check out Winterreise, so thanks for the suggestion..)


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Andante said:


> Why don't you both get a CD of *Winterreise*? a very good version by Peter Schreier on Decca 436-122, then you will both have listening experiance to call upon


Thank you for the kind suggestion, I could add it to the versions I already have:

Pears/Britten
Prey/Deutsch
Quasthoff/Pires
Quasthoff/Barenboim


----------



## Guest

YsayeOp.27#6 said:


> Thank you for the kind suggestion, I could add it to the versions I already have:
> 
> Pears/Britten
> Prey/Deutsch
> Quasthoff/Pires
> Quasthoff/Barenboim


Not even Fischer-Dieskau 
Sorry, but it is hard to keep track of the discussion that you are having with jtech, when no mention of any of the songs is made.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Andante said:


> Not even Fischer-Dieskau


Of course not! I'm in for Hermann Prey! D)
Now, seriously, I never thought about getting other versions of Winterreise than those I listed, which are all videos. It's not that I don't like Fischer-Dieskau (I have his Strauss, Wolf, Mahler and Nietzsche sets of lieder, as well as many videos and... pirate recordings), but I think I already have many versions of that particular work, while very few of others. I only have one Die Schöne Müllerin, for example, the Krenn/Buchbinder (which I like very much).


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

I forgot I also have Bostrigde and Uchida on The Schöne Müllirin.


----------



## Mirror Image

I believe they both were huge melodists. They both contributed and helped broaden classical music no question about it. Both composers were amazing and while I tend to like Beethoven more, I still feel Schubert was a great composer even though I personally might not like everything he composed.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> I still feel Schubert was a great composer even though I personally might not like everything he composed.


Which don't you like


----------



## Mirror Image

Andante said:


> Which don't you like


I'm not really a big fan of his symphonies. I own two sets of his symphonies one from Karl Bohm on Deutsche Grammophon and the other Sir Neville Marriner on Philips. I'm not really sure what I dislike with them, but they don't particularly resonate with me right now and please note that I said right now. I could very well laugh at this message 2 years from now and say to everyone "You remember when I said I didn't like Schubert's symphonies? Well, I do now!" But I honestly think, he really didn't live long enough to compose what maybe perhaps he wanted to, but I'm just speculating here. He died such an early death, but then again so did Mendelssohn and I love Mendelssohn!

I don't know perhaps I'm just being unfair in my assessment here.


----------



## Sid James

I think *Schubert's chamber music *is just as good as Beethoven's. For example, Schubert's last four string quartets (12-15) are some of the best in the repertoire. Ditto his _String Quintet, Trout Quintet _and _Piano Trios_.


----------



## Guest

Mirror Image said:


> I'm not really a big fan of his symphonies.
> 
> I don't know perhaps I'm just being unfair in my assessment here.


I do like his sym but they do not IMHO compare to Beethovens



Andre said:


> I think *Schubert's chamber music *is just as good as Beethoven's. For example, Schubert's last four string quartets (12-15) are some of the best in the repertoire. Ditto his _String Quintet, Trout Quintet _and _Piano Trios_.


I also rate highly his StQts but again IMHO they do not come within a country mile of Beethoven's, then again I am one eyed as far as Beethoven is concerned


----------



## Sid James

Schubert's orchestration & chamber music writing has a lightness of touch, as song-like quality. Beethoven, on the other hand, tends to be more heavier and dramatic. These are generalisations, though, as Schubert had a darker side (Symphony No. 8 'Unfinished') & Beethoven had lighter works (_Symphonies Nos. 4 & 5_ especially).

I appreciate both. Anyone who doubts Schubert's ability to write great melodies should taken 10 minutes to listen to his _Quartet Movement (String Quartet No. 12)_. There is this great tension set up between a dissonant theme and a more lyrical idea. A pity he didn't get around to finishing works like this...


----------



## tahnak

Melodies come from God and after being decorated by mortal masters go back to God. There is nothing subjective about who writes better melodies. In the vast range of Beethoven's and Schubert's output, there is an invaluable treasure chest of melodies and arguments will never cease to exist. Hence, it is futile and vain glorious to decide who writes better melodies. In my honest opinion, apart from Beethoven and Schubert, it is Piotr Ilyitch Tchaikovsky whose melodies touch my heart and pierce it.


----------



## nefigah

It's interesting to me that some of Beethoven's best melodies appear in his less-popular piano sonatas (the ones without nicknames)!


----------



## Bach

Andante said:


> I do like his sym but they do not IMHO compare to Beethovens
> 
> I also rate highly his StQts but again IMHO they do not come within a country mile of Beethoven's, then again I am one eyed as far as Beethoven is concerned


More like a spiritual lightyear.. to compare the two is offensive.


----------



## jhar26

Mirror Image said:


> I'm not really a big fan of his symphonies. I own two sets of his symphonies one from Karl Bohm on Deutsche Grammophon and the other Sir Neville Marriner on Philips. I'm not really sure what I dislike with them, but they don't particularly resonate with me right now and please note that I said right now. I could very well laugh at this message 2 years from now and say to everyone "You remember when I said I didn't like Schubert's symphonies?


"The great", "the unfinished" and the fifth are clearly his best symphonies. Some of his others are ok, but the main reason why we still listen to them today is that they are companion pieces of those three when conductors record complete cycles. His very best is the unfinished in my opinion. Three great symphonies is good going in such a short life - he qualifies as a great symphonist although maybe not quite up there with the VERY best in history. Overall though he's one of the true all time greats because of his lieder and chamber music.

All in my modest opinion of course.


----------



## PetrB

Beethoven was not a melodist at all, though he came up with a few  He was a harmonist - his main interest and strongest talent, which had him naturally more interested in short themes and harmonic motifs, more suitable for his purposes. 

Beethoven did not, like Schubert, compose over 500 lieder: from those Schubert lieder many are still today among the 'most beloved' melodies.


----------



## brianwalker

Schubert wrote better melodies.


----------



## Dongiovanni

Schubert was better at melodies than Beethoven. That doesn't mean Schubert is a better composer, although I find "ranking" composers quite useless. Anyway, if I would have to, in the case of Schubert and Beethoven I could not make a choice.

I remember a film with Bernstein at the piano explaining and breaking down the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony. Very interesting to see his views, especially about Beethoven and melody, and what exactly makes his music so great. Maybe it's on youtube.


----------



## jalex

Dongiovanni said:


> I remember a film with Bernstein at the piano explaining and breaking down the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony. Very interesting to see his views, especially about Beethoven and melody, and what exactly makes his music so great. Maybe it's on youtube.


I wouldn't take that video too much at face value. Bernstein was a showman; he was exaggerating to make a point. He knows as well as anyone that Beethoven's music is the most cited of any composer's in, to give two classic examples, Berlioz's _Treatise on Orchestration_ and Piston's _Harmony_, and that although Beethoven was no Schubert he could write a damn fine melody more often than is commonly supposed. But he wanted to get across what he feels is the root of Beethoven's greatness, that ability to find the 'right next note'.


----------



## jani

Dongiovanni said:


> Schubert was better at melodies than Beethoven. That doesn't mean Schubert is a better composer, although I find "ranking" composers quite useless. Anyway, if I would have to, in the case of Schubert and Beethoven I could not make a choice.
> 
> I remember a film with Bernstein at the piano explaining and breaking down the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony. Very interesting to see his views, especially about Beethoven and melody, and what exactly makes his music so great. Maybe it's on youtube.


----------



## Larkenfield

I think melodies came much easier to Schubert, and Beethoven was more inclined to shape his after receiving his initial ideas. Beethoven has been accused a number of times of not being a very good melodist, including by Leonard Bernstein. I think Beethoven was capable of being a very good melodist but he didn’t always do it, including in some of his lesser known piano sonatas. But I sure remember the melodies in his Violin Concerto in D Major.


----------



## ibrahim

trazom said:


> Actually, if you look at Beethoven's work as a whole, melodies weren't his strong point. I'm not trying to state this as an obvious fact, but it is pretty well-known among fans who've managed to get past Fur Elise and Moonlight Sonata..


I strongly disagree, and your implication that others who might be of an opinion contrary to yours are less familiar with Beethoven than you are is small and childish. In any case, Beethoven scholar Lewis Lockwood (I grant that he might not be as knowledgeable as you concerning this subject matter) declares repeatedly in his 2003 biography of Beethoven that the composer, if anything, is underrated as a melodist, and melody was one of his strong points.


----------



## trazom

ibrahim said:


> I strongly disagree, and your implication that others who might be of an opinion contrary to yours are less familiar with Beethoven than you are is small and childish. In any case, Beethoven scholar Lewis Lockwood (I grant that he might not be as knowledgeable as you concerning this subject matter) declares repeatedly in his 2003 biography of Beethoven that the composer, if anything, is underrated as a melodist, and melody was one of his strong points.


Thanks for letting me know. I probably would've looked into that in earnest 9 years ago when I wrote the comment you replied to (and was more interested in this topic of discussion). I'm sure there are even older and possibly more offensive posts I wrote that one could dig up and paraphrase musicologists to. I don't necessarily even hold all of the same opinions I wrote back then, though I still tend to think of Schubert as a superior melodist.


----------



## Jacck

I'd say Schubert was a better melodist of the two. I am an amateur and not an expert on Beethoven or Schubert, but I have been listening to their piano sonatas lately and I must say that I find the late piano sonatas by Schubert (D894, D958, D959, D960) both more melodic and more enjoyable than the Beethoven sonatas. And the same goes for Schumann, ie he was a better melodist than Beethoven. Beethoven's string quartets are not very melodic either compared for example to Schubert.


----------



## ibrahim

trazom said:


> Thanks for letting me know. I probably would've looked into that in earnest 9 years ago when I wrote the comment you replied to (and was more interested in this topic of discussion). I'm sure there are even older and possibly more offensive posts I wrote that one could dig up and paraphrase musicologists to. I don't necessarily even hold all of the same opinions I wrote back then, though I still tend to think of Schubert as a superior melodist.


Oh my god, lol. I wasn't paying attention to the posting date. Disregard the comment!


----------



## Enthusiast

It is not an insult to Beethoven to say that Schubert was the better melodist. And it isn't only about the big memorable tunes. If I am alone I can rarely resist whistling to Schubert. My cheeks can ache after a major Schubert work! No other composer had this effect on me. Melody was absolutely central to Schubert's style in a way that was probably unique.


----------



## EdwardBast

What is a better melody? Better for what purpose or effect? Schubert wrote more melodies suitable for setting stanzas of poetry and, big surprise , such easily singable melodies also tend to be easier to whistle and remember because they have balanced phrases, tend to be self-contained, and fall within a comfortable vocal (or whistling) range. Schubert also wrote a lot of instrumental melodies suitable for setting stanzas of poetry that are easy to whistle and remember. Unfortunately, they aren't always particularly promising as the basis of large dynamic structures. Beethoven wrote exactly the right melodies for the kind of works he composed. That is what great melodists do.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I agree Schubert wrote nicer stand-alone melodies, his development of them is not much beyond a lot of pop music. Beethoven was way better at thematic and motivic development, where his true genius lies.

Those who don't agree, I would like to hear some great development by Schubert, since I'm going by general impression.


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree Schubert wrote nicer stand-alone melodies, his development of them is not much beyond a lot of pop music. Beethoven was way better at thematic and motivic development, where his true genius lies.
> 
> Those who don't agree, I would like to hear some great development by Schubert, since I'm going by general impression.


Schubert D960 Andante:


----------



## Enthusiast

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree Schubert wrote nicer stand-alone melodies, his development of them is not much beyond a lot of pop music. Beethoven was way better at thematic and motivic development, where his true genius lies.
> 
> Those who don't agree, I would like to hear some great development by Schubert, since I'm going by general impression.


I find it hard to guess what Schubert music you are describing in this way. Certainly, none of his later works.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> Schubert D960 Andante:


Those are nice melodies and harmonic progressions, but I don't feel there is really much transformation.



Enthusiast said:


> I find it hard to guess what Schubert music you are describing in this way. Certainly, none of his later works.


The first movement of his last sonata is quite repetitive. Definitely not warranting its length to me.


----------



## KenOC

I agree that Schubert wrote some great tunes, but by their nature they didn't lend themselves well to thematic transformation -- often just repetition in different keys. Beethoven took a much different approach. When he _did _have really great tunes (tucked away in the finales of his violin and 4th piano concertos for instance) he just repeated them, like Schubert, only a lot fewer times!


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> Those are nice melodies and harmonic progressions, but I don't feel there is really much transformation. The first movement of his last sonata is quite repetitive. Definitely not warranting its length to me.


So Schubert gets thrown under the bus while this gets accolades?:



Phil loves classical said:


> Cheating a bit, but Stockhausen's Gesang der Junglinge (which also includes a boy singing, but still no instruments) is by far the most interesting electronic piece for me. It is also the most interesting serial composition to me, since it also makes use of the sound of speech and music the same time. This and Webern's Symphony is where serialism really worked on me, and where I felt atonality could be natural. Here is an interesting analysis of that piece
> http://sites.music.columbia.edu/masterpieces/notes/stockhausen/GesangHistoryandAnalysis.pdf


----------



## Bulldog

One thing in Stockhausen's favor. You'll never hear the earth-bound Schubert offering the speech patterns of aliens from a distant galaxy.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> So Schubert gets thrown under the bus while this gets accolades?:


No. I think Schubert has a great gift of melody. I don't think it is necessary for him to vary or develop his themes much more like Beethoven. His last Piano Sonata is not my favourite of his. Take his 2nd movement of his last Symphony, there is an irresistible melody, one of my favourites in all music. He didn't need to vary it much at all, just adding a few other parts and achieved great drama. There is no need to compare him to Stockhausen, who has no melody. His music functions in other ways.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> So Schubert gets thrown under the bus while this gets accolades?:


*Sigh* What's wrong with people giving accolades to the Stockhausen and -gasp- preferring a work like this to works by Schubert?

What does Stockhausen have to do with this conversation?


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> *Sigh* What's wrong with people giving accolades to the Stockhausen and -gasp- preferring a work like this to works by Schubert?
> 
> What does Stockhausen have to do with this conversation?


Phil clarified a statement where it sounded as if he was diminishing Schubert ie. that his development of melodies was not much above that of pop music soon after he had lauded Stockhausen in another thread. I pointed that out as part of a conversation I chose to have. Sigh all you want.


----------



## Aloevera

jani said:


>


Bernstein to me seems to be extremely theoretically oriented and seems to put the emphasis on what these guys do on a technical level when I'd imagine Beethoven didn't see it that way. I feel like Bernstein just totally ignores the intuitive side to music


----------



## Eusebius12

Yes Schubert wrote greater melodies than Beethoven. So did Mozart. So did, for that matter, Bach. I happen to think that Schubert was the greatest melodist of all, happy diverting and gorgeous melodies seem to burst out all over the page. With a listening and playing (and singing) life that has encompassed at least 200 of Schubert lieder, it is amazing how rare dud melodies are in his work. Beethoven nevertheless can write amazingly fitting themes for the purpose of working out a solid instrumental structure. Sometimes his themes are incredibly bland and almost never blossom and reach the exquisite melodic contour of Schubert. But as I said, Schubert in my view is the greatest melodist of all time. On the other hand, Beethoven reaches a sublimity of formal construction that Schubert never attained or perhaps even bothered with. Schubert's larger works are always repetitive and a tad overlong, whilst Beethoven nails his larger works structurally nearly every time. 

I will put in a word though for Schubert's string quartets, the last 4 or 5 are really sublime works, especially the last in G, a work truly equal of the string quintet. These works bring Schubert the instrumental composer very close to Beethoven's plane. Works of Beethovenian profundity and sublimity


----------



## Jacck

Eusebius12 said:


> I happen to think that Schubert was the greatest melodist of all, happy diverting and gorgeous melodies seem to burst out all over the page.


I agree, Schubert was the probably the greatest melodist. And Dvořák comes second. Pity Schubert died so young, he could have composed some wonderful music (and Mozart probably too)


----------



## EdwardBast

Jacck said:


> I agree, Schubert was the probably the greatest melodist. And Dvořák comes second. Pity Schubert died so young, he could have composed some wonderful music (and Mozart probably too)


I would distinguish between "writer of tunes" and "melodist." Schubert was a great tunesmith. Being a great melodist, in my book, includes being able to instill large structures with melodic continuity and drama and being a master of variation. The way I see it, you and Eusebius 12 are paring down the concept of melodist to fit Schubert's particular gifts rather than looking at melodic invention in the broader sense great instrumental composers embrace.


----------



## Eusebius12

Yes Dvorak too. Unending melody.


----------



## Eusebius12

No, you are trying to exclude Schubert by redefining what melody is. What does drama have to do with great melody? Nothing really. A non-dramatic piece could be full of great melody. And mentioning 'master of variation' is absurdly irrelevant. You are inflating the concept of melody to fit Beethoven's particular gifts, of which in terms of Viennese classical tradition, he was sans peur et sans reproche when it comes to injecting drama into structurally dense and satisfying large scale works. 

Many of Beethoven's themes though are quite meagre and possibly even ungrateful. Take for example the 1st movement of the sonata in F op.10 no.2. Most of the themes are extremely basic and on their own rather banal, but Beethoven fashions an interesting structure out of them. Or for more mature works, take the last movement of the 4th piano concerto. The themes are very basic and on paper uninteresting. Beethoven varies them in an extremely sophisticated and diverting way, but the melodic materials (in the almost universally accepted sense, before EdwardBast decided to redefine them) are barely there in the conventional sense. Same in the 1st movement of op.111. And more so, emphatically so, in the last movement of the Hammerklavier. What really is the interesting melodic material of the 1st movement of the 5th, or even that of the 9th. You could quote the melodies in a few bars and no one would think they were worth much unless you saw the mighty structures built upon them.

Whereas every note of Schubert seems imbued with melody. The Bb sonata for piano, is melodic, almost singable (try singing Beethoven's major themes. You would sound like a goose. Even Fidelio hasn't that much memorable melody) throughout the 1st movement. Yet it makes an imposing statement, it is a spiritual journey if not a drama of the soul. Several of the impromptus incorporate drama and rich melodies (and yes, effective variation) into a satisfying structural unit, and the 1st 2 of the late Klavierstuecke follow their own path through glade and wood at turns mysterious and cheery in a melodically and harmonically rich fashion.

The notion that Schubert was not a great instrumental composer seems utterly idiotic and probably offensive.


----------



## DaveM

Eusebius12 said:


> Many of Beethoven's themes though are quite meagre and possibly even ungrateful. Take for example the 1st movement of the sonata in F op.10 no.2. Most of the themes are extremely basic and on their own rather banal, but Beethoven fashions an interesting structure out of them. Or for more mature works, take the last movement of the 4th piano concerto. The themes are very basic and on paper uninteresting. Beethoven varies them in an extremely sophisticated and diverting way, but the melodic materials (in the almost universally accepted sense, before EdwardBast decided to redefine them) are barely there in the conventional sense. Same in the 1st movement of op.111. And more so, emphatically so, in the last movement of the Hammerklavier. What really is the interesting melodic material of the 1st movement of the 5th, or even that of the 9th. You could quote the melodies in a few bars and no one would think they were worth much unless you saw the mighty structures built upon them...


Your point about Schubert could have been made without the misleading premise/inference about Beethoven's alleged many 'meager' themes (I don't know what an ungrateful theme is) by cherrypicking examples in his music. I love Schubert, but melodic comparisons with Beethoven have serious limitations. There are no Schubert piano concertos, no violin concerto, 11 fully completed piano sonatas (arguably, but the other 11 appear to be missing movements) compared to Beethoven's 32, etc.

One can pick out a Beethoven movement here and there that have limited themes/melodies (which are still developed into something wonderful) to attempt to make a point, but that leaves countless movements where fully fleshed out melodies are present: to name a few: the Adagios in most of the piano sonatas, particularly the Pathetique, the 1st and 2nd movements of the violin concerto, the adagios of all of the piano concertos, particularly the 5th, the adagios of most of the Trios, particularly the Archduke and so on.


----------



## KenOC

About the only thing that can be said in defense of Beethoven's "meager" themes is that they were, invariably, the right ones.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Schubert has somehow entered the canon of the 'greats' on the back of his 600-odd lieder and the other well-known bits and pieces, but I don't think he was all that great. Apparently Sir Adrian Boult opined in a television broadcast (which I haven't seen) that Schubert's music was poorly structured, lacked contrast and showed an inability to modulate. Seems just like a nasty jab, but looking at his music it's not entirely unfair.

I said on here some time ago that in his piano pieces the left hand part is often incredibly trite and basic (just look at his scores to see this verified) with boring harmonies and often just hammered out basic triads. This is also true of his oft-praised lieder, which by the way have some great melodies, but are hampered by his rubbishy accompaniments. He also repeats and repeats and not with the twist of a key change or re-harmonisation, but just flat-out repeats. When he runs out of repeats it's just figures or chords hammered out for bar after bar.

The same problems turn up in his quartets. The first movement of his 15th has some good bits in it, but 20-odd minutes? About 16 minutes of it is just repeated figures and sawing away at the strings. Again his harmony is drab and unimaginative.The menuetto of the Rosamunde is good though.

I once took a harmony course, where we used the George Pratt text, and was told to acquire copies of Bach chorales, Mozart Sonatas and a particular song cycle of Schubert's (can't remember which) and it's obvious that Schubert actually did have a good mastery of how to modulate (despite what Boult allegedly claimed) and he knows how to inject interesting tonal shifts from the keys he is using, but then he spoils it all by writing it in a dull way.

Enough though. This old thread is about whether Schubert wrote good melodies and I'd say yes some of his melodies are excellent, but he also padded around them with a lot of not-so-excellent stuff.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> …He also repeats and repeats and not with the twist of a key change or re-harmonisation, but just flat-out repeats.


Let's look at Schubert as a value proposition. I just listened to the first movement of his 5th Symphony, the Dausgaard performance.

First, the exposition. Four beats of intro, main theme, transition material, 2nd theme, transition and closing theme. A minute and 47 seconds.

OK, he's gonna repeat the expo. Identical. Another 107 seconds gone from my life. Well, that happens sometimes.

So now, into the development. And what do we get? 50 seconds. I've been listening here for over three minutes and Schubert gives me only 50 seconds of development??? Definitely feeling shortchanged.

And now (do I need to say it?) the recap. Yet _another _repeat of the expo but with both themes in the tonic. As if anybody cares by this point.

When it wraps up, I've spent 85% of my 6 minutes and 21 seconds listening to nothing but exact and near-exact repeats. I'm calling my lawyer.


----------



## kyjo

Yes, he is. Not that Beethoven couldn't write a great melody every once in a while, of course. Beethoven excelled at structural ingenuity, sometimes at the expense of melodic appeal, and Schubert is just the opposite. Both are equally great composers in their own right IMO.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Let's look at Schubert as a value proposition. I just listened to the first movement of his 5th Symphony, the Dausgaard performance.
> 
> First, the exposition. Four beats of intro, main theme, transition material, 2nd theme, transition and closing theme. A minute and 47 seconds.
> 
> OK, he's gonna repeat the expo. Identical. Another 107 seconds gone from my life. Well, that happens sometimes.
> 
> So now, into the development. And what do we get? 50 seconds. I've been listening here for over three minutes and Schubert gives me only 50 seconds of development??? Definitely feeling shortchanged.
> 
> And now (do I need to say it?) the recap. Yet _another _repeat of the expo but with both themes in the tonic. As if anybody cares by this point.
> 
> When it wraps up, I've spent 85% of my 6 minutes and 21 seconds listening to nothing by exact and near-exact repeats. I'm calling my lawyer.


Can I sue for damages after reading this post, which is decidedly lacking in meaningful content?


----------



## Guest

Referring to the original post (I think I must have encountered the identical thread at least a dozen times on the classical music discussion boards I have participated over the years) Beethoven often created melodies that served as seeds of development, Schubert often wrote melodies that were beautiful in their own right. Each had a unique melodic genius. I see no basis for declaring one superior to the other.

And yes, I am aware that this can be considered among the most banal and conventional of observations.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tin Pan alley composers wrote great melodies. Some of them very good indeed. I think a bit more is required if someone is going to be pitted against a composer like Beethoven. Schubert seems always to be compared to Beethoven and it's comparing granmother's cake to cheap shop-bought cake.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Let's look at Schubert as a value proposition. I just listened to the first movement of his 5th Symphony, the Dausgaard performance.
> 
> First, the exposition. Four beats of intro, main theme, transition material, 2nd theme, transition and closing theme. A minute and 47 seconds.
> 
> OK, he's gonna repeat the expo. Identical. Another 107 seconds gone from my life. Well, that happens sometimes.
> 
> So now, into the development. And what do we get? 50 seconds. I've been listening here for over three minutes and Schubert gives me only 50 seconds of development??? Definitely feeling shortchanged.
> 
> And now (do I need to say it?) the recap. Yet _another _repeat of the expo but with both themes in the tonic. As if anybody cares by this point.
> 
> When it wraps up, I've spent 85% of my 6 minutes and 21 seconds listening to nothing by exact and near-exact repeats. I'm calling my lawyer.


May I suggest Rudy Giuliani?


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> May I suggest Rudy Giuliani?


Yeah, it's a total lie that Schubert paid me $140 thousand not to write that bit. And anyway, I already spent it.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eusebius12 said:


> No, you are trying to exclude Schubert by redefining what melody is. What does drama have to do with great melody? Nothing really. A non-dramatic piece could be full of great melody. And mentioning 'master of variation' is absurdly irrelevant. You are inflating the concept of melody to fit Beethoven's particular gifts, of which in terms of Viennese classical tradition, he was sans peur et sans reproche when it comes to injecting drama into structurally dense and satisfying large scale works.
> 
> Many of Beethoven's themes though are quite meagre and possibly even ungrateful. Take for example the 1st movement of the sonata in F op.10 no.2. Most of the themes are extremely basic and on their own rather banal, but Beethoven fashions an interesting structure out of them. Or for more mature works, take the last movement of the 4th piano concerto. The themes are very basic and on paper uninteresting. Beethoven varies them in an extremely sophisticated and diverting way, but the melodic materials (in the almost universally accepted sense, before EdwardBast decided to redefine them) are barely there in the conventional sense. Same in the 1st movement of op.111. And more so, emphatically so, in the last movement of the Hammerklavier. What really is the interesting melodic material of the 1st movement of the 5th, or even that of the 9th. You could quote the melodies in a few bars and no one would think they were worth much unless you saw the mighty structures built upon them.
> 
> Whereas every note of Schubert seems imbued with melody. The Bb sonata for piano, is melodic, almost singable (try singing Beethoven's major themes. You would sound like a goose. Even Fidelio hasn't that much memorable melody) throughout the 1st movement. Yet it makes an imposing statement, it is a spiritual journey if not a drama of the soul. Several of the impromptus incorporate drama and rich melodies (and yes, effective variation) into a satisfying structural unit, and the 1st 2 of the late Klavierstuecke follow their own path through glade and wood at turns mysterious and cheery in a melodically and harmonically rich fashion.
> 
> The notion that Schubert was not a great instrumental composer seems utterly idiotic and probably offensive.


Taking your questions and comments one at a time:

What does drama have to do with great melody?

Your take on the opening theme of the Fifth Symphony makes it clear you can't identify what constitutes the opening theme of the Fifth Symphony. It isn't the first motive and it isn't the first phrase. It is everything up to the transitional horn call. It is a dynamic, dramatic process. Look at the first theme of the _Eroica_ symphony, which is over forty measures long. What makes it great melodic writing is that it contains a strong internal contrast that disrupts the triple meter and delays the return of the principal phrase. This dramatic structure allows the initial phrase to sound in a wildly different character the second time around. This is a kind of melodic writing Schubert rarely attempted.

So the answer: Everything to do with Beethoven's themes, little to do with Schubert's

And mentioning 'master of variation' is absurdly irrelevant.

No, skill at the art of variation is one of the most important criteria by which to judge a composer's melodic skills. Being able to hear and exploit an idea's potential for different transformations and reinterpretations is at the essence of being a great melodist. Examine the first 28 measures of the Largo e mesto from the Sonata Op. 10#3. In it the opening motive is the basis of amazingly diverse branches and contrasts that take over three minutes to unfold. Yet it is a seamless, unified melodic and dramatic arc. Only a master of variation could produce melody of this kind.

The Bb sonata for piano, is melodic, almost singable (try singing Beethoven's major themes. You would sound like a goose.

Why on earth should instrumental themes be easily singable? If one were going to do that one might as well write songs. Great melody means, among other things, melody befitting the instrument for which it is written, not writing instrumental themes as if they were vocal ones because certain listeners (ahem) like to sing along.

You are inflating the concept of melody to fit Beethoven's particular gifts,

No, you are reducing the concept of melody to favor a very limited vocal, lyrical style congenial to Schubert. You are talking about "tunes," not the far broader concept of melody.


----------



## Guest

Schubert wrote marvelous works such as the "unfinished" symphony, the Death and the Maiden Quartet, the late Piano Sonatas, the Great C major symphony, Winterreise, which inspire performers and listeners after almost 200 years. I do not understand what motivates people to argue passionately about his limitations. He was no Beethoven. Well Beethoven was no Schubert. Both gave us music which is beautiful in different ways.


----------



## EdwardBast

Baron Scarpia said:


> Schubert wrote marvelous works such as the "unfinished" symphony, the Death and the Maiden Quartet, the late Piano Sonatas, the Great C major symphony, Winterreise, which inspire performers and listeners after almost 200 years. I do not understand what motivates people to argue passionately about his limitations. He was no Beethoven. Well Beethoven was no Schubert. Both gave us music which is beautiful in different ways.


Yeah, it is unfair to call Schubert limited because he couldn't compose instrumental themes like Beethoven. By that standard nearly everyone would be limited. I went back and removed the offending word.


----------



## Eusebius12

A Question of Melodists: Is Schubert really a more talented melodist than Beethoven?

I wasn't making an overall criticism of Beethoven. The point being melody, 'qua melody' if you like; therefore your remarks are not strictly relevant. I agree that Beethoven always seems to choose a theme or motif(s) that serve the purpose of the structure extremely well. Schubert loses his way formally at times, Beethoven sometimes writes fairly uninteresting themes and motifs. That Schubert didn't write much concertante music is irrelevant, really. Even Schubert's unfinished piano sonatas are often wonderlands of melody, and of course Schubert was only 31 when he died. Beethoven wrote beautiful melodies too as you point out, but the adagio of the Pathetique isn't really a patch on the slow movement of Schubert's posthumous sonata in Bb. 
Schubert's melodies are significantly superior across all genres. But obviously Schubert didn't have the structural or formal control of mastery of Beethoven. If the thread was talking about that then I would have obviously felt like talking about that in more detail.


----------



## Eusebius12

Schubert's lieder extend what it means to be consciously alive and human. Your post and Boult's remarks do nothing. Boult was a pretty conventional musical mind. His recordings seem to be gathering dust. Schubert wrote masterpieces across nearly all genres, and they transcend petty formal considerations by the glorious nature of the themes and the journey they take the listener. He wrote the odd potboiler.


----------



## Eusebius12

We have a fundamentally different view of what melody is. No doubt you find the appassionata 1st and 3rd movements full of great melody. I don't for one second deny Beethoven's compositional mastery, but you are redefining what melody has been considered throughout history. Beethoven's themes are quite rudimentary in themselves; if you just played the melody line of the 5th symphony on the piano it would sound quite banal. Of course there are harmonic elements in melody; but Beethoven has in certain circles never been considered much of a melodist; this is unfair as I admit, but no way are his themes are as delicious as the best of Mozart or Schubert. Am I a Beethoven basher? No, I think I prefer his work to Mozart or Schubert. 

If you think its just me with this viewpoint, take just one example of a few I could quote, from Hutcheson's the Literature of the Piano:

If I have dwelt at some length on a minor detail of Beethoven's workmanship, it is because nothing is more typical of his genius than this unique power to make much out of little, to built from tiny units musical structures of immense proportions, coherence and grandeur. The essential motive of the C Minor Symphony may be likened to a small block of granite. From a multitude of such blocks, and from nothing else save four measures of relieving lyricism, he erects one of the most imposing monuments of orchestral architecture. Again, the entire thematic material of the first movement of the Ninth Symphony may easily be compressed into a very few measures of quotation. It is scarcely heresy to venture the opinion that other composers of inferior talent could have invented the themes, but it is sheerly unthinkable that any composer except Beethoven himself could have written the movements.


----------



## eugeneonagain

The difference is Beethoven developed his music in interesting ways. Though I think he should be removed from this discussion because it's about Schubert. Great melodist once he has one, but he peters out a lot of the time and fills-out even short piano pieces with dull, repetitive fluff.
If he hadn't written 600 songs (and they're not all great, I've not even listened to them all and I've come across bad ones) he would have slipped into obscurity.


----------



## Art Rock

eugeneonagain said:


> If he hadn't written 600 songs (and they're not all great, I've not even listened to them all and I've come across bad ones) he would have slipped into obscurity.


Thank god for the songs - otherwise apparently no-one would be listening to the late string quartets, the string quintet, the octet, symphonies 8 and 9, the late piano sonatas, and so on.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Art Rock said:


> Thank god for the songs - otherwise apparently no-one would be listening to the late string quartets, the string quintet, the octet, symphonies 8 and 9, the late piano sonatas, and so on.


I see the point you are making, but that handful of works doesn't put him among the top-tier. The late piano sonatas are full of padding. Admittedly he doesn't have to be among the top-tier to be appreciated, but he is placed there and I don't think his output warrants it.


----------



## Larkenfield

Horowitz playing an exquisite, heavenly, sublime, otherworldly, immortal and quintessential Schubert melody and why I would consider him one of the greatest melodist of all time... It is long, effortless, spiritually elevated, and flowing:






Wonderful Beethoven melody that is much closer to the earth:






Only two examples, but I find no similarities of approach to melody between them. Schubert's melody can stand on its own with no need for a Beethovian development, more of a flowing horizontal approach, and Beethoven has more of a vertical approach with more of a need to do something with the melody rather than simply stating it. It has far more embellishments and seems more closely related to the human rather than the celestial realm, and I believe many other examples could be found of such a contrast between the two composers. On the basis of melody alone, I believe Schubert's are more celestially elevated than Beethoven's despite the rightness of the melodies that Beethoven decided to use and develop. Schubert can also get lost in melody far more than Beethoven and I find that rather wonderful. Schubert floats more in the air and Beethoven hovers closer to the ground.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eusebius12 said:


> *We have a fundamentally different view of what melody is*. No doubt you find the appassionata 1st and 3rd movements full of great melody. I don't for one second deny Beethoven's compositional mastery, but you are redefining what melody has been considered throughout history. Beethoven's themes are quite rudimentary in themselves; if you just played the melody line of the 5th symphony on the piano it would sound quite banal. Of course there are harmonic elements in melody; but Beethoven has in certain circles never been considered much of a melodist; this is unfair as I admit, but no way are his themes are as delicious as the best of Mozart or Schubert. Am I a Beethoven basher? No, I think I prefer his work to Mozart or Schubert.
> 
> If you think its just me with this viewpoint, take just one example of a few I could quote, from Hutcheson's the Literature of the Piano:
> 
> If I have dwelt at some length on a minor detail of Beethoven's workmanship, it is because nothing is more typical of his genius than this unique power to make much out of little, to built from tiny units musical structures of immense proportions, coherence and grandeur. The essential motive of the C Minor Symphony may be likened to a small block of granite. From a multitude of such blocks, and from nothing else save four measures of relieving lyricism, he erects one of the most imposing monuments of orchestral architecture. Again, the entire thematic material of the first movement of the Ninth Symphony may easily be compressed into a very few measures of quotation. It is scarcely heresy to venture the opinion that other composers of inferior talent could have invented the themes, but it is sheerly unthinkable that any composer except Beethoven himself could have written the movements.


Yes. The definition I'm using is the one found in music dictionaries, music theory and ethnomusicology texts, music history writing, and so on, roughly: linear successions of notes arranged in recognizable units. The one you are using is the colloquial one synonymous with "tune," as in "That boy sure knew how to write a tune," meaning easily remembered structure of balanced phrases, usually comprising a musical _period_, conducive to vocal performance. Melodic "talent" - I would prefer to use the word "skill" - does not reduce to writing tunes. Writing great instrumental music of the kind Beethoven and Schubert were attempting requires broader skills, including skill at variation and transformation, the ability to build larger structures from small melodic cells, the ability to balance and coordinate structures of opposing motives and the ability to exploit the developmental potential of an idea. These are all critical melodic skills for instrumental composers of the common practice era.

If what one wishes to argue is that Schubert wrote better tunes, then argue that. Who is a better melodist is a more complicated and very different question.


----------



## DaveM

Eusebius12 said:


> That Schubert didn't write much concertante music is irrelevant, really...


Well no, it isn't irrelevant because it is particularly in the adagios of the concertos that composers in this era were composing fully fleshed out melodies and, in the case of Beethoven, far more fleshed out than in Schubert's lieder.



> Schubert's melodies are significantly superior across all genres.


Not possible since Schubert missed out on one of the most important genres: concertos.

There's nothing meager about this opening melody:


----------



## millionrainbows

Bach said:


> Franz Schubert is regarded as the supreme melodist among the great composers. It is said that he sometimes jotted down melodies on the backs of cafe menus or any other scrap of paper that came to hand. Many of his melodies do sound effortless: they flow from his symphonies, string quartets, sonatas and other instrumental works and from the music he wrote for the stage. But his talent shone the brightest in his famous Lieder, or songs.
> 
> Yet, I still far more frequently find the melodic character of Beethoven far more compelling.


That might be true on some level, because Beethoven's "melodies" seem to be short motivic fragments, or the whole thing is driven by rhythmic ideas or harmonic changes.

On the difference between "writer of tunes" and "melodist:"...according to this distinction, a "melodist" is able to instill large structures with melodic continuity and variation, meaning "melodic invention in the broader sense."

Hell, by this abstract definition, Boulez is a "great melodist."

I think when most people think of "melodies," they are thinking in more tuneful terms, not these sorts of abstract motivic cells. That's the reason lots of people are put off by Brahms, and serial music.

I love Beethoven's music, but not because he is a "great melodist." It's usually for the rhythmic drive and vitality, and the harmonic ideas.


----------



## DaveM

‘Beethoven's themes are quite rudimentary in themselves.’
‘Beethoven’s melodies seem to be short motivic fragments.’
‘Schubert’s melody can stand on its own with no need for Beethoven development.’ 
‘Beethoven in some circles has never been considered much of a melodist.’

Where does this come from? Are these things people have read and now take as gospel? It can’t possibly be from experiencing all of Beethoven’s music over a long period of time. I am well aware that it was a characteristic of Beethoven to take shorter melodic fragments and turn them into something magical for a number of his works, but it was not something that defined all or even most of his works.

In his earlier works, many of his melodies are (repeating myself from an earlier post) fully fleshed out and are not short motivic fragments. From my understanding of Beethoven, he was not the type to continue to always fall back on the convenience of profound, fully intact melody. That would be too easy and when you’ve already proven you can do it at will, you move on to the more challenging task of making more out of less which he became a master of. Even so, he was still able to throw in full melodies when necessary (or when he wanted) such as in the Archduke Trio (middle period) or the Op130 Quartet Cavatina (late period).

Btw, is the 9th symphony just a bunch of developed short melodic fragments?


----------



## Larkenfield

Robert Schumann once described Schubert’s melodies as “Compressed, lyrical insanity.” With all due respect, I’m not sure I would agree with him except for their lyricism, because Schubert’s inspired and elevated melodies seem so far above the mentally constructed and the ordinary... He’s not necessarily thinking them up at all; they just seem to come to him so spontaneously at any time, and so easily... miraculously... even on his deathbed with more of them floating through his head. What a loss for the glories of music.


----------



## tdc

To an extent I agree with some of the compositional short comings that have been brought up in reference to Schubert, however it makes it seem all the more miraculous he was able to compose music so enjoyable and aesthetically pleasing despite this. For me his music doesn't quite stand up as well after repeated listens in comparison to many of the other 'greats', but I can't deny its beauty or the fact that it has really touched so many people. Pity he didn't live longer so he could study some counterpoint.


----------



## Eusebius12

eugeneonagain said:


> The difference is Beethoven developed his music in interesting ways.


Beethoven was a master at this. This is obviously different from the quality of the actual themes. I disagree that Schubert did not, although this is not his strong point.



> Though I think he should be removed from this discussion because it's about Schubert. Great melodist once he has one, but he peters out a lot of the time and fills-out even short piano pieces with dull, repetitive fluff.
> If he hadn't written 600 songs (and they're not all great, I've not even listened to them all and I've come across bad ones) he would have slipped into obscurity.


I didn't raise Beethoven, someone else did. Yes there are much less interesting songs than the greatest 80-100 or so. I have almost never found a dud, even many lesser known songs are gems or have great ideas. As far as instrumental works go, I have to reject the idea that he would have slipped into obscurity on their basis. It was the 9th that really propelled him forward into 19th century consciousness. The last piano sonata, the Wanderer Fantasy (a fairly taut and powerful example of developing a few themes into a gloriously satisfying whole), the Unfinished, the greater A Minor Piano Sonata, the String Quintet (what a glorious work that is), the F Minor Fantasy for Piano Duet, the last 3 string quartets. What a galaxy of great instrumental music, the greatest produced in the 19th century next to the great Beethoven!


----------



## Eusebius12

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. The definition I'm using is the one found in music dictionaries, music theory and ethnomusicology texts, music history writing, and so on, roughly: linear successions of notes arranged in recognizable units. The one you are using is the colloquial one synonymous with "tune," as in "That boy sure knew how to write a tune," meaning easily remembered structure of balanced phrases, usually comprising a musical _period_, conducive to vocal performance. Melodic "talent" - I would prefer to use the word "skill" - does not reduce to writing tunes. Writing great instrumental music of the kind Beethoven and Schubert were attempting requires broader skills, including skill at variation and transformation, the ability to build larger structures from small melodic cells, the ability to balance and coordinate structures of opposing motives and the ability to exploit the developmental potential of an idea. These are all critical melodic skills for instrumental composers of the common practice era.
> 
> If what one wishes to argue is that Schubert wrote better tunes, then argue that. Who is a better melodist is a more complicated and very different question.


You don't know what you are talking about. You say that melody is "linear successions of notes arranged in recognizable units." This has nothing in particular to do with variation. The linear succession of notes arranged in recognizable units appears first, then it is varied, then it is developed. I freely acknowledge that Beethoven is superior in developing themes. The themes are the melodies, not how they are subsequently developed. Structure has nothing to do with it! Melody is a component of structure, just as development is. Yes Schubert doesn't write melodies as good as Beethoven because he doesn't write as well in E Major.

Also, your understanding, such as it is (coherent, and such as you can convey it intelligibly) is incredibly snobbish. So no one but Beethoven, or at the very least no one but a great classical composer, could write well melodically? I am quite content not to share your peculiar, individual and supercilious notion of what constitutes good melody.


----------



## KenOC

Why do I keep seeing comparisons of Beethoven with Schubert? That poor fellow died at 31, an age when Beethoven was still working on his second symphony.


----------



## Eusebius12

To my ears, one of Beethoven's finest melodies is in the slow movement of the Emperor. It isn't always melodic in the conventional sense, but it is glorious. More so than the violin concerto, although I do love that piece. A few more examples of glorious Beethovenian instrumental melody might be much of the last movement of op. 109, the slow movement of the 9th, and the cavatina from the Bb Quartet. The slow movement from the Hammerklavier is glorious, whether it is because of the thematic riches or just the journey I won't say. The slow movement of the 4th piano concerto is not in my view melodic, it is more like a grand recitative between orchestra and piano, but it is glorious.

Schubert did write some fine concertante works for the violin.


----------



## Eusebius12

DaveM said:


> 'Beethoven's themes are quite rudimentary in themselves.'
> 'Beethoven's melodies seem to be short motivic fragments.'
> 'Schubert's melody can stand on its own with no need for Beethoven development.'
> 'Beethoven in some circles has never been considered much of a melodist.'
> 
> Where does this come from? Are these things people have read and now take as gospel? It can't possibly be from experiencing all of Beethoven's music over a long period of time. I am well aware that it was a characteristic of Beethoven to take shorter melodic fragments and turn them into something magical for a number of his works, but it was not something that defined all or even most of his works.
> 
> In his earlier works, many of his melodies are (repeating myself from an earlier post) fully fleshed out and are not short motivic fragments. From my understanding of Beethoven, he was not the type to continue to always fall back on the convenience of profound, fully intact melody. That would be too easy and when you've already proven you can do it at will, you move on to the more challenging task of making more out of less which he became a master of. Even so, he was still able to throw in full melodies when necessary (or when he wanted) such as in the Archduke Trio (middle period) or the Op130 Quartet Cavatina (late period).
> 
> Btw, is the 9th symphony just a bunch of developed short melodic fragments?


Already the 1st movements of the 3rd, 5th and 9th have been mentioned. Sometimes Beethoven uses remarkably rudimentary themes,even moving up and down the triad. Take the opening of the 9th, it opens going up the d minor chord, then a pretty unprepossessing passage then a scale. This has nothing to do with great melody to my ears. However does the music make a grand statement? Of course it does. Could Beethoven write in a wonderfully lyrical way when he wanted to? Of course he could. The 2 composers were often aiming at different things. Beethoven being a clever man, realized that operatic melody wasn't his real strong point, didn't focus on that. Schubert's great strength was writing themes of great beauty, and he excelled at this rather than the construction of works of formal grandeur.

Regarding the 9th again, the slow movement is melodically rich, the whole work is incredible, and I have probably listened to it more than any other piece of music. But in another example of 'less interesting themes', take the joy theme. Really as a melody it would hardly rank a mention in itself if it was one of Schubert's. That semitonal creeping, if Schumann had composed it he would have been attacked and condemned for it. But it takes wing, it blossoms under the colossal apparatus that is given it to adorn and illuminate it. Beethoven's music is harder in my view to 'deconstruct' in that sense. All the components must be seen together for it to serve as a satsifying whole. That is why his music is much less commonly arranged for popular consumption. Isn't the slow movement of the 7th more or less a 'fantasy on one note'? Yet it is rightly considered a great piece just because of the essence that Beethoven wrings out of it.


----------



## Eusebius12

Larkenfield said:


> Robert Schumann once described Schubert's melodies as "Compressed, lyrical insanity." With all due respect, I'm not sure I would agree with him except for their lyricism, because Schubert's inspired and elevated melodies seem so far above the mentally constructed and the ordinary... He's not necessarily thinking them up at all; they just seem to come to him so spontaneously at any time, and so easily... miraculously... even on his deathbed with more of them floating through his head. What a loss for the glories of music.


Schubert's unconscious mind must've been working at a feverish level. He would read a poem and go to sleep and overnight the music would be 'composed'...


----------



## Eusebius12

tdc said:


> To an extent I agree with some of the compositional short comings that have been brought up in reference to Schubert, however it makes it seem all the more miraculous he was able to compose music so enjoyable and aesthetically pleasing despite this. For me his music doesn't quite stand up as well after repeated listens in comparison to many of the other 'greats', but I can't deny its beauty or the fact that it has really touched so many people. Pity he didn't live longer so he could study some counterpoint.


In his last illness Schubert said that if he recovered he would study counterpoint with Simon Sechter, Bruckner's later teacher.


----------



## Larkenfield

Well, it's nice to know that some consider Schubert a 'tune-smith,' a writer of "tunes", instead of a writer of great and memorable 'melodies'. The description sounds terrible and cheap. I have rarely heard of Schubert being described as a writer of "tunes" in anything I've ever read about him, except in very rare instances. They call him a great writer of lyrical melodies. And he was. He wasn't someone who wrote for tin pan alley, and there's nothing wrong with using the word 'melody' or 'melodic' in connection with him, other than to complicate the meaning of those words that are fundamentally so basic and simple. He was so much more:



> In July 1947 the Austrian composer Ernst Krenek discussed Schubert's style, abashedly admitting that he had at first "shared the wide-spread opinion that Schubert was a lucky inventor of pleasing tunes ... lacking the dramatic power and searching intelligence which distinguished such 'real' masters as J.S. Bach or Beethoven". Krenek wrote that he reached a completely different assessment after close study of Schubert's pieces at the urging of his friend and fellow composer Eduard Erdmann. Krenek pointed to the piano sonatas as giving "ample evidence that [Schubert] was much more than an easy-going tune-smith who did not know, and did not care, about the craft of composition." Each sonata then in print, according to Krenek, exhibited "a great wealth of technical finesse" and revealed Schubert as "far from satisfied with pouring his charming ideas into conventional molds; on the contrary, he was a thinking artist with a keen appetite for experimentation." [unquote]
> 
> That something more is what elevates his songs from tunes. Perhaps the problem is that so many of his works seem to come so easily to him that it doesn't sound like he put that much into them. He's a composer I would never think to underestimate, the heartfelt depth of _Winterreise_ as an example.


----------



## EdwardBast

Eusebius12 said:


> You don't know what you are talking about. You say that melody is "linear successions of notes arranged in recognizable units." This has nothing in particular to do with variation. The linear succession of notes arranged in recognizable units appears first, then it is varied, then it is developed. I freely acknowledge that Beethoven is superior in developing themes. The themes are the melodies, not how they are subsequently developed. Structure has nothing to do with it! Melody is a component of structure, just as development is. Yes Schubert doesn't write melodies as good as Beethoven because he doesn't write as well in E Major.
> 
> Also, your understanding, such as it is (coherent, and such as you can convey it intelligibly) is incredibly snobbish. So no one but Beethoven, or at the very least no one but a great classical composer, could write well melodically? I am quite content not to share your peculiar, individual and supercilious notion of what constitutes good melody.


The above is word salad ^ ^ ^ . Let's take it a bite at a time:

You don't know what you are talking about. 

No, _you_ don't know what I'm talking about.

You say that melody is "linear successions of notes arranged in recognizable units." This has nothing in particular to do with variation.

Huh? Variations also are characterized by linear successions of notes in recognizable units. They are melodic. So, obviously, it has quite a lot to do with melody.

The linear succession of notes arranged in recognizable units appears first, then it is varied, then it is developed.

You are using melody as a synonym for theme or tune. It isn't. Themes are melody. Variations are melody. Development sections are full of melody. Melody is a more inclusive concept than theme or tune.

Structure has nothing to do with it! Melody is a component of structure, just as development is.

Melodic units of whatever kind have structure. Developments have melodic structure.

Yes Schubert doesn't write melodies as good as Beethoven because he doesn't write as well in E Major.

I have no idea what to make of this.

Also, your understanding, such as it is (coherent, and such as you can convey it intelligibly) is incredibly snobbish. So no one but Beethoven, or at the very least no one but a great classical composer, could write well melodically? I am quite content not to share your peculiar, individual and supercilious notion of what constitutes good melody

None of this connects to anything I've said. You've misread and/or misunderstood my argument.


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> Well, it's nice to know that some consider Schubert a 'tune-smith,' a writer of "tunes", instead of a writer of great and memorable 'melodies'. The description sounds terrible and cheap. I have rarely heard of Schubert being described as a writer of "tunes" in anything I've ever read about him, except in very rare exceptions. They call him a great writer of lyrical melodies. And he was. *He wasn't someone who wrote for tin pan alley, and there's nothing wrong with using the word 'melody' or 'melodic' in connection with him,* other than to complicate the meaning of the words that are fundamentally so basic and simple. He was so much more:
> 
> That something more is what elevates his songs from tunes. Perhaps the problem is that so many of his works seem to come so easily that it doesn't sound like he put that much into them. He is a composer that I would never think to underestimate, the heartfelt depth of Winterreise as an example.


Of course there isn't. I was just pointing out that in assessing a composer's melodic gift, the ability to write lyrical melodies a period in length (tunes) is only a small part of what makes a great melodist. Different kinds of works and different kinds of structures require different approaches to melody.


----------



## Eusebius12

One can write good melodies without recourse to notable variation. One can write good melodies without encasing them in large structures. Variation can be melodic, it can be instrumental without being melodic in the accepted sense. Take some of the variations of Schubert's Impromptu in Bb.

You are conflating everything together. Melody is more than just 'good tunes' or the first few bars of a theme. But how can you talk about melody as a component when you are lumping every compositional process together under the heading 'melody'? The reference to E Major is in reference to your arbitrary and possibly individual views as to what melody constitutes. But as this discussion is going nowhere, and your views are distinct and possibly unique (certainly in this thread) I would say it's best to leave it at that.


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> You are conflating everything together. Melody is more than just 'good tunes' or the first few bars of a theme. But how can you talk about melody as a component when you are lumping every compositional process together under the heading 'melody'? The reference to E Major is in reference to your arbitrary and possibly individual views as to what melody constitutes. But as this discussion is going nowhere, and your views are distinct and possibly unique (certainly in this thread) I would say it's best to leave it at that.


EdwardBast's views are indeed distinct - distinct from yours - but not unique. I understand them thoroughly and agree with them.

"Melody" encompasses more than periodic, self-contained, singable "tunes" (I'd use a different word if I had one, since some here think that that one cheapens the subject, but it doesn't for me). To say that something is melodically good may or may not be to say that it contains good melod_ies_ (tunes). Melody can structure itself in a great variety of ways, but to constitute melody it's only necessary that a sequence of tones have a cohesive identity. Melody doesn't have to take the form of a self-sufficient object, it doesn't have to scan in regular periods, it doesn't have to have a clear beginning, middle and end, it doesn't have to remain in a single tonality or octave or instrumentation; it can be fragmented and discontinuous in these respects and more. It doesn't even have to constitute the "theme" or central idea of the piece that it's in, but may be a transitional passage.

Most of the melodies for which Schubert is praised are periodic and homogeneous. They are songs, or songlike, and "songlike" is a word practically definable by the sort of melody that Schubert wrote. He was undoubtedly as good at writing this sort of melody as anyone who ever lived, and his musical thinking was so dominated by it that he re-conceived long forms, such as sonata movements, virtually as successions of songs. Opinions differ as to how well this works: some adore his "heavenly lengths"; others, having the complex structures of Beethoven in mind, may get impatient with it.

A composer doesn't have to write tunes of the Schubertian kind to be a great melodist, but apparently some people don't understand what that can mean. Even Stravinsky said that he preferred Verdi's _Rigoletto_ to his _Otello_ because of the former's clearly structured numbers (tunes, basically) and the latter's lack of them. But I find _Otello_ every bit as melodically inspired as _Rigoletto_, and a good bit more subtle and powerful. Stravinsky also said of Wagner's "endless melody" that if a melody doesn't end there is no reason for it ever to have begun. Yet _Tristan und Isolde_ (for example) overflows with striking, expressive melodies that interlock, interweave, interrupt and mutate without ever, or rarely, forming an isolable tune until the curtain descends. Wagner viewed what he did as deriving from what Beethoven did in building large structures out of pregnant motifs, but in neither composer are these motifs, distinctive though they be, the sole or even the primary expression of his melodic powers. Melody which is a component part of a larger structure and derives both its form and its meaning from a greater narrative is no less melodic, and potentially no less "great," than melody which sits like a beautifully chiseled statue on a pedestal of arpeggios.

I'm with EB in thinking that you want to define melody too narrowly. But I recognize that when most people talk about "great melodists," they mean what you mean. It's a popular, but not a musicologically inclusive, meaning, and it shortchanges composers who pursued different melodic ideals.


----------



## BachIsBest

When people refer to great melodists they most often refer to (at least this is my perception of the matter) the ability of a composer too, with only a handful of bars, create a highly impactful and memorable musical idea. A prime example would be the opening of the second movement of Mozart's 27th piano concerto. The theme of the movement is introduced and clearly needs no development, or variation, and immediately strikes you as profoundly beautiful and inspiring. In this regard, I would think that most people would classify Schubert as greater melodist than Beethoven.

If by saying that Schubert is a greater melodist than Beethoven, one also believes, that this implies Schubert is greater at developing a theme throughout the piece, such as what is commonly done in fugues, I would say that yes, one should come to the conclusion Beethoven was a greater melodist. However, one should understand, this is contrary to what most people mean when they say someone is a great melodist.


----------



## Jacck

BachIsBest said:


> If by saying that Schubert is a greater melodist than Beethoven, one also believes, that this implies Schubert is greater at developing a theme throughout the piece, such as what is commonly done in fugues, I would say that yes, one should come to the conclusion Beethoven was a greater melodist. However, one should understand, this is contrary to what most people mean when they say someone is a great melodist.


Schubert's music is simpler than Beethoven's and works differently. Schubert was able to produce with simpler means some really memorable beautiful music. Almost all of his music is exceptionally melodic - just listen to D664, his trio op100 mov2, or string quartet 15 (just couple of examples) etc. He was able to produce a lot of very memorable simple tunes and his music speaks directly to emotions/heart. Beethoven's music sounds more intellectual to me, is darker and more serious. I like both of them for different reasons. But yes, Schubert was the greater melodist, the melodies came naturally to him - you can hear his music and you can whistle it afterwards. You can hardly whistle any Beethoven (maybe the Moonlight sonata)


----------



## Larkenfield

The use of the word 'tune' or 'tune-smith' generally refers to a writer of _popular_ songs. When used in reference to someone like Schubert, who wrote what might be considered art songs, it has sometimes been used pejoratively to trivialize or denigrate what he did melodically and sometimes what might seem like his reliance on it. While there are a number of definitions of melody, some quite technically involved in details, I doubt if that's what most people have in mind when they think of the word melody with regard to Schubert. Melody is thought of as far more of a linear and pleasing sequence of notes and not something fragmented but something more basic and accessible that floats sublimely on the surface of his music and sounds natural, spontaneous, and unforced. But it's good to know that other more involved technical definitions of melody exist.

.


----------



## EdwardBast

The idea of better melodies is like the idea of better tools. Which is better, a hammer, a sickle, or a saw? Obviously, it depends on whether one is driving nails, clearing an overgrown lot, felling a tree, or making a flag. Which is better, a self contained periodic melody, a theme built on a short motive, or one designed to work in counterpoint with it's inversion? Obviously, it depends on whether one is writing a song, the first movement of a symphony, or a fugue. 

Surely you've heard the expression: "If one only has a hammer, everything looks like a song?"


----------



## Phil loves classical

Actually some dictionaries define melody as a tune, or else an agreeable or satisfying sequence of notes. People usually say Mozart and Tchaikovsky had the greatest melodic gifts. So rightly or wrongly they usually refer to a tune


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> EdwardBast's views are indeed distinct - distinct from yours - but not unique. I understand them thoroughly and agree with them.
> 
> "Melody" encompasses more than periodic, self-contained, singable "tunes" (I'd use a different word if I had one, since some here think that that one cheapens the subject, but it doesn't for me). To say that something is melodically good may or may not be to say that it contains good melod_ies_ (tunes). Melody can structure itself in a great variety of ways, but to constitute melody it's only necessary that a sequence of tones have a cohesive identity. Melody doesn't have to take the form of a self-sufficient object, it doesn't have to scan in regular periods, it doesn't have to have a clear beginning, middle and end, it doesn't have to remain in a single tonality or octave or instrumentation; it can be fragmented and discontinuous in these respects and more. It doesn't even have to constitute the "theme" or central idea of the piece that it's in, but may be a transitional passage.[\QUOTE]
> 
> I don't believe I am as restrictive as that in delineating 'melody' and what constitutes quality melody. You use the example of Tristan and Isolde, this is a work of undoubted high lyricism although containing few if any 'tunes'. Beethoven writes with instrumental appropriateness in most settings, however some of even his greatest works are not particularly lyrical. Is that a fatal flaw? Not at all necessarily. For example as I mentioned the 1st movements of the 3rd, 5th and 9th symphonies are not overall particularly lyrical, and the main themes as I understand them are really quite rudimentary, being mainly iterations of the members of chordal triads. This is not interesting in any sort of melodic sense. Does Beethoven make imposing structures out of these superficially unprepossessing ideas? Absolutely! I baulk at a notion that every compositional process has to be lumped together under the concept of 'melody'. Melody may not merely be a good singable tune but nor is it variation of themes, counterpoint, or any other technique necessarily. And that Schubert could write incredible melodies that aren't the superficial notion of 'a good tune' can be seen in works like many of the late lieder, the G Major Quartet, or the Wanderer Fantasy, which is taut and at root almost monothematic, but uses variation and serious compositional resource to make an imposing whole. Also the String Quintet is as powerful and spiritual as late Beethoven.
> 
> Take for example the song Der Doppelgaenger. This is not in my view a work of melodic richness as such, it creates a sound picture that conveys its meaning and emotional impact more or less without much of what might be considered Schubertian melody (although it isn't completely without it). Schubert isn't just a churner out of happy folk like tunes.
> 
> "Most of the melodies for which Schubert is praised are periodic and homogeneous."
> 
> There are plenty of counter examples. The Doppelgaenger just mentioned, in the late chamber works as I have alluded to, also Der Wanderer. Schubert writes in a profligacy of styles. He also wrote a lot of strophic songs. Is that what you mean by homogeneous? But his melodic lines are often unpredictable.
> 
> " They are songs, or songlike, and "songlike" is a word practically definable by the sort of melody that Schubert wrote. He was undoubtedly as good at writing this sort of melody as anyone who ever lived,"
> 
> True that.
> 
> " and his musical thinking was so dominated by it that he re-conceived long forms, such as sonata movements, virtually as successions of songs. Opinions differ as to how well this works: some adore his "heavenly lengths"; others, having the complex structures of Beethoven in mind, may get impatient with it."
> 
> I think this is exaggerated and many distinguished Schubertians would absolutely refute it. How is the great A Minor Sonata for piano particularly song like? Schubert was a bit lazy in his recapitulations and tended to repeat more than Beethoven would. If he had cut out some of those repetitions, many of these criticisms would not stand. Schubert's structures are complex in the late chamber works such as the G major quartet and string quintet. The melodic materials are infused with such an otherworldly quality that is unique to Schubert, far from some untutored tin pan alley songsmith as can be imagined. So few of the great instrumental works of Schubert can be considered as a succession of songs, in fact I can't think of one, although they nearly all contain wonderful melodic passages. The Wanderer Fantasy is based on a specific song, but its whole length is completely suitable for the piano, and most of his instrumental works are fit for purpose as instrumental works. His piano works really couldn't be performed on any other instrument let alone the voice.
> 
> "Melody which is a component part of a larger structure and derives both its form and its meaning from a greater narrative is no less melodic, and potentially no less "great," than melody which sits like a beautifully chiseled statue on a pedestal of arpeggios."
> 
> Have you only heard Gretchen am Spinnrade or the Trout? If that is meant to be a description of Schubert, I would say it is a woefully inadequate one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with EB in thinking that you want to define melody too narrowly. But I recognize that when most people talk about "great melodists," they mean what you mean. It's a popular, but not a musicologically inclusive, meaning, and it shortchanges composers who pursued different melodic ideals.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you are correct in your appraisal of my understanding of melody and how it applies vis-a-vis the works of Beethoven and Schubert, as I listen to Winterreise for the umpteenth time, and note that a narrow, pop perception of melody also has absolutely nothing to do with this music.
Click to expand...


----------



## Eusebius12

EdwardBast said:


> The idea of better melodies is like the idea of better tools. Which is better, a hammer, a sickle, or a saw? Obviously, it depends on whether one is driving nails, clearing an overgrown lot, felling a tree, or making a flag. Which is better, a self contained periodic melody, a theme built on a short motive, or one designed to work in counterpoint with it's inversion? Obviously, it depends on whether one is writing a song, the first movement of a symphony, or a fugue.
> 
> Surely you've heard the expression: "If one only has a hammer, everything looks like a song?"


I agree with you in general. I am looking at the works deconstructively as I thought was the intention of the thread. If you take the melodies out of their context, which are better? Otherwise you might as well say that the melodies of Beethoven are poor because they don't always lend themselves to contrapuntal treatment anywhere near as well as Bach; or that they are no good because they don't conform strictly to serialist principles. And I know they have been criticized along these lines.

But probably I agree with your general view; perhaps the only disagreement is one of nomenclature.


----------



## Eusebius12

Jacck said:


> You can hardly whistle any Beethoven (maybe the Moonlight sonata)


I'd really be surprised if you can do this


----------



## Eusebius12

Larkenfield said:


> The use of the word 'tune' or 'tune-smith' generally refers to a writer of _popular_ songs. When used in reference to someone like Schubert, who wrote what might be considered art songs, it has sometimes been used pejoratively to trivialize or denigrate what he did melodically and sometimes what might seem like his reliance on it. While there are a number of definitions of melody, some quite technically involved in details, I doubt if that's what most people have in mind when they think of the word melody with regard to Schubert. Melody is thought of as far more of a linear and pleasing sequence of notes and not something fragmented but something more basic and accessible that floats sublimely on the surface of his music and sounds natural, spontaneous, and unforced. But it's good to know that other more involved technical definitions of melody exist.
> 
> .


Yes. But one can easily include more sophisticated examples than the basic sort of Heidenroeslein type melody that Schubert offers that is obviously an evolution of the more volkisch type of tune that he colours harmonically and twists with unexpected intervals and modulations and recognize that this too is great melody. But even tin pan alley produced some good melodies.


----------



## Larkenfield

There's not a person in the world who doesn't understand what a great melody is in its fundamental sense. Leave it to the technophiles to make a complete mess of it and spoil its poetic meaning and beauty. A great melody is something that can stand alone and doesn't need a rocket scientist to explain it to death despite how it can be analyzed and dissected in its various forms by the technicians of music. Not all of its complicated meanings necessarily apply to every song. A great melody is a thing of the heart and not merely of the head.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> "Melody" encompasses more than periodic, self-contained, singable "tunes" (I'd use a different word if I had one, since some here think that that one cheapens the subject, but it doesn't for me). To say that something is melodically good may or may not be to say that it contains good melod_ies_ (tunes). Melody can structure itself in a great variety of ways, but to constitute melody it's only necessary that a sequence of tones have a cohesive identity. Melody doesn't have to take the form of a self-sufficient object, it doesn't have to scan in regular periods, it doesn't have to have a clear beginning, middle and end, it doesn't have to remain in a single tonality or octave or instrumentation; it can be fragmented and discontinuous in these respects and more. It doesn't even have to constitute the "theme" or central idea of the piece that it's in, but may be a transitional passage.


This sounds like you're talking about "a good tone row" in serial music.

It's funny how people can think very abstractly about tonal music they like, yet all that goes out the window when "Schoenberg as 12-tone melodist" comes up.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> There's not a person in the world who doesn't understand what a great melody is in its fundamental sense. Leave it to the technophiles to make a complete mess of it and spoil its poetic meaning and beauty. A great melody is something that can stand alone and doesn't need a rocket scientist to explain it to death despite how it can be analyzed and dissected in its various forms by the technicians of music. Not all of its complicated meanings necessarily apply to every song. A great melody is a thing of the heart and not merely of the head.


That's perfectly lovely, but it isn't Maria Callas singing.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This sounds like you're talking about "a good tone row" in serial music.
> 
> It's funny how people can think very abstractly about tonal music they like, yet all that goes out the window when "Schoenberg as 12-tone melodist" comes up.


Actually no, I wasn't talking about tone rows, which are not intended to be heard as melodies but are merely scaffoldings or templates for the construction of pieces.

I'd be curious to know what distinguishes a "good tone row" from a bad one, and are there any _great_ tone rows? Maybe we need another thread titled "Was Webern a more talented tow rower than Schoenberg?"


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> You can hardly whistle any Beethoven (maybe the Moonlight sonata)


I used to whistle large chunks of the violin concerto while working as a 16 year old grocery store bag boy.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Actually no, I wasn't talking about tone rows, which are not intended to be heard as melodies but are merely scaffoldings or templates for the construction of pieces.
> 
> I'd be curious to know what distinguishes a "good tone row" from a bad one, and are there any _great_ tone rows? Maybe we need another thread titled "Was Webern a more talented tow rower than Schoenberg?"


They all pretty much sound the same. No I lie; most of Schoenberg's and Webern's tone rows, let alone many of their barbed wire successors, sound the same. Berg's sometimes sound different. Ditto Benjamin Frankel's.


----------



## Eusebius12

Isn't serialism as dead as the dodo anyway? Or is that just wishful thinking...


----------



## Eusebius12

Isn't serialism as dead as the dodo anyway? Or is that just wishful thinking...


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> They all pretty much sound the same. No I lie; most of Schoenberg's and Webern's tone rows, let alone many of their barbed wire successors, sound the same. Berg's sometimes sound different. Ditto Benjamin Frankel's.


Yeah, Ben was an original guy. I'll bet he played those tone rows on his glass harmonica.


----------



## KenOC

Listening to some music tonight, it was apparent that Tchaikovsky was the _real _melodist.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Listening to some music tonight, it was apparent that Tchaikovsky was the _real _melodist.


Who could doubt it? A never-ending stream.

OK, bring it on, Schubertians.


----------



## DavidA

In terms of sheer memorable melody Schubert was second only to Mozart. Think of the hundreds of songs. Of course, there is more to great composition than melody and I wouldn't put Schubert above Beethoven. However, had he lived longer he might have been regarded as the greatest of all.


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Yeah, Ben was an original guy. I'll bet he played those tone rows on his glass harmonica.


Are you thinking of Benjamin Frankel or Benjamin Franklin 

"During the last 15 years of his life, Frankel also developed his own style of 12-note composition which retained contact with tonality."


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Who could doubt it? A never-ending stream.
> 
> OK, bring it on, Schubertians.


Some of Tchaikovky's 'tunes' are sentimental in the extreme


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> I see the point you are making, but that handful of works doesn't put him among the top-tier. The late piano sonatas are full of padding. Admittedly he doesn't have to be among the top-tier to be appreciated, but he is placed there and I don't think his output warrants it.


It is more than a handful of works anyway but, even if it were only a few, it wouldn't belittle his achievement. Of course, I don't know how big your top tier is. But for me he easily earns a place as one of the greatest ten composers before 1915 (things get more complicated after that as there are so many candidates to join the pantheon of the greatest). I'm guessing that you will feel I am wrong in this.

I'm trying to think of a composer who is widely admired and revered but who _I _think is overrated - or who, in other words, I think my taste is right about and everyone else is wrong. Of the revered composers who I am a little cool about, mostly I assume the problem is me. But I do tend to think of Mendelssohn as unworthy of the reputation he enjoys. I also think that we currently overrate quite a number of relatively modern composers who lean towards populism and are backward-looking (I feel their music nearly always moves towards crassness). Of course, in such cases I cannot be certain that I have got it right - indeed, it is highly unlikely that I am right and so many others are wrong - but my taste keeps telling me that the reputation in undeserved. Taste in art is a strange phenomenon because it often comes along with a feeling of truth. But perhaps it is more about identity as I join with all those who think the same as me and separate myself from all those who don't.


----------



## Eusebius12

Schubert's late piano sonatas aren't padded, they are repetitive of good thematic material. They could be pruned easily, but no one does this out of reverence to the master's work. They might sound better if some of the repetitions were removed. Same thing could easily be said of some of Beethoven's works, especially the mid period piano sonatas, also the scherzi of Chopin. These are still considered masterworks. The perfect work of art probably hasn't been penned, but I will confidently proclaim the 2 quintets, the last 4 quartets, the piano trios, the last 2 symphonies, the wanderer and f minor fantasies, the last 3 piano sonatas (+the great a minor) and the 3 great lieder cycles of Schubert as masterworks. Schubert's oeuvre is as great as anyone living after Beethoven, that I most certainly aver.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Actually no, I wasn't talking about tone rows, which are not intended to be heard as melodies but are merely scaffoldings or templates for the construction of pieces.


Actually, tone rows can be used as melodies and themes, if the composer so chooses, so in that sense, you could have just as well been talking about tone rows.



Woodduck said:


> I'd be curious to know what distinguishes a "good tone row" from a bad one, and are there any _great_ tone rows? Maybe we need another thread titled "Was Webern a more talented tow rower than Schoenberg?"


Since serial music is a chromatic language, you would want a row that did not have tonal allusions, such as C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C#-D#-F#-G#. But maybe Berg would. It depends. Elliott Carter is interested in certain kinds of tone rows called 'all-interval rows' for his purposes. George Perle and Milton Babbitt were interested in rows which were symmetrical under inversion.

Schoenberg used a row that had whole-tone scale implications, something like C-D-E-F#-G#-A#, then C#-D#-F-G-A-B, so he could travel in and out of two chromatically adjacent areas. There are only two whole tone scales, and together they cover the entire chromatic collection.

Also, tone rows are frequently thought of as two hexads, so a good row would be interesting from that standpoint.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eusebius12 said:


> Isn't serialism as dead as the dodo anyway? Or is that just wishful thinking...


You mean Elliott Carter?

As soon as the chromatic collection dies, serialism will die, but not before that.


----------



## Woodduck

Eusebius12 said:


> Are you thinking of Benjamin Frankel or Benjamin Franklin


Guess.  ...................


----------



## Aloevera

In my observations, it seems in music's progression melody in traditional sense seems to take on less of a dominant role. I was going back over beginning suzuki books and was reminded how gorgeous the early Bach minuets were for holding such a strong melody. Even Vivaldi too in his concertos. During the classical period, the notion of melody in the traditional sense is still there but it is much simpler and instead filled with ornamentations and variations of scales and arpeggios. to substitute for the reduced importance of traditional melody. And sure there are many wonderful main themes in the classical era for example piano concerto 23 but they are still much simpler in comparison to Bach and Vivaldi in which the melody is retained throughout the entire piece. When we get to Beethoven it seems melody takes a further back seat and the melody is for the means of producing a particular sensation, for example 'a fiery opening' or 'relief' and the importance of the song isn't the melody itself but how the different sensations interact with one another. Something you can't do to this extent with a baroque piece with a stronger melody


----------



## Guest

I have to admit, my view of Schubert has been dramatically downgraded after trying to listen to his Octet for winds and strings. The musical equivalent of trying to drink Maple Syrup. I have to remind myself of the high regard I had after listening to Kempff recordings of his piano music. Maybe next I will revise the Death and the Maiden quartet.


----------



## Eusebius12

millionrainbows said:


> You mean Elliott Carter?
> 
> As soon as the chromatic collection dies, serialism will die, but not before that.


mmm a sad day in the Carter household was unfortunately a happy day in the world of music


----------



## Eusebius12

Woodduck said:


> Guess.  ...................


Or maybe Benjamin Francis Leftwich


----------



## hammeredklavier

British music critic David CF Wright criticized Schubert's composition techniques by making comparisons with Beethoven in his article. I think he does have a good point about some of Schubert's output.
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
"Let me quote one example. Take the A flat Impromptu, the second of the set known as D935. He writes a tune of about eight bars then repeats it an octave higher. Then he repeats the theme and the octave higher version and so we have the tune four times in succession all in the same key. Then he has about 13 bars of chords which go nowhere and what does he then do? Repeat the tune and then again the same tune an octave higher. He repeats the bars of chords and the tune another twice. So the main tune comes eight times in three minutes. It is all the same and tedious and the tune is not varied rhythmically nor is there a change of key or any development.

There follows a trio section of 12 bars of nothing but broken chords. What does he do next? Repeat the 12 bars of broken chords. Another 34 bars of boring broken chords continues the piece. What follows that? Those 34 bars of broken chords again followed by eight bars of....broken chords. The tune in A flat returns and is immediately repeated an octave higher. There follows those bars of purposeless chords and the tune again and yet again that slight tune an octave higher. The tune is still in the same key and rhythmically the same. The music is so tame; it shows no invention, skill or development. There are no interesting harmonies or development. It is all so bland as well as being painfully boring and monotonous, and it is so juvenile and undeniably amateur! And do you really want to hear 90 odd bars of broken chords?

There are so many other examples which will prove the point! Schubert may have written some pretty tunes but nothing else, said Hans Keller.

Study his songs and notice that most of the time the piano part is merely vamping, merely common chords repeated. Vamp, vamp, vamp. In one extended passage in the Piano Trio in E flat the left hand of the piano part has only three notes which appear and appear and appear. Some of his songs are really dreadful. Look at the piano part of Death and the Maiden for example. It is so sterile, unimaginative and, frankly, very poor."


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ Well I always thought Keller was a complete twit. I don't know Wright but his arguments seem to be that Schubert was not Beethoven. This is of course true. He was a very different composer. Both critics quoted have things the wrong way around. Their role with the music of the past is to explain how it achieves what it achieves - i.e. the music and its power to move us comes first - but they want to use their analytical tools to decide if it has such a power.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I largely agree with Wright. In fact what he says tallies with the post I made on page 6 in July (so I'm bound to agree with him :devil.
His argument is certainly not just that Schubert wasn't Beethoven, not at all. It is a truthful representation of how his music is structured. 
I'm much more sympathetic. He was born in the wrong era. If he'd been a 20th century composer he could have written preludes with a running time of 50 seconds and no-one would have found it odd. Instead he had to pad-out good melodic ideas to meet expectations.

Schubert's known compositions shouldn't have him in the top rank of composers, but there's no stopping those who will fight tooth and nail to insist upon his place based upon a projection of how much of a genius he would have been had he not expired so young. The eternal 'underrated composer' whose music takes up nearly the entire rack under S in the CD shops.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> I largely agree with Wright. In fact what he says tallies with the post I made on page 6 in July (so I'm bound to agree with him :devil.
> His argument is certainly not just that Schubert wasn't Beethoven, not at all. It is a truthful representation of how his music is structured.
> I'm much more sympathetic. He was born in the wrong era. If he'd been a 20th century composer he could have written preludes with a running time of 50 seconds and no-one would have found it odd. Instead he had to pad-out good melodic ideas to meet expectations.
> 
> *Schubert's known compositions shouldn't have him in the top rank of composers, *but there's no stopping those who will fight tooth and nail to insist upon his place based upon a projection of how much of a genius he would have been had he not expired so young. The eternal 'underrated composer' whose music takes up nearly the entire rack under S in the CD shops.


I totally disagree with this. I think Schubert's late compositions place him in the top rank.


----------



## jdec

"_*Truly, in this Schubert there dwells a divine spark!*_"

- Ludwig van Beethoven, 1827


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> I totally disagree with this. I think Schubert's later compositions place him in the top rank.


Must be true then.


----------



## eugeneonagain

jdec said:


> "_*Truly, in this Schubert there dwells a divine spark!*_"
> 
> - Ludwig van Beethoven, 1827


Let's see...Beethoven died at the beginning of that year. Schubert a year later. Due to unforeseen circumstances, even that spark failed to light the kindling.


----------



## jdec

"_*Such is the spell of of your emotional world that it very nearly blinds us to the greatness of your craftsmanship.*_"

-- Franz Liszt on Schubert.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I can see you'll soon run-out of colours, if not quotes.

See my signature quote though; it shows I am mediocre and unable to recognise genius.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> Must be true then.


Of course it is. Liszt and Beethoven would agree


----------



## jdec

FRANZ SCHUBERT

by Antonin Dvorak

http://www.antonin-dvorak.cz/en/dvorak-on-schubert

"_Schubert's chamber music, especially his string quartets and his trios for pianoforte, violin, and violoncello, must be ranked among the very best of their kind in all musical literature.
…
Of Schubert's symphonies, too, I am such an enthusiastic admirer that I do not hesitate to place him next to Beethoven, far above Mendelssohn, as well as above Schumann.
…
I have just observed that mastery of form came to Schubert spontaneously. This is illustrated by his early symphonies, five of which he wrote before he was twenty, at which, the more I study them, the more I marvel.
…
The richness and variety of colouring in the great Symphony in C are astounding. It is a work which always fascinates, always remains new. It has the effect of gathering clouds, with constant glimpses of sunshine breaking through them. It illustrates also, like most of Schubert's compositions, the truth of an assertion once made to me by Dr. Hans Richter - that *the greatest masters* always reveal their genius most unmistakably and most delightfully in their slow movements._"

-- A. Dvorak


----------



## jdec

"_*The most poetic musician who ever lived.*_"

-- Franz Liszt on Schubert


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> Schubert's known compositions shouldn't have him in the top rank of composers, but there's no stopping those who will fight tooth and nail to insist upon his place based upon a projection of how much of a genius he would have been had he not expired so young. The eternal 'underrated composer' whose music takes up nearly the entire rack under S in the CD shops.


I don't know that you are doing more than regretting that Schubert doesn't give you what other composers have led you to expect and want. I can't speak for other Schubert fans but I, certainly, am relating to how his music makes me feel. This leaves me in little doubt that he is one of the greatest ever. I can be quite fussy - I reject claims of similar greatness for many composers who have a lot of fans on this forum - but Schubert passes whatever tests I apply. If I had the ability and inclination to undertake a technical analysis of how he does that I could communicate answers to your worries. But even if I could do and hear the technical, I can't imagine hearing the technical before I hear the music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I don't have worries about it. If you can reject claims of other composers then surely the ability (for others) to reject Schubert is also possible. 

I can't accept the 'unmet expectations' argument. It's not even that I dislike Schubert's entire oeuvre, I just don't think he's what his super-fans claim he was.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> Of course it is. Liszt and Beethoven would agree


Nothing like the company of two dead composers to affirm one's opinion.


----------



## jdec

eugeneonagain said:


> See my signature quote though; it shows I am mediocre and unable to recognise genius.


Don't be hard with yourself, you already recognize the tremendous genius of one of the greatest musical minds that will ever exist: Erik Satie.


----------



## jdec

"_The riches that lay here made me tremble with excitement. The symphony transports us into a world where I cannot recall ever having been before_".
- R. Schumann on Schubert's symphony in C major "The Great"


----------



## jdec

Robert Schumann on Franz Schubert's C Major Symphony

(Also known as the 9th, or "Great" symphony)

"_I'll say it most frankly: he who does not know this symphony, knows but little of Schubert, and after that, which Schubert has already given to Art, this may be perceived as praise that is hardly to be believed...
Here there is, beyond the masterful musical technique of the composition, yet life in every fibre, color even in the most delicate nuance, significance everywhere, the keenest expression of the particular, and finally the whole suffused with a romanticism, that Schubert is known for from elsewhere. And the heavenly length of the symphony...

It must always be called an extraordinary talent, that he, who heard so few of his instrumental works during his lifetime, succeeded in such an idiomatic treatment of the instruments on the scale of the orchestra, that often speak all at once like human voices and the choir. This likeness to the singing voice have I never come across, outside of many a Beethoven work, in such a striking and surprising way..._"


----------



## eugeneonagain

"His waistcoat was always the wrong colour and he never did piano exercises (like my opus). Plus he copied my style of glasses."

_- Czerny, overheard at a local tavern._

"Franz who? Never heard of him".
_
- Muzio Clementi, in his unpublished memoirs._

"He still owes me 20 florins."
_
- J.N. Hummel, to to his landlord._


----------



## EdwardBast

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know that you are doing more than regretting that Schubert doesn't give you what other composers have led you to expect and want. I can't speak for other Schubert fans but I, certainly, am relating to how his music makes me feel. This leaves me in little doubt that he is one of the greatest ever. I can be quite fussy - I reject claims of similar greatness for many composers who have a lot of fans on this forum - *but Schubert passes whatever tests I apply.* If I had the ability and inclination to undertake a technical analysis of how he does that I could communicate answers to your worries. But even if I could do and hear the technical, I can't imagine hearing the technical before I hear the music.


Try the counterpoint test. For many listeners it is among the most important. Schubert never got better than mediocre marks on that one. This is why, to my ears, a work like Beethoven's Sonata in A major Op. 101 is vastly richer melodically than anything Schubert ever wrote. Not only are its principal melodies great in and of themselves, they are invariably woven with finely wrought countermelodies and, especially, great bass lines.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Try the counterpoint test. For many listeners it is among the most important. Schubert never got better than mediocre marks on that one. *This is why, to my ears, a work like Beethoven's Sonata in A major Op. 101 is vastly richer melodically than anything Schubert ever wrote.* Not only are its principal melodies great in and of themselves, they are invariably woven with finely wrought countermelodies and, especially, great bass lines.


We are different for sure. As great as Op.101 a sonata is, I easily prefer Schubert's last one in B-flat major, D960, any day of the week. :tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

Fwiw, Beethoven was 48 when he wrote Op.101 and Schubert was 30 when he wrote D960. Give Schubert 18 more years and what kind of sonatas would he have written?


----------



## jdec

Not a bad result for Schubert's Piano Sonata #21 in this poll:

Greatest piano sonatas?

So far:

1st place: Beethoven's Op.106 - 24 votes
2nd place: Schubert's #21 D. 960 - 21 votes
.
.
.
.
Beethoven's Op.101 - 1 vote


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Give Schubert 18 more years and what kind of sonatas would he have written?


Ones with even more repeats, vamps, hypnotic arpeggios to fill the time. A proto-minimalist.


----------



## jdec

eugeneonagain said:


> Ones with even more repeats, vamps, hypnotic arpeggios to fill the time. *A proto-minimalist.*


That's Satie not Schubert


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> We are different for sure. As great as Op.101 a sonata is, I easily prefer Schubert's last one in B-flat major, D960, any day of the week. :tiphat:


Who do you think Schubert would have agreed with, me or you? I'll give you a hint: Ask yourself why Schubert finally realized he needed to seriously study counterpoint the year before he died. What masterpieces of contrapuntal art do you think were crossing his music stand?


----------



## EdwardBast

--------------------------------


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Who do you think Schubert would have agreed with, me or you? I'll give you a hint: *Ask yourself why Schubert finally realized he needed to seriously study counterpoint the year before he died.* To what sort of skill was he aspiring?


And why do you think only counterpoint is worth here? I remind you that the subject of this thread has to do with who was the more talented *melodist* (not the best at counterpoint). And without a doubt to me, Schubert was a more natural melodist than Beethoven. But I prefer D960 to Op.101 not only for melodies, but for deeper emotional expression too, to me at least, specially in the first 2 movements.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> And why do you think only counterpoint is worth here? I remind you that the subject of this thread has to do with who was the more talented *melodist* (not the best at counterpoint). And without a doubt to me, Schubert was a more natural melodist than Beethoven. But I prefer D960 to Op.101 not only for melodies, but for deeper emotional expression too, to me at least, specially in the first 2 movements.


Counterpoint is a melodic art. Why do you think being a great melodist means writing outstanding lines in only one voice at a time? Listen to the first movement of Beethoven's Op. 101. The opening melody takes over a minute to unfold. The profusion of new phrases all blossoming one after the other, sustaining the most subtle yet inexorable forward motion, is marvelous. Have you noticed how the turn to the minor mode in the second sentence is echoed right before its codetta? That is a brilliant musical rhyme that unites the whole structure as a long poetic verse. This is melodic genius at work on the grandest scale. Do you know what makes it possible, what sustains it? Counterpoint. Nearly its every gesture is mirrored by one moving in the opposite direction in the bass. The melody and the bass move apart and back together like the breathing of a living organism. This alternating expansion and contraction is the melody's motive force. Its impetus is sustained as a single utterance as it navigates a modulation and a great deal of chromatic harmony. For Schubert to approach this level of melodic genius - to learn how to infuse a whole texture with melodic life - would have required that he master counterpoint. I suspect he figured this out and that's part of the reason he was about to embark on a course right before he died.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Counterpoint is a melodic art. Why do you think being a great melodist means writing outstanding lines in only one voice at a time? Listen to the first movement of Beethoven's Op. 101. The opening melody takes over a minute to unfold. The profusion of new phrases all blossoming one after the other, sustaining the most subtle yet inexorable forward motion, is marvelous. Have you noticed how the turn to the minor mode in the second sentence is echoed right before the codetta? That is a brilliant musical rhyme that unites the whole structure as a long poetic verse. This is melodic genius at work on the grandest scale. Do you know what makes it possible, what sustains it? Counterpoint. Nearly its every gesture is mirrored by one moving in the opposite direction in the bass. The melody and the bass move apart and back together like the breathing of a living organism. This alternating expansion and contraction is the melody's motive force. Its impetus is sustained as a single utterance as it navigates a modulation and a great deal of chromatic harmony. For Schubert to approach this level of melodic genius - to learn how to infuse a whole texture with melodic life - would have required that he master counterpoint. I suspect he figured this out and that's part of the reason he was about to embark on a course right before he died.


Can't argue with most of it, but it does sound as if Schubert's melodic gift is being diminished. Also, my guess is that if Schubert had lived longer he would have picked up more advanced counterpoint. After all, he already used it occasionally, although it was criticized, as in the Wanderer Fantasy, but geez, what melody in the Wanderer: I don't find myself thinking about the counterpoint.

Beethoven's primary education in counterpoint didn't occur until age 23 (Haydn and Schenk) not that many years younger than Schubert's attempt at more education just before he died at 31.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> Can't argue with most of it, but it does sound as if Schubert's melodic gift is being diminished. Also, my guess is that if Schubert had lived longer he would have picked up more advanced counterpoint. After all, he already used it occasionally, although it was criticized, as in the Wanderer Fantasy, but geez, what melody in the Wanderer: I don't find myself thinking about the counterpoint.
> 
> Beethoven's primary education in counterpoint didn't occur until age 23 (Haydn and Schenk) not that many years younger than Schubert's attempt at more education just before he died at 31.


I think his gift is narrower in range than Beethoven's. Obviously lots of people will disagree. 

About Beethoven's primary education: I imagine playing Bach's WTC from memory as a teen caused some osmotic learning in the young Beethoven.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> I think his gift is narrower in range than Beethoven's. Obviously lots of people will disagree.


Considering the range of different composition formats, symphonies, piano concertos, violin concerto, all those sonatas, trios, quartets, etc. that Beethoven tackled, proving that he could compose fully fleshed out melodies as well as simpler melodic fragments built into something wonderful and unexpected, overall, I've always believed he stands alone.


----------



## Luchesi

I thought I read that Beethoven complained of the struggle to find inspiring melodies. Maybe not, but that’s the notion I remember about it. 

“You will ask me where I get my ideas. That I cannot tell you with certainty; they come unsummoned, directly, indirectly,—I could seize them with my hands,—out in the open air; in the woods; while walking; in the silence of the nights; early in the morning; incited by moods, which are translated by the poet into words, by me into tones that sound, and roar and storm about me until I have set them down in notes.”

(Said to Louis Schlosser, a young musician, whom Beethoven honored with his friendship in 1822-23.)


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> Ones with even more repeats, vamps, hypnotic arpeggios to fill the time. A proto-minimalist.


I don't know know what you are listening to. It is Schubert. Thought from your comments you might have the wrong composer


----------



## DavidA

I think we are straying from the point in saying which was the greater composer. The question the OP put was about who was the greater melodist. When one thinks of the hundreds of songs that Schubert wrote then we must give the palm to him although on the evidence of the music actually written I would say that Beethoven was the greater composer .


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> I don't know know what you are listening to. It is Schubert. Thought from your comments you might have the wrong composer


Schubert -- a good tune, repeated an obscene number of times. And then, the exposition repeat.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't have worries about it. If you can reject claims of other composers then surely the ability (for others) to reject Schubert is also possible.


That was partly my point. This is a matter of taste rather than of technical argument.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Schubert -- a good tune, repeated an obscene number of times. And then, the exposition repeat.


First the thread us about Schubert the melodist not how many times he repeats the theme. Secondly it is the sublimity as to what he does with the theme which may have escaped your attention. Interesting the number of pianists who would disagree with your assessment of 'an obscene number of times' - like Richter, Lupu, Kovacevich, Pollini and all the rest who have recorded D960


----------



## hammeredklavier

jdec said:


> And why do you think only counterpoint is worth here? I remind you that the subject of this thread has to do with who was the more talented *melodist* (not the best at counterpoint).





DaveM said:


> Fwiw, Beethoven was 48 when he wrote Op.101 and Schubert was 30 when he wrote D960. Give Schubert 18 more years and what kind of sonatas would he have written?


Beethoven wrote Pathetique at 27, and Moonlight at 31. They have more memorable melodies than Schubert's D960. I think most people in the world would agree on that. This video of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata has accumulated 117 million views. 



 It's even one of the most well-known pieces of classical music. The memorable melodic quality is obviously what so many people love about.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> I don't know know what you are listening to. It is Schubert. Thought from your comments you might have the wrong composer


No. Although when people first mentioned 'Schubert' and 'melody' I thought they must have meant _François_ Schubert, or Mozart-impersonator _Joseph_ Schubert (whose viola concerto is actually very listenable):


----------



## jdec

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven wrote Pathetique at 27, and Moonlight at 31. They have more memorable melodies than Schubert's D960. I think most people in the world would agree on that. This video of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata has accumulated 117 million views.
> 
> 
> 
> It's even one of the most well-known pieces of classical music. The memorable melodic quality is obviously what so many people love about.


Yes. The melody in Pachelbel's Canon is also more memorable than D960 to the popular view, for sure. Does that make Pachelbel a better melodist than Schubert?

BTW, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Beethoven did not produce great melodies. Just than in direct comparison....


----------



## Larkenfield




----------



## eugeneonagain

Master of block chords, pedal-points and arpeggios. Bravo!


----------



## jdec

Don't you like this either, eugeneonagain? it's like heaven to me, specially the last 2.5 minutes (from the stunning modulation at 5:30" onwards).






Well, maybe "my heaven" is "your torture" here too.


----------



## eugeneonagain

jdec said:


> Don't you like this either, eugeneonagain? it's like heaven to me, specially the last 2.5 minutes (from the stunning modulation at 5:30" onwards).


It doesn't sound at all like a modulation! The entire movement seems to me very monochrome and highly repetitive.



jdec said:


> Well, maybe "my heaven" is "your torture" here too.


Not really torture. I accept wholeheartedly that tastes will differ. I'm really just poking fun about this post of the time, but I really believe that Schubert is like a small, if pretty gem in an unnecessarily large presentation box. The large box has lots of useless and empty space.

In 2018 he would be a top-notch remix DJ.


----------



## jdec

eugeneonagain said:


> It doesn't sound at all like a modulation! The entire movement seems to me very monochrome and highly repetitive.


I was referring to the key modulation from C-sharp minor to C major. It's a remarkable key shift in my view, that illustrates the principle of Schubert's tonality as an intellectual motivation.

This movement is often considered one of Schubert's masterpieces for piano. Maybe with some more listening you could connect with it one of these days, as we know some music can be an acquired taste too.


----------



## Luchesi

This is taken from quora.com

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-...ven-as-a-composer-if-he-had-not-died-so-young

"Not long ago Schubert was deemed a second rank composer, and certainly not one of the three giants, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Dvorak, I think, must have been the first to add Schubert to the three 'giants' and it has taken another 120 years for many to come to that conclusion, aided by the recordings of previously neglected 'second rate' works. For too long his sonatas and chamber work were deemed inferior (I have a 1940s book castigating Schubert for that flawed composition, the string quintet), his technical mastery was questioned and to this day many, who are more accustomed to Beethoven's four note motifs. think that his melodies and themes can be too long or that his structures could have benefited by editing/chopping. If we ponder for a minute what Schubert produced in September 1828 alone, or in the last, say, six months of his life, none of which he heard performed, not even by himself on the piano, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that our view of classical music would probably be focused around the two towering figures of Bach and Schubert, with Beethoven and Mozart being considered the more immediate predecessors to Schubert's music to towering and unsurpassed accomplishment in music. Beethoven's ninth, written of course after the 'Unfinished', would still be considered a great achievement (but we would appreciate the 3rd more for being genuinely a revolutionary work) but Schubert's last 10 symphonies, starting with the "great" would define the ultimate expression of the genre, as would his last 15 sonatas (starting with D958). And then of course there would have been all the countless short pieces that would inspire Chopin and Brahms, before he finally went back to Opera, with huge success. Perhaps in some ways, during that September of 1828 Schubert surpassed all, Beethoven, all other composers, the rest of mankind. I just don't know anyone in history to have achieved so much in such a short space of time to such supreme results, and yet, in this universal achievement, appeal to our innermost individual emotions with such intensity."


----------



## DaveM

jdec said:


> Don't you like this either, eugeneonagain? it's like heaven to me, specially the last 2.5 minutes (from the stunning modulation at 5:30" onwards).


For me, 2:20 to 4:50 is the magical part of this sonata though I'm not a big fan of Horowitz's interpretation.

Just for interest sake, here's a performance I prefer with the sequence mentioned above starting at 2:45:


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> This is taken from quora.com
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-...ven-as-a-composer-if-he-had-not-died-so-young
> 
> "If we ponder for a minute what Schubert produced in September 1828 alone, or in the last, say, six months of his life, none of which he heard performed, not even by himself on the piano, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that our view of classical music would probably be focused around the two towering figures of Bach and Schubert, with Beethoven and Mozart being considered the more immediate predecessors to Schubert's music to towering and unsurpassed accomplishment in music. Beethoven's ninth, written of course after the 'Unfinished', would still be considered a great achievement (but we would appreciate the 3rd more for being genuinely a revolutionary work) but Schubert's last 10 symphonies, starting with the "great" would define the ultimate expression of the genre, as would his last 15 sonatas (starting with D958). And then of course there would have been all the countless short pieces that would inspire Chopin and Brahms, before he finally went back to Opera, with huge success. Perhaps in some ways, during that September of 1828 Schubert surpassed all, Beethoven, all other composers, the rest of mankind. I just don't know anyone in history to have achieved so much in such a short space of time to such supreme results, and yet, in this universal achievement, appeal to our innermost individual emotions with such intensity."


Schubert will surpass Mozart, Beethoven and "all other composers and the rest of mankind" when pigs fly.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


>


The piano part reminds me of his fellow Romantics who also died in their 30s









" Schubert will surpass Mozart, Beethoven and *"all other composers and the rest of mankind"* ".

Maybe..


----------



## eugeneonagain

Luchesi said:


> This is taken from quora.com
> 
> Perhaps in some ways, during that September of 1828 Schubert surpassed all, Beethoven, all other composers, the rest of mankind. I just don't know anyone in history to have achieved so much in such a short space of time to such supreme results, and yet, in this universal achievement, appeal to our innermost individual emotions with such intensity."


This is an (extreme) example of the kind of absurd and extraordinary wish-fulfilment I refer to. These people would have us believe that only by a quirk of fate was Schubert's obvious position as the messiah of music unrealised. That he would have reached far in advance of all his predecessors, his peers and set the blueprint for the rest of the century.

All this even though the works are there to see with one's own eyes and hear with one's own ears and to compare to previous, contemporaneous and future works.

So much Schubert talk is about what he 'would have' achieved. All alternative history talk. And all that can be posted are his dreary sonatas as supposed proof of this word-shattering genius. I think these uber-admirers do him more harm than good.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> This is an (extreme) example of the kind of absurd and extraordinary wish-fulfilment I refer to. These people would have us believe that only by a quirk of fate was Schubert's obvious position as the messiah of music unrealised. That he would have reached far in advance of all his predecessors, his peers and set the blueprint for the rest of the century.
> 
> All this even though the works are there to see with one's own eyes and hear with one's own ears and to compare to previous, contemporaneous and future works.
> 
> So much Schubert talk is about what he 'would have' achieved. All alternative history talk. And all that can be posted are his dreary sonatas as supposed proof of this word-shattering genius. I think these uber-admirers do him more harm than good.


Although I doubt we can do Schubert's reputation either harm or good at this remove, I share your distaste for these "shoulda woulda coulda" pronouncements. It's even more difficult to guess what Schubert could have done in later years than to project a career course for an elderly Mozart, who had at least proven his credentials as an all-around master of multiple genres before his untimely demise. It's been pointed out that Schubert himself considered his skill at counterpoint incomplete, and at a time when opera was becoming one of the most important genres in German-speaking countries he had yet to prove himself by producing a dramatic work capable of capturing the public imagination and holding the stage. Yes, I know that his operas have a handful of partisans; I would only point out that writing effective opera is not a skill identical to songwriting, a fact which Schubert himself certainly appreciated. I've listened as well to Schubert's oratorio _Lazarus_ and found it rather a bore despite some attractive music.

A sizable number of Schubert's songs have long been acknowledged as being among the finest ever composed, and he clearly had ambition to write music in larger forms which could compete with the best other composers had produced. In a few instances he fulfilled that ambition. It's an immense loss to music that he didn't live to produce more. Do we really need to say more than that in praise of him?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> A sizable number of Schubert's songs have long been acknowledged as being among the finest ever composed, and he clearly had ambition to write music in larger forms which could compete with the best other composers had produced. In a few instances he fulfilled that ambition. *It's an immense loss to music that he didn't live to produce more. Do we really need to say more than that in praise of him?*


Sorry for the trim. Yes it is, I wish more people could take that view.

On the other hand, his life may have been short but his catalogue isn't lacking. Which is why I think it's justifiable to question that if someone has already written as many symphonies as Beethoven, a sizeable number of either Singspielen or Opera, many piano sonatas etc (and of such genius), why he wouldn't have been immediately and unquestioningly accepted alongside the masters? I'd expect a better reputation from even just half of the large oeuvre of Schubert.

There may well be the extra circumstances, such as being in Beethoven's shadow (as so many others were), but that only affected his publishing and performances and thus becoming more well-known. We now have these works, some known, some long re-discovered, amounting to a huge oeuvre. There are gems, but a lot of it just isn't that great.


----------



## Woodduck

A knack for knocking off catchy and emotionally touching melodies that sound like they've always existed even when they're full of surprises and no one else could have written them is a special gift. Singing, along with dancing, is one of the primal things that music does and is, and the mysterious power of a tune to captivate and move people is eternal and irresistible. Schubert's credentials extend far beyond his ability to tap into an endless wellspring of melody, but I think that that ability is still at the heart of his appeal, as it is of Tchaikovsky's. I wouldn't describe that gift as making him a "better melodist" than Beethoven - "melody" is a larger concept - but it certainly made him preeminent in song. I'm fascinated by his lifelong effort to find an approach to large forms in which his innate impulse to sing could spread its wings fully. Now and again he succeeded, with results that were like nothing ever heard.


----------



## eugeneonagain

The way you describe it makes me question whether I am being too dismissive. Perhaps I am.


----------



## DaveM

This is, in my mind, perhaps Schubert's single most melodic piano piece and one of the best solo piano works ever written. And it's not just the melody, it's also the development (particularly use of the lower register) that is exemplary. IMO, it's on a par with some of Beethoven's better works, but then keeping in mind, Beethoven created far more of them:


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> The way you describe it makes me question whether I am being too dismissive. Perhaps I am.


I haven't devoted as much time to exploring Schubert as I might have, and I didn't care for most of his music until I was perhaps in my forties, though there were moments along the way that knocked on my door. I was a singer in my college years and for a time thereafter, and working on _Winterreise_ and other songs with pianists made me aware of Schubert's depths. Back then I had little use for the symphonies; the "Unfinished" bored me, and I found the "Great" C-major an overextended, cold thing, and couldn't understand why it was so highly regarded. The second movement of the former still puts me to sleep, and the fourth movement of the latter still feels like a run-on sentence (or, with repeats taken, a life sentence), but I can now see the inspired originality of these pieces and enjoy them. I think I loved the string quintet and the final quartet immediately, but the work that first alerted me to Schubert's uniqueness and profundity was the piano sonata in c-minor, D958, which a friend played in recital. The emotional turmoil embodied in the surprising harmonic and textural shifts, the way song-like beauty is threatened and undermined at every turn, stunned me. Beethoven's late music is sometimes very personal, but this was startlingly so. It may have been the key that unlocked Schubert, for whom I now have quite deep feelings even though I'm conscious of his shortcomings.

One more piece of his that grabbed me early on, and specifically in this magical, still unequaled performance:


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> This is, in my mind, perhaps Schubert's single most melodic piano piece and one of the best solo piano works ever written. And it's not just the melody, it's also the development (particularly use of the lower register) that is exemplary. IMO, it's on a par with some of Beethoven's better works, but then keeping in mind, Beethoven created far more of them:


Absolutely. One of a handful of pieces that has me crying by the fourth note. This is what I mean by Schubert's deceptive simplicity. In the final analysis, analysis fails. Profundity is impossible to explain.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> I haven't devoted as much time to exploring Schubert as I might have, and I didn't care for most of his music until I was perhaps in my forties, though there were moments along the way that knocked on my door. I was a singer in my college years and for a time thereafter, and working on _Winterreise_ and other songs with pianists made me aware of Schubert's depths. Back then I had little use for the symphonies; the "Unfinished" bored me, and I found the "Great" C-major an overextended, cold thing, and couldn't understand why it was so highly regarded. The second movement of the former still puts me to sleep, and the fourth movement of the latter still feels like a run-on sentence (or, with repeats taken, a life sentence), but I can now see the inspired originality of these pieces and enjoy them. I think I loved the string quintet and the final quartet immediately, but the work that first alerted me to Schubert's uniqueness and profundity was the piano sonata in c-minor, D958, which a friend played in recital. The emotional turmoil embodied in the surprising harmonic and textural shifts, the way song-like beauty is threatened and undermined at every turn, stunned me. Beethoven's late music is sometimes very personal, but this was startlingly so. It may have been the key that unlocked Schubert, for whom I now have quite deep feelings even though I'm conscious of his shortcomings.
> 
> One more piece of his that grabbed me early on, and specifically in this magical, still unequaled performance:


Love that song! Reminds me of a scene in German nightclub circa 1944 where the singer is singing to a crowd that worries that the war is lost. While I much prefer the performance above, here is one without the needle and groove accompaniment:


----------



## DavidA

It does appear that some peopke haven't got the point of what the OP is asking - not whether Schubert was as great a composer as Beethoven, but whether he was the greater melodist. It seems perfectly obvious to me that when it came to writing tunes, Schubert had few equals.


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ Nice run-through of "Nacht und Traume" from Kathleen Battle. She has everything except that special thing that Elisabeth Schumann had. Call it profound humanity or divine inspiration.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> It does appear that some peopke haven't got the point of what the OP is asking - not whether Schubert was as great a composer as Beethoven, but whether he was the greater melodist. It seems perfectly obvious to me that when it came to writing tunes, Schubert had few equals.


Maybe "some people" just feel moved to expand the topic a little. It's hardly possible to talk about the greatness of a composer's melodic inspiration without going more deeply into the nature and quality of his work more generally. This is particularly the case with Schubert, who was attempting to find a way to express his song-writer proclivities in terms of large forms inherited from Beethoven. How successful he was is a question that takes us directly to a comparison with his models.


----------



## jdec

Is Tchaikovsky really a more talented melodist than Beethoven?

Is Mozart really a more talented melodist than Beethoven?


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> It does appear that some peopke haven't got the point of what the OP is asking - not whether Schubert was as great a composer as Beethoven, but whether he was the greater melodist. It seems perfectly obvious to me that when it came to writing tunes, Schubert had few equals.


It does appear that some people may be too lazy to read back into the thread. Way back I said he was a great melodist. That's done and dusted, 14 pages in the discussion has developed (unlike Schubert's music ) a little bit.

You're being very petulant this evening David and I won't wear it.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> It does appear that some peopke haven't got the point of what the OP is asking - not whether Schubert was as great a composer as Beethoven, but whether he was the greater melodist. It seems perfectly obvious to me that *when it came to writing tunes, Schubert had few equals*.


Yes, he was a great tune smith. That isn't the same as being a great melodist. If the OP had asked if Schubert wrote better vocal style, periodic melodies in a limited range, the answer would be an easy yes. Melodist is a much broader category. It includes the ability to write good fugue subjects, sonata themes, melodies that exploit the full range of the piano keyboard, themes with dramatic internal contrasts, obligato countermelodies, and many other styles of writing. Beethoven excelled at all of them. Schubert didn't.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, he was a great tune smith. That isn't the same as being a great melodist. If the OP had asked if Schubert wrote better vocal style, periodic melodies in a limited range, the answer would be an easy yes.* Melodist is a much broader category. It includes the ability to write good fugue subjects, sonata themes, melodies that exploit the full range of the piano keyboard, themes with dramatic internal contrasts, obligato countermelodies, and many other styles of writing.* Beethoven excelled at all of them. Schubert didn't.


You are trying to expand the definition of "melodist" way too much to forcefully give the win here to your preferred composer, aren't you.  (You almost said "a great melodist needs to be deaf too" :lol


----------



## eugeneonagain

I have actually heard a window cleaner whistling Schubert. I suspect it came from the Siemens washing machine I mentioned before. Nothing wrong with that; some of the greatest composers have written for domestic appliances.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> You are trying to expand the definition of "melodist" way too much to forcefully give the win here to your preferred composer, aren't you.


I think the writer of the OP disagrees. After paying tribute to Schubert, he says, "Yet, I still far more frequently find the melodic character of Beethoven more compelling." Schubert's tendency - and his problem - was to approach all musical composition in terms of a _specific kind_ of melody.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that Bach may have been the greatest melodist of all. But then there's always Handel, and Mozart, and Beethoven, and...


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I have actually heard a window cleaner whistling Schubert. I suspect it came from the Siemens washing machine I mentioned before. Nothing wrong with that; some of the greatest composers have written for domestic appliances.


Perhaps the greatest of them was P.D.Q. Bach.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> You are trying to expand the definition of "melodist" way too much to forcefully give the win here to your preferred composer, aren't you.  (You almost said "the melodist needs to be deaf too" :lol


No, you are narrowing it to fit Schubert's particular gifts. Get a music dictionary and look up melody.


----------



## Itullian

I'm no expert, but I think Beethoven was a great melodist.
I listen to his piano sonatas, sting quartets, trios, violin sonatas, Fidelio and his symphonies and I hear hummable melodies in all of them.
imho


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> No, you are narrowing it to fit Schubert's particular gifts. Get a music dictionary and look up melody.


melody
MEL-oe-dee
[English]

A tune; a succession of tones comprised of mode, rhythm, and pitches so arranged as to achieve musical shape, *being perceived as a unity by the mind. In a piece of music where there is more than one voice, or where harmony is present, the melody is the dominant tune of the composition.*

https://dictionary.onmusic.org/terms/2138-melody


----------



## eugeneonagain

Well yes if we're being bare bones about it, but can this be said of a composer like Bach who has several prominent melodies running concurrently?

This definition doesn't even acknowledge counterpoint.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Well yes if we're being bare bones about it, but can this be said of a composer like Bach who has several prominent melodies running concurrently?
> 
> This definition doesn't even acknowledge counterpoint.


It does implicitly: "a succession of tones comprised of mode, rhythm, and pitches so arranged as to achieve musical shape, being perceived as a unity by the mind." We might be fooled by the second clause, but a "unity" doesn't exclude continuation; it just means that our minds can perceive coherent groupings, which they can do constantly as a line of, say, a Bach fugue unfolds. Critics griped that Wagner had no melody because his melodies didn't come to neatly rounded cadences, but his insistence that he was writing "endless melody" was quite truthful.

Whatever sort of melody we're talking about, I would judge it good if it has character, structurally or expressively, and impresses itself on the mind. Schubert has no edge over many other great composers in this respect.


----------



## isorhythm

I'm late to this thread but I've always thought Schubert was distinguished less by his melody than by his use of harmony, which was quite radical, though the skeptics here will probably say he reached for the same bag of tricks too regularly.


----------



## Larkenfield

A melody can exist without counterpoint, but counterpoint cannot exist only unto itself: it requires at least two factors interacting with each other. While Schubert wasn't known for his counterpoint, the underlying rhythms and harmonies to his melodies sounded highly appropriate and complementary. Or would someone like to try improving them, thinking that it's oh so easy? I wouldn't change a note because it seemed entirely appropriate to his development at the time.

He wasn't trying to be Beethoven or compete with Beethoven. They weren't in competition with each other. But I think it's worth noting that had Beethoven died at the age of 31 there would have been no Eroica Symphony and no entire middle and late period of his remaining symphonies, piano concertos, piano sonatas, etc., etc., and especially his monumental 9th Symphony.

So Schubert was a marvel whose melodies flowed from him like water, married to the greatest of poetry, and still a miracle. Liszt and Schumann were crazy about him, and Brahms thought highly enough of his symphonies to lovingly edit them. Horowitz often spoke of his spirituality, and sometimes his music has a subtle melancholy, a tragic sense of his own mortality, that adds to its depth.


----------



## millionrainbows

Perhaps the OP comparison is unfair to Beethoven, since on so many other levels he was greater than Schubert. I do see the point, though, and I do not listen to Beethoven for the melodies. I listen more rhythmically. I bounce up and down in time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

while I awknowledge Schubert being a good melodist, I also feel Beethoven's melodic prowess is somewhat overlooked in this thread.





I'm also wondering, can a composer be a good contrapuntist without being a good melodist first. We know many examples of composers who were bad at counterpoint but good at melody. Is there an example of the other extreme end of the spectrum? An example of a composer who is a bad melodist, but a good contrapuntist? Can a canon or fugue be considered good without containing good melodic quality? Is knowing a lot of tricks (inversion, strettos, augmentation, episodes etc) all there is to writing a good fugue? 
According to this article, https://listverse.com/2012/05/28/10-great-fugues-not-by-bach/
"Verdi practically failed, writing a technically accurate, but very academic double fugue for the Sanctus of his Requiem."
Doesn't this mean Verdi knew how to write a double fugue but not a very melodic one?


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> melody
> MEL-oe-dee
> [English]
> 
> A tune; a succession of tones comprised of mode, rhythm, and pitches so arranged as to achieve musical shape, *being perceived as a unity by the mind. In a piece of music where there is more than one voice, or where harmony is present, the melody is the dominant tune of the composition.*
> 
> https://dictionary.onmusic.org/terms/2138-melody


I meant a _real_ dictionary. 

Norton/Grove Concise Encyclopedia of Music:
"A series of musical notes arranged in succession, in a particular rhythmic pattern, to form a recognizable unit." (followed by another 300 words of amplification and nothing about "tunes.")

Harvard Dictionary of Music:
"In the most general sense, a succession of musical tones, as contrasted with harmony, i.e., musical tones sounded simultaneously. Thus, melody and harmony represent the horizontal and the vertical elements of the musical texture. By its very nature melody cannot be separated from rhythm. Each musical sound has two fundamental qualities, pitch and duration, and both of these enter into those successions of pitch-plus-duration values which we call melodies." (followed by much more, but nothing about "tunes.")


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm also wondering, can a composer be a good contrapuntist without being a good melodist first. We know many examples of composers who were bad at counterpoint but good at melody. Is there an example of the other extreme end of the spectrum? An example of a composer who is a bad melodist, but a good contrapuntist? Can a canon or fugue be considered good without containing good melodic quality? Is knowing a lot of tricks (inversion, strettos, augmentation, episodes etc) all there is to writing a good fugue?
> According to this article, "Verdi practically failed, writing a technically accurate, but very academic double fugue for the Sanctus of his Requiem." Doesn't this mean Verdi knew how to write a double fugue but not a very melodic one?


Writing a good fugue requires a different kind of melodic skill than writing an aria or song melody. It isn't a matter of knowing tricks (inversion, stretto, augmentation, etc.) per se, it's having the insight to know what kind of melody will be able to perform those and other interesting "tricks," that is, be able to combine in interesting and beautiful ways with various transformations and iterations of itself. Verdi lacked this skill. It takes practice and habitual thinking in contrapuntal terms. So the problem wouldn't be knowing "how to write a double fugue but not a very melodic one." It would be not knowing what kind of melody makes a good fugue subject.

So asking "can a composer be a good contrapuntist without being a good melodist first" I think misconstrues the issue a bit. Contrapuntal writing requires a different melodic skill set than writing other kinds of melody. It isn't a matter of one thing first and then another, it's knowing what kind of writing is best for what kind of work. Having the knowledge and flexibility to write all kinds is, IMO, the mark of a great melodist.


----------



## Larkenfield

Favorite Schubert Impromptus


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, he was a great tune smith. *That isn't the same as being a great melodist*. If the OP had asked if Schubert wrote better vocal style, periodic melodies in a limited range, the answer would be an easy yes. Melodist is a much broader category. It includes the ability to write good fugue subjects, sonata themes, melodies that exploit the full range of the piano keyboard, themes with dramatic internal contrasts, obligato countermelodies, and many other styles of writing. Beethoven excelled at all of them. Schubert didn't.


Sorry but you're just playing with semantics here. The question asked was who was the greater melodist. If you ask who wrote the greatest melodies for songs (which is where Schubert's greatest contribution to music came from) then you would say Schubert. In any case, the melodies of Schubert sonatas are just as memorable - if not more so - than Beethoven's


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Sorry but you're just playing with semantics here. The question asked was who was the greater melodist. If you ask who wrote the greatest melodies for songs (which is where Schubert's greatest contribution to music came from) then you would say Schubert. In any case, the melodies of Schubert sonatas are just as memorable - if not more so - than Beethoven's


People more easily remember melodies they can sing than melodies they can't, because singing them, either along with a performance or afterward, fixes them in memory. Melodies written to be sung therefore tend to be more memorable for the average person. Consequently, average people who like to sing in the shower have a selection bias for this kind of melody, the kind colloquially known as "tunes." These people then decide, for some inexplicable reason, that because they can sing it and easily remember it, it must be better than other kinds of melody they don't easily remember. This is absurd. If memorability were the standard of melodic value, the most annoying advertising jingles ever extruded on Madison Avenue would be great art, rather than the cruel acts of sadism they are.

Writing vocal style melodies for piano sonatas is why there was never a hope Schubert's sonatas would ever approach the standards Beethoven set. Good vocal melodies are not usually a promising basis for piano sonatas because - big surprise - pianos are not human voices. Another revelation: Pianistic melodies tend to be better for piano sonatas! Vocal style melodies also make horrible fugue subjects and bad bases for symphonic writing.

Being a great melodist means writing the kinds of melodies appropriate for the forces and forms one is using. Beethoven understood this and mastered all kinds of melodic writing. This is a big part of the reason his sonatas, concertos, quartets and symphonies have been more successful and influential than Schubert's. I'm surprised this needs to be explained.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> People more easily remember melodies they can sing than melodies they can't, because singing them, either along with a performance or afterward, fixes them in memory. Melodies written to be sung therefore tend to be more memorable for the average person. Consequently, average people who like to sing in the shower have a selection bias for this kind of melody, the kind colloquially known as "tunes." These people then decide, for some inexplicable reason, that because they can sing it and easily remember it, it must be better than other kinds of melody they don't easily remember. This is absurd. If memorability were the standard of melodic value, the most annoying advertising jingles ever extruded on Madison Avenue would be great art, rather than the cruel acts of sadism they are.
> 
> Writing vocal style melodies for piano sonatas is why there was never a hope Schubert's sonatas would ever approach the standards Beethoven set. Good vocal melodies are not usually a promising basis for piano sonatas because - big surprise - pianos are not human voices. Another revelation: Pianistic melodies tend to be better for piano sonatas! Vocal style melodies also make horrible fugue subjects and bad bases for symphonic writing.
> 
> Being a great melodist means writing the kinds of melodies appropriate for the forces and forms one is using. Beethoven understood this and mastered all kinds of melodic writing. This is a big part of the reason his sonatas, concertos, quartets and symphonies have been more successful and influential than Schubert's.* I'm surprised this needs to be explained*.


You shouldn't be surprised because it is not something accepted by most peopleI trend to deal with. Maybe in the rarified atmosphere of scholarship itt might be but certainly that's not the way most people see it. I have people close to me who are professional musicians and they wouldn't see it that way either. I fear it is this sort of thing I believe that puts people off classical music when we try to become too precious and complicate things.

it is interesting that I was listening to a programme on fugues and the melody of the Hammerklavier is apparently not a good one for a fugue, such as you have painstakingly explained. Neither is that of Bach's Musical Offering! Pity you weren't around when these guys were!

BTW Schubert's sonata D960 has 25 pages of recordings at Presto Classical. Is that success? :lol:


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Being a great melodist means writing the kinds of melodies appropriate for the forces and forms one is using. Beethoven understood this and mastered all kinds of melodic writing. This is a big part of the reason his sonatas, concertos, quartets and symphonies have been more successful and influential than Schubert's. I'm surprised this needs to be explained.


Well, everything is relative. Beethoven's works by the age of 31 were not superior to Schubert's. By that age Schubert already had under the sleeve the "Great" 9th symphony, and the "Unfinished" too, Beethoven? only Symphony 1. I cannot think of any Beethoven piano sonata that readily surpasses D960 by the same age either, not even the Moonlight nor the Pathetique, which are great too. Schubert also had works like the impromptus and the Wanderer fantasy in his pocket too. String quartets? I don't see how Beethoven's op.18 are really more successful or "influential" than Schubert's best ones either. The Trout Quintet, Die Schöne Müllerin, String Quintet in C, Piano Trio No.2, Winterreise, are just a few of the other works that are more successful than any of Beethoven's in the same genre by the age Schubert died.

We are very fortunate that Beethoven lived much longer than 31, and very unfortunate that Schubert didn't.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> You shouldn't be surprised because it is not something accepted by most peopleI trend to deal with. Maybe in the rarified atmosphere of scholarship itt might be but certainly that's not the way most people see it. I have people close to me who are professional musicians and they wouldn't see it that way either. I fear it is this sort of thing I believe that puts people off classical music when we try to become too precious and complicate things.
> 
> it is interesting that I was listening to a programme on fugues and the melody of the Hammerklavier is apparently not a good one for a fugue, such as you have painstakingly explained. Neither is that of Bach's Musical Offering! Pity you weren't around when these guys were!
> 
> BTW Schubert's sonata D960 has 25 pages of recordings at Presto Classical. Is that success? :lol:


It's not academic versus amateur, it's not complex versus simple - it's instrumental melody versus vocal melody. The standards for good vocal melody are different than those for most instrumental music. What puts "regular folk" off classical music is that they think music = songs and they can't make the jump to instrumental music. Seems some Schubert enthusiasts can't fully make the leap either.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> It's not academic versus amateur, it's not complex versus simple - it's instrumental melody versus vocal melody. The standards for good vocal melody are different than those for most instrumental music. What puts "regular folk" off classical music is that they think music = songs and they can't make the jump to instrumental music. Seems some Schubert enthusiasts can't really make the leap either.


This totally defeats your argument. We are talking about Schubert the melodist and if you don't know it he wrote quite a few songs. Hence in this area he was supreme, even at the age of 31. In addition, as someone has said, he died at the age of 31 and was producing works equal to what Beethoven was producing at that age. What puts folk off classical music is people complicating things. Also people denigrating others. I can assure you I am just as much at home with Beethoven's instrumental music as I am with Schubert's vocal music so please do not make these unwarranted assumptions..


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> I can assure you I am just as much at home with Beethoven's instrumental music as I am with Schubert's vocal music so please do not make these unwarranted assumptions..


It wasn't directed at you specifically, but at those in this thread who "don't get" Beethoven. I know you do get him. Sorry.


----------



## Larkenfield

Beautiful seldom heard Beethoven melody (with variations)... The genius of Beethoven is that just about anyone can follow his development of a melody, his beautiful design of architecture, his energy and rhythmic vitality, his simplicity, his sincerity and emotional directness. Surprise ending!


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Beautiful, little-known Beethoven melody:


Thank you, Lark! Oddly, I had never listened to that before. Here's something I found out: 'The reason for the title was given by Beethoven's pupil Czerny, quoted in Thayer: "Because of its popularity (for Beethoven played it frequently in society) he gave it the title _Andante favori_ ("favored Andante").'

Proof that Ludwig wasn't always scattering lightning bolts around the room!


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> Thank you, Lark! Oddly, I had never listened to that before. Here's something I found out: 'The reason for the title was given by Beethoven's pupil Czerny, quoted in Thayer: "Because of its popularity (for Beethoven played it frequently in society) he gave it the title _Andante favori_ ("favored Andante").'
> 
> Proof that Ludwig wasn't always scattering lightning bolts around the room!


You're welcome, Ken. I just happened to stumble across it today and loved it. Wishing you and everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving! I'll be having a traditional dinner with friends.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> You're welcome, Ken. I just happened to stumble across it today and loved it. Wishing you and everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving! I'll be having a traditional dinner with friends.


Same here. Well, almost traditional. This year we ordered a packaged Thanksgiving meal for 8-10 people including a huge number of sides. We pick it up tomorrow, cold but with reheating instructions. Should be interesting.

Kind of like buying a foldable and reusable Christmas tree! 

Hope you and the others here have a great Thanksgiving.


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## Larkenfield

Gorgeous melodic writing for the cello and piano.


----------



## hammeredklavier

jdec said:


> Beethoven's works by the age of 31 were not superior to Schubert's. By that age Schubert already had under the sleeve the "Great" 9th symphony, and the "Unfinished" too, Beethoven? only Symphony 1. I cannot think of any Beethoven piano sonata that readily surpasses D960 by the same age either, not even the Moonlight nor the Pathetique, which are great too. Schubert also had works like the impromptus and the Wanderer fantasy in his pocket too.







I would not rate either Moonlight and Pathetique as being worse than the Schubert sonata. The same goes for Beethoven's first symphony, which contains greater variety of skills and tricks than Schubert's 9th. Although Schubert was certainly a great melodist, his fatal flaw of using material appropriate for a 20 minute piece to write a 40~50 minute piece 'negates' that advantage over Beethoven in many of his works.






Listen to the lefthand at 0:58 ~ 1:16.


----------



## flamencosketches

jdec said:


> Well, everything is relative. Beethoven's works by the age of 31 were not superior to Schubert's. By that age Schubert already had under the sleeve the "Great" 9th symphony, and the "Unfinished" too, Beethoven? only Symphony 1. I cannot think of any Beethoven piano sonata that readily surpasses D960 by the same age either, not even the Moonlight nor the Pathetique, which are great too. Schubert also had works like the impromptus and the Wanderer fantasy in his pocket too. String quartets? I don't see how Beethoven's op.18 are really more successful or "influential" than Schubert's best ones either. The Trout Quintet, Die Schöne Müllerin, String Quintet in C, Piano Trio No.2, Winterreise, are just a few of the other works that are more successful than any of Beethoven's in the same genre by the age Schubert died.
> 
> We are very fortunate that Beethoven lived much longer than 31, and very unfortunate that Schubert didn't.


I hadn't thought about it that way... wow.

To the question posed in the OP, I say certainly yes. But Beethoven was overall the better composer, for reasons probably discussed in the preceding 17 pages (mastery of form/development, harmonic complexity, etc.)

Beethoven was a master of pacing and structure. Schubert... not so much. Having said all that, I still say that I prefer Schubert, an early love, overall over Beethoven (who I also love).


----------



## Phil loves classical

The title of the thread seems to ask Beethoven and Schubert both tried to write nice melodies, but whether Schubert excelled or more talented at it than Beethoven. Beethoven seemed more interested in development of shorter motifs and counterpoint, rather than longer homophonic, song-like melodies with fewer chord changes.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Great, I'd forgotten about this thread. So where was I...?

Oh yes, Schubert: songwriter and pub pianist posing as a symphonist.


----------



## Larkenfield

I consider Schubert more melodically based and Beethoven is more developmentally based. Nevertheless, Schubert is still capable of writing an unforgettable melody and counterpoint as well, such as the counterpoint about 15 minutes into this performance of his great F Minor Fantasy:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> I consider Schubert more melodically based and Beethoven is more developmentally based. Nevertheless, Schubert is still capable of writing an unforgettable melody *and counterpoint as well, such as the counterpoint about 15 minutes into this performance* of his great F Minor Fantasy:


You must be joking?! That is hardly counterpoint and certainly not anything to shout about.

What next, great examples of Bach's drum 'n' bass breaks?


----------



## Larkenfield

Larkenfield said:


> I consider Schubert more melodically based and Beethoven is more developmentally based. Nevertheless, Schubert is still capable of writing an unforgettable melody and counterpoint as well, such as the counterpoint about 15 minutes into this performance of his great F Minor Fantasy:


The Fantasy, written in 1828, his last year of life, has been recorded numerous times, including by the following notable performers:

Alfred Brendel with Évelyne Crochet on Vox Box
Sviatoslav Richter and Benjamin Britten on Decca Records/BBC Legends
Evgeny Kissin and James Levine on RCA Victor
Katia and Marielle Labèque on Kml Recordings
Bracha Eden and Alexander Tamir on Brilliant Classics
Justus Frantz and Christoph Eschenbach on EMI
Radu Lupu and Murray Perahia on Sony Classical
Duo Tal & Groethuysen on Sony Classical
Aloys and Alfons Kontarsky, 
Emil and Elena Gilels, 
and Maria João Pires with Ricardo Castro on Deutsche Grammophon
Jörg Demus and Paul Badura-Skoda several times, 
including on Westminster, Auvidis Valois, and Audax
Vitya Vronsky and Victor Babin on US Decca
Robert and Gaby Casadesus on Columbia Masterworks
Alexandre Tharaud and Zhu Xiao-Mei on Harmonia Mundi Fr.
Malcolm Bilson and Robert D. Levin for Archive
Jos van Immerseel and Claire Chevallier for Alpha
Wyneke Jordans and Leo van Doeselaar for Globe
Andreas Staier & Alexander Melnikov for Harmonia Mundi
:tiphat:


----------



## Larkenfield

Schubert's complete symphonies by Herbert Blomstedt... you know, one of the great conductors in the world who has always loved these works... the same symphonies that Brahms loved as well and also painstakingly edited himself:





:tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier

eugeneonagain said:


> You must be joking?!


Larkenfield sure does have a sense of humor like Mozart


----------



## DaveM

I always thought that Beethoven was a better melodist than Schubert, but eugeneonagain just may be changing my mind.


----------



## Larkenfield

eugeneonagain said:


> You must be joking?! That is hardly counterpoint and certainly not anything to shout about.
> 
> What next, great examples of Bach's drum 'n' bass breaks?


Try taking the cork out of your ears the next time you hear it and maybe you'll learn something. It's no one else's problem if you can't tell a great fugue when it's there... and sorry to see that you're having another self-created bad mood day because Schubert just isn't perfect enough for you. Try spending more time on composers you like instead of being a complaint box and maybe you'll feel better. Some individuals like to look for the good in life and celebrate it rather than dumping on it. This is the legendary work by Schubert that has been appreciated the world over for almost 200 years and performed by many of the greatest pianists in the world.






"The finale begins with a restatement of the first movement's primary theme in both F minor and F major, before transitioning into a fugue based on its second theme. The fugue builds to a climax, ending abruptly on the C major dominant, instead of resolving into either F major or minor. After a bar of silence, the first theme briefly reprises, building rapidly to concluding chords that echo the second theme before subsiding into a quiet end. It has been called "the most remarkable cadence in the whole of Schubert's work", as he manages to condense the dichotomies of the two themes into the final eight bars of the work."


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> Try taking the cork out of your ears the next time you hear it and maybe you'll learn something. It's no one else's problem if you can't tell a great fugue when it's there... and sorry to see that you're having another self-created bad mood day because Schubert just isn't perfect enough for you. Try spending more time on composers you like instead of being a complaint box and maybe you'll feel better. Some individuals like to look for the good in life and celebrate it rather than dumping on it. This is the legendary work by Schubert that has been appreciated the world over for almost 200 years and performed by many of the greatest pianists in the world.


The reason I can tell there is nothing of interest there is precisely because I _can_ hear it. Clearly you don't know what either good counterpoint or a fugue even sounds like. That's okay, some people are pleased by simpler things.

"Legendary" :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I always thought that Beethoven was a better melodist than Schubert, but eugeneonagain just may be changing my mind.


See now, I have my uses.


----------



## zelenka

yes, and Brahms was better than them both combined


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> Try taking the cork out of your ears the next time you hear it and maybe you'll learn something. It's no one else's problem if you can't tell a great fugue when it's there... and sorry to see that you're having another self-created bad mood day because Schubert just isn't perfect enough for you.


I think the joke here is, by saying it is "a great fugue", Larkenfield actually means it is "a Grosse Fuge", referring to Beethoven's piece of the same name, he's using using the term "a Grosse Fuge" to mean any 'incomplete' fugue that parodies on the fugue form. (albeit Beethoven's is far more skillfully written than Schubert's)






Seriously, Schubert's 'fugue' is really just 1-measure-long, contrapuntally-working 'bass figures' continuously repeated with the 'subjects' interchanged over voice lines using elementary invertible counterpoint, with no skillful modulation. There are no developmental episodes. It's not even a proper fugue, let alone a good one. It is all just too clumsy and static and inflexible. There is no skillful demonstration of fugal techniques such as inversion, stretto, augmentation, canonic devices etc. But being the good melodist he is, he keeps introducing new material to sound like an actual fugue and fool people into thinking he wrote a real fugue in this Fantasy. _"If you can't make it, then fake it."_























Also, the passage on the third page marked with black lines (measure 500~501) is an example of 'unskilled contrapuntal writing' as explained in this video at around 10:20 - _"In skillful fugal writing, the contrapuntal lines are as independent as possible, and static moments from one voice are complemented by motion from another."_






Again, this proves Schubert was a songwriter and pub pianist posing not only as a symphonist, but also as a contrapuntist.






_"He [Schubert] never wrote a good fugue and his counterpoint was indifferent."_
A Popular History of the Art of Music - From the Earliest Times Until the Present By William Smythe Babcock Mathews 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=GyE5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA388


----------



## Larkenfield

The Fantasy has a fugue by a composer that some of you think is incapable of developing any of his ideas. Well, here's a fugue that proves that false and that shines and you can't give him credit for it. It's thrilling when it happens because it's so unexpected. That's the point you entirely miss and you go into an academic discussion of fugues as if Schubert has to be measured by them. You look for the worst-always. His counterpoint is entirely organic in a great work that is world famous and played by the greatest pianists in the world. THAT was the point and you miss the spirit behind his music, sour on his lyrical genius, sour on his best works because he's never good enough, and you are unable to instinctively sense the spirituality behind his music that Vladimir Horowitz often commented on. Schubert's fugue is great within the context of this work, and hammerdklavier, make up whatever you like, including dragging in Beethoven's _Große Fuge _ that has nothing to do with the Schubert Fantasy in F. I hope that others hear this marvelous work and decide for themselves, because it's an example of Schubert's genius and the skill in counterpoint that he was developing at the young age of 31 and what he might have accomplished had he lived longer.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Larkenfield said:


> The Fantasy has a fugue by a composer that some of you think is incapable of developing any of his ideas. Well, here's a fugue that proves that false and that shines and you can't give him credit for it. It's thrilling when it happens because it's so unexpected. That's the point you entirely miss and you go into an academic discussion of fugues as if Schubert has to be measured by them. You look for the worst-always. His counterpoint is entirely organic in a great work that is world famous and played by the greatest pianists in the world. THAT was the point and you miss the spirit behind his music, sour on his lyrical genius, sour on his best works because he's never good enough, and you are unable to instinctively sense the spirituality behind his music that Vladimir Horowitz often commented on. Schubert's fugue is great within the context of this work, and hammerdklavier, make up whatever you like, including dragging in Beethoven's _Große Fuge _ that has nothing to do with the Schubert Fantasy in F. I hope that others hear this marvelous work and decide for themselves, because it's an example of Schubert's genius and the skill in counterpoint that he was developing at the young age of 31 and what he might have accomplished had he lived longer.


Ya, there is obviously a 4 part fugue in there. I feel disappointed though, that there was minimal interaction and contrast between the parts, and only gets repeated with minimal variation for most of it. He doesn't take risks. It may sound poetic, but I feel it is boring. The couple of the girls around 14:40 also seemed kind of bored. It gets most interesting around 16:20 to me. It's that plodding repeated rhythm that I feel I don't like.


----------



## eugeneonagain

There were boys at school who wrote better fugal material than this as exercises. All those probably went into the bins long ago, yet this sorry excuse for fugal material is trundled out as something special.

Schubert's fans are loathe to admit these huge failings. Hence Nellie the Elephant's posts up there.


----------



## Woodduck

I prefer to stay out of arguments about how good composers and their music "really" are, not because I have no judgment in the matter but because so many people seem to have extreme opinions and an extreme compulsion to prove others wrong. I suspect many are reacting less to the music than to each other. But idolatry and iconoclasm are both tedious sports.

My feeling about Schubert is that he's often, and simultaneously, much better than he seems to his detractors and not as good as he seems to his admirers - but mainly the former. I've been in both of those camps at various times in my life, and variously from work to work. It's obvious that Schubert has a knack for melodies that "hit the spot," and that this can make some of his works better than you'd think they have any right to be. We can talk about the qualities that make for a good tune, but what makes for a great one will remain a mystery. Ultimately, no one can explain the sublimity of something like this:






Of course that's a song, and as such it illustrates the essential greatness of Schubert, doing what he did best. Hardly anyone disagrees about that. It's his larger works, specifically with respect to their peculiar formal procedures, that divide opinion. Many of his long movements are essentially extended songs, involving much repetition of his typically memorable and well-shaped tunes. Whether this amounts to what Schumann called "heavenly lengths" or simply boredom will depend on whether we feel the melodies themselves bear repetition, and whether the variants and harmonic turns Schubert introduces are sufficient to sustain our interest.

I want to call attention to that last factor: I think it's often his harmonic sense, even more than his ability to shape a melody, that's largely responsible for the success of Schubert's longer works, to the extent that they do succeed. Harmony is often an indispensable factor in giving character to a melody even in a short song - note the striking modulations in "Nacht und Traume" above - but Schubert's harmonic adventurousness, typically manifested in oscillations of major and minor and in sudden, even shocking, modulations to remote keys, can provide change where it's needed to prevent monotony, as well as create profound deepenings of mood which belie the apparent simplicity of the music and give it greater meaning.

It's certainly more productive to consider Schubert's artistic vision, and the particular procedures it involves, as a whole, than to natter over his success at using certain techniques, in doing which we may miss the point altogether. That oddly repetitious fugal passage in the F-minor Fantasy is, like many fugal passages in Romantic music, not "a fugue" but a dramatic device; had Schubert wanted to write a self-sufficient fugue he would certainly have written quite a different one. The first step in understanding its expressive function in the work is probably to hear a better performance. Try Murray Perahia and Radu Lupu:






Here, with its dynamic and articulation markings scrupulously observed, the fugue has an obsessive and even frightening quality which is, we realize, precisely the goal of its grinding repetitiveness. The gathering violence and grimness of it makes the brief coda of the piece, with its reminiscence of the main melody, poignantly tragic. This, I'm inclined to say, is the real Schubert.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Well that's a more sympathetic reading at any rate, but I can't share the astonishment at his harmony. It seems to me those striking modulations are really just his inability to modulate smoothly. 

And the melodies? Honestly are they really all that great? So great that he has to be paraded around as the great archetype of a melody-writer? I find them rather forced and wanting to be sublime. Is it not that they are inflated by his admirers to fill in the gaping holes?

The song in the video begins in a way that typifies Schubert for me. Clunky piano accompaniments. I can't imagine how anyone who is supposedly a harmonic innovator could so routinely harmonise his keyboard works in such a pedestrian manner. 

When I am having a go at Schubert I sometimes feel I want to find something to turn it all around. I want to be wrong, but then I listen again and feel justified in what I say. 

I respect your musical views Woodduck, yet I can't at all fathom from where these ideas about Schubert's 'gifts' arise. He is a minor Viennese composer who somehow got elevated because a load of people seemed to feel his early death unjustly cut him short before he gained any fame. Well bad luck, that's the fate of many composers. Plus he wrote a lot of music, so in that mountain there ought to be a sizeable amount to contradict the nay-sayers, but there really isn't.


----------



## Luchesi

I have to remind myself of two things when I listen to Schubert's music (well, at least two things..).

Simply put, he was sensitive to a potential audience, he wrote in a fugal manner while being aware that fugues might sound boring to a large portion of an audience.

And second, he repeated a lot because of an audience's ability or inability to hear important melodies (so important to his forms). They couldn't just push a button and hear a work once a day until they were 'done' with it. Those were very different times, and perhaps Schubert's working conditions were mostly unique among the best composers just before him and just after him.

Amateurs playing the works for themselves could skip around, but they were probably happy to have all the repeated melodies when they offered a performance in public. Schubert knew what he was doing. The audiences of Haydn and Mozart? Look at who he was writing for. He didn't expect to be as famous as LvB with a public awaiting his next work. His music-loving friends, a few talented musicians among them.


----------



## DaveM

I'm a big fan of the Schubert F minor Fantasy. It figures as a main theme in the movie Madame Sousatzka. In fact, some of it is from the 1897 orchestrated version!


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Well that's a more sympathetic reading at any rate, but I can't share the astonishment at his harmony. It seems to me those striking modulations are really just his inability to modulate smoothly.
> 
> And the melodies? Honestly are they really all that great? So great that he has to be paraded around as the great archetype of a melody-writer? I find them rather forced and wanting to be sublime. Is it not that they are inflated by his admirers to fill in the gaping holes?
> 
> The song in the video begins in a way that typifies Schubert for me. Clunky piano accompaniments. I can't imagine how anyone who is supposedly a harmonic innovator could so routinely harmonise his keyboard works in such a pedestrian manner.
> 
> When I am having a go at Schubert I sometimes feel I want to find something to turn it all around. I want to be wrong, but then I listen again and feel justified in what I say.
> 
> I respect your musical views Woodduck, yet I can't at all fathom from where these ideas about Schubert's 'gifts' arise. He is a minor Viennese composer who somehow got elevated because a load of people seemed to feel his early death unjustly cut him short before he gained any fame. Well bad luck, that's the fate of many composers. Plus he wrote a lot of music, so in that mountain there ought to be a sizeable amount to contradict the nay-sayers, but there really isn't.


I'm not inclined to try to convince anyone that their dislike of a composer proves that they are simply deaf to his music, figuratively speaking. The strenuousness and persistence of your disparagements of Schubert tempts me to make an exception, but if my observations above have managed to elicit only "well that's a more sympathetic reading at any rate," I have to wonder whether any additional effort would unstop your ears.

We're all entitled to our tastes, but I would think that the very prevalence and persistence of the esteem in which Schubert is held by great musicians might cause you to wonder if you're missing something. That you can describe the dark, tranquil, beautifully simple murmur of the piano in "Nacht und Traume" - to my mind the ideal accompaniment to "night and dreams" - as "clunky" and "pedestrian," makes it pretty obvious to me that you're missing quite a lot.

I encourage you to listen to the song again and follow the text and translation in order to appreciate the extraordinarily subtle way Schubert has pointed up the meaning of the words with both his melodic contours and his harmonic changes, all in a brief space of time and with the simplest of means. A more modern recording might be useful too:






Heil'ge Nacht, du sinkest nieder;
Nieder wallen auch die Träume,
Wie dein Mondlicht durch die Räume,
Durch der Menschen stille Brust.
Die belauschen sie mit Lust;
Rufen, wenn der Tag erwacht:
Kehre wieder, heil'ge Nacht!
Holde Träume, kehret wieder!

Holy night, you sink down;
dreams, too, float down,
like your moonlight through space,
through the silent hearts of men.
They listen with delight,
crying out when day awakes:
come back, holy night!
Fair dreams, return!


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> I encourage you to listen to the song again and follow the text and translation in order to appreciate the extraordinarily subtle way Schubert has pointed up the meaning of the words with both his melodic contours and his harmonic changes, all in a brief space of time and with the simplest of means. A more modern recording might be useful too:


Wonderful song. Made my day!


----------



## tdc

I can sympathize to an extent with Schubert's naysayers, but Woodduck brings up a lot of good points. As far as the F minor fantasy I think it is a very good work, perhaps even great. I think in music it is important not to get too caught up in the technical details, they are a means to an end and don't in themselves define what 'good' music is. The conclusion of the F minor fantasy sounds very well done to my ears, whether or not it is a legitimate textbook fugue, I think is not of great importance here. If the music move us that is what is matters more. I wouldn't change a note in that piece myself.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> Wonderful song. Made my day!


Agree. That was nice. Schubert is more interesting in miniatures to me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Simply put, he was sensitive to a potential audience, he wrote in a fugal manner while being aware that fugues might sound boring to a large portion of an audience.


Why did he write one in the first place then?
Look at Beethoven 9th symphony, Mozart Die Zauberflote. Using counterpoint to make music interesting even for audience who might find counterpoint boring, is a valuable skill.


----------



## Littlephrase

Why can’t Schubert detractors just stop at “this music doesn’t move me” and leave it at that? Everybody knows he wasn’t a master at counterpoint.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Why did he write one in the first place then?
> Look at Beethoven 9th symphony, Mozart Die Zauberflote. Using counterpoint to make music interesting even for audience who might find counterpoint boring, is a valuable skill.


Because when Schubert uses a fugue in his Fantasy it is an unexpected change of pace and has the element of surprise. It is also evidence of his musical development that would have undoubtedly continued had he lived. It was extremely well done and perfect in this inspired work that's not only lyrically beautiful, sensitive, and has more counterpoint and the development of his ideas than usual, but all of which are plainly evident if one actually listens with the heart rather than just the head. This is one of the greatest works he ever wrote and it deserves tremendous praise from those who are capable of appreciating it. It's Schubert's creative essence in a nutshell and it's deep and wide. I hope every sincere music lover gets a chance to hear it at least once in their lifetime in a great performance, and there are many to choose from by many of the greatest pianists in the world who obviously hear something in this tremendous work that those who like to pull wings off butterflies can't. It's a Schubertian masterpiece from the last year of his life.


----------



## Guest

I see that this thread was first opened 10 years ago in April 2009. I'm pretty sure that I have posted at least once in this thread before now, around 2014 and possibly again in 2017/2018. Unfortunately, there seems to have a very long hiatus between 2012 and late 2018 when no posts appear. Some of this gap may be due to the major crash that occurred a few years ago, but I'm not sure about the rest of it that seems to be missing.

In view of this situation I can't remember exactly what I said on those occasions, but I do recall that I made some effort to research the Schubert's melodic gifts in comparison with Beethoven. I found some interesting articles by Brian Newbould (a famous Schubert expert) and several others, exploring these matters. 

In very broad summary, I like both composers almost the same, and feel that both were equally talented but in different ways. Beethoven was probably the more resolute in his determination to find the ultimate musical expression of his thoughts, and often struggled hard to achieve his goals. For Schubert the very high quality of many of his works (especially his later works) flowed from his pen with apparent effortlessness. In this regard, he and Mozart have a lot in common.

All this has all been said many times, and I offer nothing new, but just wanted to add my two-penneth, again.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Well it's not the counterpoint that's the main problem, as there are masterworks that doesn't involve much counterpoint. Pergolesi's Stabat Mater comes to mind. And calling something 'great' when it's obviously not, such as the "fugue" of Schubert's Fantasy really does come off as a joke to me.
Again, I feel bad about saying these things to annoy people like Littlephrase. All I want to say is that I cannot agree to the statement, "if Schubert lived longer he would have surpassed Beethoven" for reasons including (to put simply):

-he has too many 'vamps'
-he writes things too overlong
-he's not good at working out motifs

_"Another serious weakness now began to appear in his music and that concerned its length. And this weakness continues for the rest of his life. The String Quintet in C of 1828 is very long and too long to sustain the material. The Octet in F for strings and woodwind of 1824 is another case as are the late Piano Sonatas. The D major sonata has laready been referred to and the B flat Sonata (D.960) is both poor and very long as is its predecessor the Sonata in A (D.959). Some wit has referred to the Trout Quintet by saying, "It takes too long to catch that fish!"_
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Why did he write one in the first place then?
> Look at Beethoven 9th symphony, Mozart Die Zauberflote. Using counterpoint to make music interesting even for audience who might find counterpoint boring, is a valuable skill.


Why did he write one in the first place then?

I'm not successful contemplating how or why a composer chooses his musical elements for his conceptions. Schubert was quite ill and he understood what was going to happen to him. Did he care about academic forms? Did he even describe somewhere that in this fantasy was a fugue? It sounds to me like a very personal statement filled with anguish and anger. I assume that as long as he was able to compose he wanted to create large works like this.

What did he think would happen to this work? It would be appreciated by a few experienced listeners decades after him?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Well it's not the counterpoint that's the main problem, as there are masterworks that doesn't involve much counterpoint. Pergolesi's Stabat Mater comes to mind. And calling something 'great' when it's obviously not, such as the "fugue" of Schubert's Fantasy really does come off as a joke to me.
> Again, I feel bad about saying these things to annoy people like Littlephrase. All I want to say is that I cannot agree to the statement, "if Schubert lived longer he would have surpassed Beethoven" for reasons including (to put simply):
> 
> -he has too many 'vamps'
> -he writes things too overlong
> -he's not good at working out motifs
> 
> _"Another serious weakness now began to appear in his music and that concerned its length. And this weakness continues for the rest of his life. The String Quintet in C of 1828 is very long and too long to sustain the material. The Octet in F for strings and woodwind of 1824 is another case as are the late Piano Sonatas. The D major sonata has laready been referred to and the B flat Sonata (D.960) is both poor and very long as is its predecessor the Sonata in A (D.959). Some wit has referred to the Trout Quintet by saying, "It takes too long to catch that fish!"_
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf


The article by David Wright which you seem to think tells us something we ought to know about Schubert is a puerile and idiotic excuse for musical analysis. Not only is Wright incapable of describing music in any perceptive way, he wanders off into amateur psychologizing of the composer in the apparent belief that it will explain why Schubert is the incompetent composer Wright insists, with numbing repetitiveness, that he is. For example, we're barely into the article when Wright tells us that Schubert "was both immoral and decadent and this is inherent in his music."

Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it? But not about the music of Schubert.

Why people who don't like things want to spend so much time justifying their dislike to people who do like those things will never cease to baffle me. Apparently there's an immense gratification in styling oneself a debunker or an iconoclast. But in Wright's case I suspect it's simply an attempt to prove that he's someone worth other people's time.

He isn't.

With respect to your own obsession with ridiculing the fugato passage in Schubert's F minor Fantasy, may I refer you to my own attempt, a few posts back, to explain its nature and function, an explanation which you've evidently not bothered to read? I quote:

*It's certainly more productive to consider Schubert's artistic vision, and the particular procedures it involves, as a whole, than to natter over his success at using certain techniques, in doing which we may miss the point altogether. That oddly repetitious fugal passage in the F-minor Fantasy is, like many fugal passages in Romantic music, not "a fugue" but a dramatic device; had Schubert wanted to write a self-sufficient fugue he would certainly have written quite a different one. The first step in understanding its expressive function in the work is probably to hear a better performance. Try Murray Perahia and Radu Lupu:*






*Here, with its dynamic and articulation markings scrupulously observed, the fugue has an obsessive and even frightening quality which is, we realize, precisely the goal of its grinding repetitiveness. The gathering violence and grimness of it makes the brief coda of the piece, with its reminiscence of the main melody, poignantly tragic. This, I'm inclined to say, is the real Schubert.*

Unquote.

In that same post, I made some other remarks about Schubert's compositional procedures that might at least provide some hints at a different perspective for those who find his music simplistic, repetitive and dull. I believe that Schubert knew what he was doing - that he was quite capable of understanding in what ways his approach to musical structure was different from that of his forebears, and that he was working up to the day he died to justify that approach in music of increasing originality and depth. We're entitled to feel that he didn't always succeed (I'd say his success was variable), but to judge him solely by more traditional standards and find him generally lacking is just too easy and misses the essence of his work.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Well it's not the counterpoint that's the main problem, as there are masterworks that doesn't involve much counterpoint. Pergolesi's Stabat Mater comes to mind. And calling something 'great' when it's obviously not, such as the "fugue" of Schubert's Fantasy really does come off as a joke to me.
> Again, I feel bad about saying these things to annoy people like Littlephrase. All I want to say is that I cannot agree to the statement, "if Schubert lived longer he would have surpassed Beethoven" for reasons including (to put simply):
> 
> -he has too many 'vamps'
> -he writes things too overlong
> -he's not good at working out motifs
> 
> _"Another serious weakness now began to appear in his music and that concerned its length. And this weakness continues for the rest of his life. The String Quintet in C of 1828 is very long and too long to sustain the material. The Octet in F for strings and woodwind of 1824 is another case as are the late Piano Sonatas. The D major sonata has laready been referred to and the B flat Sonata (D.960) is both poor and very long as is its predecessor the Sonata in A (D.959). Some wit has referred to the Trout Quintet by saying, "It takes too long to catch that fish!"_
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf


I never thought that any piece of music by a first-rate composer was "overlong". Maybe someday I'll come across one. Do you have other examples?


----------



## Dimace

More talented melodist could be. More talented composer, NO! (he fought very hard to be like Beethoven. He didn't run away. This is enough for me to say that the Austrian is a true great composer).


----------



## Larkenfield

Woodduck said:


> The article by David Wright which you seem to think tells us something we ought to know about Schubert is a puerile and idiotic excuse for musical analysis. Not only is Wright incapable of describing music in any perceptive way, he wanders off into amateur psychologizing of the composer in the apparent belief that it will explain why Schubert is the incompetent composer Wright insists, with numbing repetitiveness, that he is. For example, we're barely into the article when Wright tells us that Schubert "was both immoral and decadent and this is inherent in his music."
> 
> Well, that explains a lot, doesn't it? But not about the music of Schubert.
> 
> Why people who don't like things want to spend so much time justifying their dislike to people who do like those things will never cease to baffle me. Apparently there's an immense gratification in styling oneself a debunker or an iconoclast. But in Wright's case I suspect it's simply an attempt to prove that he's someone worth other people's time.
> 
> He isn't.
> 
> With respect to your own obsession with ridiculing the fugato passage in Schubert's F minor Fantasy, may I refer you to my own attempt, a few posts back, to explain its nature and function, an explanation which you've evidently not bothered to read? I quote:
> 
> *It's certainly more productive to consider Schubert's artistic vision, and the particular procedures it involves, as a whole, than to natter over his success at using certain techniques, in doing which we may miss the point altogether. That oddly repetitious fugal passage in the F-minor Fantasy is, like many fugal passages in Romantic music, not "a fugue" but a dramatic device; had Schubert wanted to write a self-sufficient fugue he would certainly have written quite a different one. The first step in understanding its expressive function in the work is probably to hear a better performance. Try Murray Perahia and Radu Lupu:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here, with its dynamic and articulation markings scrupulously observed, the fugue has an obsessive and even frightening quality which is, we realize, precisely the goal of its grinding repetitiveness. The gathering violence and grimness of it makes the brief coda of the piece, with its reminiscence of the main melody, poignantly tragic. This, I'm inclined to say, is the real Schubert.*
> 
> Unquote.
> 
> In that same post, I made some other remarks about Schubert's compositional procedures that might at least provide some hints at a different perspective for those who find his music simplistic, repetitive and dull. I believe that Schubert knew what he was doing - that he was quite capable of understanding in what ways his approach to musical structure was different from that of his forebears, and that he was working up to the day he died to justify that approach in music of increasing originality and depth. We're entitled to feel that he didn't always succeed (I'd say his success was variable), but to judge his work by more traditional standards and find him generally lacking is just too easy and misses the essence of his work.


Well said. My own view of the Schubert fugue is that it gives an opportunity for the two players to dramatically react off each other, to thunder and roar for over two minutes. It's highly effective within the context of the entire Fantasy. The counterpart is seamlessly done and generates great energy and contrast. He was melodically gifted-one of the greatest and most instinctively gifted of all time, IMO, another example being Wintereisse-and he not only understood the power of melody but also the power of the _refrain_ of melody at the right time. This is the only work of his that I've mentioned because of its melodic lyricism (in a thread about melody, and this work qualifies), his sensitivity, and the Fantasy's inspired beauty as a unified whole that is not too long unless one is unable to sit still for more than five minutes... I do not agree with the merciless meat-grinder criticisms of hamburgerklavier-Touché-and his support of the puerile, unbalanced, and mean-spirited Schubert article by Dr. David Wright that is an embarrassment to music criticism, though Schubert's works are not without their limitations and shortcomings, not to mention, Wright's other mafia hit-man, character assassinations of Debussy and Chopin that are beyond the pale and the most morally judgemental, distasteful, and biased opinions that I've ever read. (His professor should have noticed this tendency, flunked him as a freshman, and his degree revoked.) David Wright could never possibly understand or comprehend why so many of the greatest pianists in the world have been glad to play the Schubert Fantasy for almost 200 yearsr. But the great pianists are selective in what they play when everything is obviously not equal in quality in Schubert's prodigious output of over 600 works.


----------



## Bluecrab

Larkenfield said:


> ...the puerile Schubert article by Dr. David Wright that is an embarrassment to music criticism...


if you think that Schubert article is bad, you should have a look at the article about Mozart on Wright's website. It is absolutely rife with grammatical errors and typos. It reads as if it had been written by a sixth-grader. How could anybody who writes this poorly have ever earned a Ph.D?


----------



## EdwardBast

Bluecrab said:


> if you think that Schubert article is bad, you should have a look at the article about Mozart on Wright's website. It is absolutely rife with grammatical errors and typos. It reads as if it had been written by a sixth-grader. How could anybody who writes this poorly have ever earned a Ph.D?


Wright doesn't have a Ph.D. He has a DMA degree (Doctor of Musical Arts), which means he primarily studied performance, not musicology or theory, although DMA students have some requirements in theory and history. I've taught a number of the species. One cannot necessarily expect stellar writing skills.

Coming to the fugue cold I doubt I would have identified it as a fugue. I would have thought it was just a developmental episode with more contrapuntal writing that provided a welcome contrast and set up for the final thematic return.


----------



## Woodduck

David Wright has been mentioned before around here, but this is the first time I've actually read his stuff. He certainly lives up to his reputation! I've been thinking that the "DMus" after his name was something he invented, but I see that it's actually a thing.

What perplexes me is the superscription to the essay, in which Wright says that Alan Rawsthorne "enthused" about it and gave it a "glowing" review. I'm somewhat familiar with Rawsthorne's music and think of him as a rather distinguished composer, so I'd prefer to think that the review was "glowing" hot and red in Wright's fireplace after he read that Rawsthorne called him an ignoramus and a pathetic poseur.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> David Wright has been mentioned before around here, but this is the first time I've actually read his stuff. He certainly lives up to his reputation! I've been thinking that the "DMus" after his name was something he invented, but I see that it's actually a thing.
> 
> What perplexes me is the superscription to the essay, in which Wright says that Alan Rawsthorne "enthused" about it and gave it a "glowing" review. I'm somewhat familiar with Rawsthorne's music and think of him as a rather distinguished composer, so I'd prefer to think that the review was "glowing" hot and red in Wright's fireplace after he read that Rawsthorne called him an ignoramus and a pathetic poseur.


My assessment that he must have a DMA is based on the fact that if he had a Ph.D., he would have said that, and that the other legit doctoral degree in music is usually called DMA. There might be institutions that use the designation DMus instead of DMA.

Anyway, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he made it up, but it's probably a doctoral level performing degree.


----------



## Luchesi

Is he a 'conservative' composer?

https://www.wrightmusic.net

David C F Wright was born in 1946, and is thought to be a relative of Sir Ivor Atkins, the organist at Worcester Cathedral for fifty years, and the conductor of the Three Choirs Festival. As a boy, David was a head chorister and sang solos in many cathedrals and at festivals. He learned the piano and organ and gave his first organ recital at the age of eleven. In his teenage years he played all the Beethoven piano sonatas and concertos at various Musical Festivals. In 1962 he met the composer Humphrey Searle and had private lessons with him and, later with Sir Adrian Boult, Pierre Boulez and Alan Rawsthorne. He received his BMus and DMus by study and examination.
Since 1961 David Wright has composed over 80 works from intimate chamber pieces to three symphonies, five string quartets, six piano sonatas, a violin concerto, an oboe concerto and concertante works for flute and piano and sonatas for solo violin, solo cello and for violin and piano and viola and piano respectively. He writes about music and specialises in less familiar composers. His String Quartet no 2, written for his Irish girl friend, won a prodigious prize as did his Piano Trio.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Is he a 'conservative' composer?
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net


That is a weird web site. What to make of a statement like this?

_"There are other writers on music who object to Dr Wright's articles out of jealousy and/or because his writings are scholarly, definitive and reliable and, consequently, other writers may feel diminished."_

It might be interesting to hear from some of those diminished writers.


----------



## Ethereality

I love a great melody. Schubert's melodies to me are not that great, they're moreso highly developed, and some people really like this aspect. Beethoven really understood melody within composition and its purpose. But for a composer purely as an overfocused melodist, I'd look moreso to Dvorak.

Some good examples:
3:44 !
4:21 !
18:20 !




And all throughout this symphony and his other works.

People tend to post overdeveloped melodies that last up to a minute, and my response is yes but those aren't great melodies. It's about quality > quantity. Once you have quality, you can develop it as much as you want. Dvorak seemed to have a purpose of composing only pure ideas and strung them together into suites, which is highly influential to composers and melody-writers.


----------



## DeepR

Larkenfield said:


> Well said. My own view of the Schubert fugue is that it gives an opportunity for the two players to dramatically react off each other, to thunder and roar for over two minutes. It's highly effective within the context of the entire Fantasy. The counterpart is seamlessly done and generates great energy and contrast. He was melodically gifted-one of the greatest and most instinctively gifted of all time, IMO, another example being Wintereisse-and he not only understood the power of melody but also the power of the _refrain_ of melody at the right time. This is the only work of his that I've mentioned because of its melodic lyricism (in a thread about melody, and this work qualifies), his sensitivity, and the Fantasy's inspired beauty as a unified whole that is not too long unless one is unable to sit still for more than five minutes... I do not agree with the merciless meat-grinder criticisms of hamburgerklavier-Touché-and his support of the puerile, unbalanced, and mean-spirited Schubert article by Dr. David Wright that is an embarrassment to music criticism, though Schubert's works are not without their limitations and shortcomings, not to mention, Wright's other mafia hit-man, character assassinations of Debussy and Chopin that are beyond the pale and the most morally judgemental, distasteful, and biased opinions that I've ever read. (His professor should have noticed this tendency, flunked him as a freshman, and his degree revoked.) David Wright could never possibly understand or comprehend why so many of the greatest pianists in the world have been glad to play the Schubert Fantasy for almost 200 yearsr. But the great pianists are selective in what they play when everything is obviously not equal in quality in Schubert's prodigious output of over 600 works.


His "essay" on Scriabin is also awful. Apart from the fact that his essays are very poorly written and structured, I believe there are many disingenuous elements in there as well. Sure, he has done his reading and presents many facts that can also be found in biographies etc., but in between he will also distort facts, presents rumors as facts and possibly make up facts, just as long as it fits his agenda. Honestly he is not worth discussing and it's a pity that his website exists...


----------



## Guest

I’m seriously wondering how useful the question posed in this thread, and much of the ensuing discussion, is in practice. 

Melodic skill is only one of several aspects of a composer’s overall ability. It may well be an important one, but even so the melodic skill of a composer cannot be measured in any objective manner that would command universal agreement. In any event, what really matters is not which of two composer's melodic ability is considered to be the greater but whose actual melodies do we prefer the best. 

Furthermore, taking into account that melody is only one of several of the main components of music, it’s quite possible an individual listener may prefer one composer's melodies over the other, but when judged in the round the same listener might prefer the other composer in overall terms, i.e. placed higher up their list of favourites. In other words, simply focusing upon "melodic ability" should only be part of the overall assessment of composers' achievements, and one which could lead to misleading results if other factors are ignored. 

In regard to Beethoven and Schubert, I like their works almost equally when judged across the entire range of their output. I think that I prefer Schubert to Beethoven in some areas, and vice versa in regard to other aspects. If I could only choose one, it would be Schubert, but thankfully that is not the case. This is based on an overall assessment of their works. I haven't attempted to analyse this preference by breaking it down into a detailed list of relative performances in regard to each of the main components of music: melody, harmony. rhythm etc. 

Beethoven, of course, had much longer time to polish his works, and since many of them were commissioned they needed to be checked over and refined before being completed. Many of Schubert’s works, perforce, did not receive so much attention, especially many of his late works when he was struggling increasingly against a highly debilitating illness. In view of this. the oft-quoted complaint about Schubert that some of his works are too long and repetitive doesn’t cut much ice with me. Compared with several much later famous composers, Schubert's works are hardly over-long.


----------



## Larkenfield

From the* https://www.talkclassical.com/2570-franz-schubert.html#post1626914* thread.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Phil loves classical said:


> The title of the thread seems to ask Beethoven and Schubert both tried to write nice melodies, but whether Schubert excelled or more talented at it than Beethoven. Beethoven seemed more interested in development of shorter motifs and counterpoint, rather than longer homophonic, song-like melodies with fewer chord changes.


This, 100%. Both composers excelled in the using melody in their own styles and to suit their own purposes. Beethoven's melodies are better for the type of music Beethoven was writing than Schubert's, and Schubert's melodies are better for his style. Beethoven wouldn't suddenly be a "better" composer if given Schubert's gifts for writing melodies.

Perhaps you might be inclined say Schubert was a greater "melodist", since, as you say, he tended to prefer song-like phrases (which fits into a more traditional and intuitive sense of what "melody" is), but that would be judging Beethoven by a standard that he usually did not strive for or even want to achieve. As a side note, this explains my username.


----------



## Jacck

Yes, Schubert was a better melodist. I enjoy his sonatas about the same as Beethovens. They had different styles. I personally don't understand the people, who try to bash Schubert or Chopin, because they were both geniuses. Why people just can't enjoy this?
Maria João Pires - Schubert: Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Op. 42)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> I personally don't understand the people, who try to bash Schubert or Chopin, because they were both geniuses. Why people just can't enjoy this?


Because both are perfect examples who rely on over-sentimentality and candy to make up for their limitations. Isn't that what satisfies the definition, 'overrated'? David C F Wright does seem to be more a clown than an expert, but you don't have to be an expert to know the fatal flaws of Schubert and Chopin and he's totally right in his evaluation of both (except all the unjust attacks on their personal lives).
As for Chopin's 'masterpieces', listen to the middle parts of Polonaise Op.53 in A flat major, Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp minor, Nocturne Op.48 No.1 in C minor. I was horrified he's placed 4th place in terms of number of monthly listeners on Spotify. And many of their enthusiasts act nitpicky and judgemental about real masters.
Again, I'm surprised to hear that from you after all this time, remembering the things you've said:
"why can't they just shut up and accept the critique?"



hammeredklavier said:


> Jacck said:
> 
> 
> 
> bad music by Beethoven? : this
> 
> 
> 
> (it is just pathetic)
> 
> 
> 
> Not really that pathetic you compare with some of the 'masterworks' of the 'history's greatest' pianist-composer.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonaise_in_A-flat_major,_Op._53
> _"This composition is one of Chopin's most admired compositions and has long been a favorite of the classical piano repertoire."_
> 
> 'E - D# - C# - B
> 
> Eb - D - C - Bb
> 
> rinse and repeat'
> 
> View attachment 113287
> 
> View attachment 113288
Click to expand...


----------



## Phil loves classical

I like Schubert's symphonic works a lot more than his chamber ones (I especially detest his Trout Quintet). My favourite movement by Schubert is this one. To me it's irresistable. I like his Unfinished Symphony more overall.






For me the most melodic Beethoven work is his Emperor Concerto, just chock full of melodies. His Les Adieux and Waldstein sonatas are also quite tuneful.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Because both [Schubert and Chopin] are perfect examples who rely on over-sentimentality and candy to make up for their limitations.


You are a perfect example of someone who uses obsessive self-repetition to make up for your limited aesthetic sensibility and your failure to understand the difference between taste, opinion and fact.



> Isn't that what satisfies the definition, 'overrated'?


No. First, it isn't what those composers do, and second, it doesn't satisfy the definition of anything.



> David C F Wright does seem to be more a clown than an expert,


You said it, bub.



> but you don't have to be an expert to know the fatal flaws of Schubert and Chopin


Well, they're both dead, but I'm sure a failure to write great fugues didn't kill them.



> and he's totally right in his evaluation of both (except all the unjust attacks on their personal lives).


Wrong. He's merely totally mediocre, self-important, and wacko.

I can't help noticing that you've completely ignored my analysis of what Schubert was doing with his fugato passage in the F minor Fantasy, despite the fact that I repeated that analysis for your benefit (but I'm not going to help you a third time). Nor have you responded to EdwardBast's observation that "fugue" is not even a suitable description for it. This is unambiguous evasiveness and dishonesty. Add it to your mad obsession with devaluing the genius of these wonderful composers who charted new paths you just can't give them credit for, and you're looking like a real crank and the true heir of David Wright (who, to quote myself, is totally mediocre, self-important, and wacko).


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Because both are perfect examples who rely on over-sentimentality and candy to make up for their limitations. Isn't that what satisfies the definition, 'overrated'? David C F Wright does seem to be more a clown than an expert, but you don't have to be an expert to know the fatal flaws of Schubert and Chopin and he's totally right in his evaluation of both (except all the unjust attacks on their personal lives).
> As for Chopin's 'masterpieces', listen to the middle parts of Polonaise Op.53 in A flat major, Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp minor, Nocturne Op.48 No.1 in C minor. I was horrified he's placed 4th place in terms of number of monthly listeners on Spotify. And many of their enthusiasts act nitpicky and judgemental about real masters.
> Again, I'm surprised to hear that from you after all this time, remembering the things you've said:
> "why can't they just shut up and accept the critique?"


Huh? What are the "fatal flaws" in those Chopin works? I don't like most of Chopin's most popular pieces, but I do think his Szcherzi and some ballades do make him one of the great masters of the piano.


----------



## KenOC

(sigh) Like the world needs a book of fugues by Chopin! And Schubert? Hey, the guy died at 31, just when he had signed up for counterpoint lessons. And in fact he had written some respectable fugues already, at least in the Wandererer and a Mass or two. How good were Beethoven's fugues at that age? Give the poor guy a break! And some penicillin while you're at it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Huh? What are the "fatal flaws" in those Chopin works? I don't like most of Chopin's most popular pieces, but I do think his Szcherzi and some ballades do make him one of the great masters of the piano.


Huh? You mean you don't recognize the flaws of Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp minor, for example, where 1/3 of the piece is passages played both hands in unison, 1/3 is melody by accompanied chords, and 1/3 is a Mazurka? (as if all the Waltzes and Mazurkas that make up half his output weren't enough)
Everytime Chopin builds tension or makes a statement it's either passages played with both hands in unison or melody accompanied by chord vamps. (except very few passages like ones in Ballade in F minor Op.52) Most Waltzes and Mazurkas are endless spam of "dum-da-da, dum-da-da" left hand accompaniment. As for scale spam, the codas of Ballade No.1 in G minor Op.23 and Scherzo No.4 in E major Op.54 are good examples of that. At least his works aren't over-long or minimalist like Schubert's. I'll give him credit for that.

listen from 3:00 to 5:00





For similar passages, listen to the last movement of Piano Sonata in B flat minor Op.35


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Huh? You mean you don't recognize the flaws of Polonaise Op.44 in F sharp minor, for example, where 1/3 of the piece is passages played both hands in unison, 1/3 is melody by accompanied chords, and 1/3 is a Mazurka? (as if all the Waltzes and Mazurkas that make up half his output weren't enough)
> Everytime Chopin builds tension or makes a statement it's either passages played with both hands in unison or melody accompanied by chord vamps. (except very few passages like ones in Ballade in F minor Op.52) Most Waltzes and Mazurkas are endless spam of "dum-da-da, dum-da-da" left hand accompaniment. As for scale spam, the codas of Ballade No.1 in G minor Op.23 and Scherzo No.4 in E major Op.54 are good examples of that. At least his works aren't over-long or minimalist like Schubert's. I'll give him credit for that.
> 
> For similar passages, listen to the last movement of Piano Sonata in B flat minor Op.35


Since when is a melody accompanied by chords a "flaw"? Since when is unison writing for both hands a "flaw"? Since when is a repeated rhythmic accompaniment to a waltz or a mazurka a "flaw"?

The last movement of the Bb minor Sonata is not "similar" to anything.

This is all nonsense. The only "spam" here is these interminable posts knocking music that doesn't meet your personal criteria for quality. Chopin's stylized dance pieces don't pretend to be anything they're not. They are excellent of their kind. If you don't enjoy them, just don't listen to them. There are plenty of fugues out there to keep you amused.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> (sigh) Like the world needs a book of fugues by Chopin! And Schubert? Hey, the guy died at 31, just when he had signed up for counterpoint lessons. And in fact he had written some respectable fugues already, at least in the Wandererer and a Mass or two. How good were Beethoven's fugues at that age? Give the poor guy a break! And some penicillin while you're at it.


Beethoven wrote this in his mid 20s, during his studies with Haydn and Albrechtsberger






jdec said Beethoven's Op.18 quartets are not good as good as Schubert's. I would say otherwise





this set of skills Beethoven acquired from writing the quartets would later reinforce his ideas in 1st Symphony.
There's no 'development' like this in Schubert. He uses the same set of skills he writes songs to write a symphony, the same set of skills to write a sonata, so that throughout his career his composition palette doesn't go much beyond song-writing. If one classical composer should be criticized as being overrated, writing the most flops, Schubert would be the "top of the leader board by miles."


----------



## KenOC

OK, OK, based on that example from the Op. 18, I'll admit that LvB's counterpoint was pretty darned good at 31 years old! Schubert had a ways to go.


----------



## Larkenfield

One of Schubert's spiritually elevated, sensitive and beautiful melodies that many have heard before ... beautiful. Anyone who thinks that the right hand is easy to play with control, subtlety and variety is fooling himself... Horowitz often mentioned the spirituality in Schubert's music and that listeners too often missed it, such qualities as peace and serenity that he identified with in this singing melodic work that flows beautifully like an endless stream of water.


----------



## Larkenfield

.................


----------



## Guest

The following 3-part series of articles about Schubert are interesting. They appeared in Gramophone magazine in 2017:

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/the-complete-guide-to-franz-schubert-part-one-the-symphonies
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/featur...anz-schubert-part-two-piano-and-chamber-music
https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/the-complete-guide-to-franz-schubert-part-three-vocal-music

These articles are based on the opinions of some recognised experts in the field.

I would suggest that there is more than enough information in these articles to confirm that Schubert was indeed a very great composer.

By contrast with some of the negative comment about Schubert I've read in this thread, I find the above articles to be far more reliable, to say the least.


----------



## flamencosketches

Woodduck said:


> The last movement of the Bb minor Sonata is not "similar" to anything.


The whole sonata really, but in particular that last movement really blew my mind. The whole thing has this crazy modernity to it. I'm going to go listen to it right now.

Yes, just as phenomenal as I remember it. Martha Argerich playing.

Does the poster who brought up the point wish to explain to us for what reason he considers homophony to be some kind of "flaw"?


----------



## Woodduck

flamencosketches said:


> The whole sonata really, but in particular that last movement really blew my mind. The whole thing has this crazy modernity to it. I'm going to go listen to it right now.
> 
> Yes, just as phenomenal as I remember it. Martha Argerich playing.
> 
> Does the poster who brought up the point wish to explain to us for what reason he considers homophony to be some kind of "flaw"?


Apparently only counterpoint is worth writing or listening to. I guess most of the world's music is "flawed."


----------



## Sid James

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Why can't Schubert detractors just stop at "this music doesn't move me" and leave it at that? Everybody knows he wasn't a master at counterpoint.


I think it's just a case of throwing in a red herring.


----------



## hammeredklavier

flamencosketches said:


> Does the poster who brought up the point wish to explain to us for what reason he considers homophony to be some kind of "flaw"?


Shubert's kind of homophony is endless vamping with no clear sense of direction. That's how he composed 40~50 minute works using material appropriate for 20 minutes. Please don't put that **** in the same category with stuff like Bach chorales ( for example) under the name " homophony".


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Shubert's kind of homophony is endless vamping with no clear sense of direction. That's how he composed 40~50 minute works using material appropriate for 20 minutes. Please don't put that **** in the same category with stuff like Bach chorales ( for example) under the name " homophony".


Yes, it's called a rhythmic pulse and it propels the music forward. The idea is to vary it with different shadings, slightly different tempo fluxuations and inflections, sometimes a slight holding back or moving forward, where it never exactly sounds the same... The same does not mean playing it the same way. It's the art of interpreting Schubert and part of his basic aesthetic, and someone like Richter, not to mention a host of other such famous names as Alfred Brendal, Wilhelm Kempff and Vladimir Horowitz, understood Schubert in a way that the critics can't because they neither understand the subtle inflections of his language nor the sensitive spirit behind it. If they did they would discuss some of his shortcomings with a measure of tact - and he had shortcomings just like every other composer who ever lived - without running him through the academic meat grinder and moral judgments and can never seem to find a way to illuminate his assets and strong points of one of the most beloved composers of all time. He wasn't an academic composer; he was poetic. They miss the entire point and soul of him and so far there's no cure for it except more Schubert. 






There's a fair and balanced appreciation of Schubert in _Lives of the Great Composers_ by Harold C. Schonberg. Schubert was highly influential on Franz Liszt, Robert Schumann, Anton Bruckner, Johannes Brahms, and others. Pianist Radu Lupu said: "[Schubert] is the composer for whom I am really most sorry that he died so young. ... Just before he died, when he wrote his beautiful two-cello String Quintet in C, he said very modestly that he was trying to learn a little more about counterpoint, and he was perfectly right. We'll never know in what direction he was going or would have gone."

More specifically: "From the 1830s through the 1870s, Franz Liszt transcribed and arranged a number of Schubert's works, particularly the songs. Liszt, who was a significant force in spreading Schubert's work after his death, said Schubert was "the most poetic musician who ever lived." Schubert's symphonies were of particular interest to Antonín Dvořák. Hector Berlioz and Anton Bruckner acknowledged the influence of the Great C Major Symphony. It was Robert Schumann who, having seen the manuscript of the Great C Major Symphony in Vienna in 1838, drew it to the attention of Mendelssohn, who led the first performance of the symphony, in a heavily abridged version, in Leipzig in 1839. Johannes Brahms edited the Schubert symphonies. In the 20th century, composers such as Richard Strauss, Anton Webern, Benjamin Britten, George Crumb, and Hans Zender championed or paid homage to Schubert in some of their works. Britten, an accomplished pianist, accompanied many of Schubert's Lieder and performed many piano solo and duet works."


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Shubert's kind of homophony is endless vamping with no clear sense of direction. That's how he composed 40~50 minute works using material appropriate for 20 minutes. Please don't put that **** in the same category with stuff like Bach chorales ( for example) under the name " homophony".


Schubert continued along the path of artistic ambiguity, extending it from Haydn and Mozart. You really can't compare a "clear sense of direction" in Schubert and contrapuntal Bach. Schubert was often trying to be ambiguious, setting the music "free" (often more than LvB).


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Shubert's kind of homophony is endless vamping with no clear sense of direction. That's how he composed 40~50 minute works using material appropriate for 20 minutes. Please don't put that **** in the same category with stuff like Bach chorales ( for example) under the name " homophony".


How do you rate Schubert's Piano Quintet in A "Trout"?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> How do you rate Schubert's Piano Quintet in A "Trout"?


Quite low. Suitable for Samsung washing machines as the tune marking the end of the wash cycle (as it is now used). As a piece of concert music, very boring after the first 1.5 minutes.


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> Quite low. Suitable for Samsung washing machines as the tune marking the end of the wash cycle (as it is now used). As a piece of concert music, very boring after the first 1.5 minutes.


Moriarty sings "Die Forelle" [HD]- Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows


----------



## eugeneonagain

Oh yes...and suitable for criminal masterminds in 19th century fiction before they go over the Reichenbach Falls. Sadly not taking it with them.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Partita said:


> How do you rate Schubert's Piano Quintet in A "Trout"?


_"It takes too long to catch that fish!"_
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf#page=6

Very well put by Wright


----------



## Guest

The above negative comments about the Trout piano quintet are quite amusing, but that's about all. 

The “Trout” quintet is one of Schubert’s most popular works, and one which I’ve always liked. Despite the negative comments expressed above, this work normally achieves a high rating amongst chamber works on internet forums polls. Indeed, I believe that on one chamber music poll here at T-C a few years ago it reached the top position.

I chose this work, among many possible other examples, mainly to illustrate various aspects of Schubert’s creative style, and how he differed from Beethoven. First of all, it demonstrates Schubert’s innovative instrumentation. Unusually, it includes a double bass instead of the more usual line up of instruments for a piano quintet. This is interesting because it allowed the piano to be used higher up the instrument, and Schubert used this to create some very interesting "watery" textures, very fitting for the context of the work, that makes it different from much other chamber music up to that point and well beyond. 

Secondly, unlike Beethoven, Schubert was not concerned with taking intellectual delight in creating extraordinary tonal arguments in his work by creating some amazing transformations. Rather, he was concerned with creating sound images. Whilst the Trout’s structure is “Classical” (like the 5 movements typical of Mozart’s divertimenti), in terms of style there is a whole world of Romantic evocation going on inside this work. It gives the impression of wandering aimlessly in the countryside as different aspects of the scenery are explored. 

Thirdly, the Trout quintet it contains some ingenious changes of harmony, which Schubert was able to pull off like no other composer. His ability to change key frequently so effortlessly, with great effect, is astounding. There are many examples of this in this work, and of course in many other works.

More generally, it’s not true, as sometimes suggested, that Schubert's occasional "sleep-walking" style meant that he didn’t know what he was doing or where he was going. Rather, he knew exactly where he was going and how he was going to get back to where he needed to be. This is evident partly from various surviving sketches and revisions where he made changes and adjustments for his more important works, and from the finished result itself where the recapitulation always seems to be achieved wonderfully after the meanderings of the development section.

Lastly, the suggestion that Schubert was not a good contrapunctalist is an old-fashioned view and no longer accepted as a valid criticism of Schubert. OK he’s not in the same high league as say Mozart or Haydn, but he did have a facility for this that is not bad. In any case, Schubert’s compositional skills in other areas of music creation were so good that he hardly had much need for counterpoint. 

In conclusion, to argue, as some have done in the posts above, that because Schubert did not write music in the same style as Beethoven is evidence of Schubert's inferiority is nonsense. It's different and just as good in its own way.


----------



## Enthusiast

If we all go away and lock the door behind us eugeneonagain and hammeredklavier can whine away about Schubert until the end of time.


----------



## Bourdon

Enthusiast said:


> If we all go away and lock the door behind us eugeneonagain and hammeredklavier can whine away about Schubert until the end of time.


Yeah but on wich theme,I suggest tiroler holzhacker bub'n


----------



## insomniclassicac

Schubert is my favorite melodist and composer. For whatever reason, I seem to feel a real affinity for his discursive style.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Quite low. Suitable for Samsung washing machines as the tune marking the end of the wash cycle (as it is now used). As a piece of concert music, very boring after the first 1.5 minutes.


You just need the right version (of the Schubert Trout):


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> The above negative comments about the Trout piano quintet are quite amusing, but that's about all.
> 
> The "Trout" quintet is one of Schubert's most popular works, and one which I've always liked. Despite the negative comments expressed above, this work normally achieves a high rating amongst chamber works on internet forums polls. Indeed, I believe that on one chamber music poll here at T-C a few years ago it reached the top position.


Oh right...so it came top in a TC poll. That seals it then. I'll point out that it was also the theme tune to British sitcom _Waiting for God_. It has multiple uses aside from washing machines.



Partita said:


> I chose this work, among many possible other examples, mainly to illustrate various aspects of Schubert's creative style, and how he differed from Beethoven. First of all, it demonstrates Schubert's *innovative instrumentation*. Unusually, it includes a double bass instead of the more usual line up of instruments for a piano quintet. This is interesting because it allowed the piano to be used higher up the instrument, and Schubert used this to create some very interesting "watery" textures, very fitting for the context of the work, that makes it different from much other chamber music up to that point and well beyond.


Very innovative. Dussek had used this instrumentation in his quintet in F minor (and he wasn't alone). Dussek died 6-7 years before the Trite Quintet was even composed.So no 'innovation' there. Plus in most string/piano combinations the upper registers are used, not unusual at all.



Partita said:


> Secondly, unlike Beethoven, Schubert was not concerned with taking intellectual delight in creating extraordinary tonal arguments in his work by creating some amazing transformations. Rather, he was concerned with creating sound images. Whilst the Trout's structure is "Classical" (like the 5 movements typical of Mozart's divertimenti), in terms of style there is a whole world of Romantic evocation going on inside this work. It gives the impression of wandering aimlessly in the countryside as different aspects of the scenery are explored.


Yes, it's not like Beethoven ever did that (*cough* Pastoral Symphony *cough*).



Partita said:


> Thirdly, the Trout quintet it contains some ingenious changes of harmony, *which Schubert was able to pull off like no other composer*. His ability to change key frequently so effortlessly, with great effect, is astounding. There are many examples of this in this work, and of course in many other works.


More extraordinary evidence of the hyperbolic lengths people will go to. Schubert effected very curious ideas about modulation. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they are just jumps with not much modulation going on at all. Get used to the fact that he was just a regular composer with some good melodic ideas. Inventing magical stories of genius around this won't make them true.



Partita said:


> More generally, it's not true, as sometimes suggested, that Schubert's occasional "sleep-walking" style meant that he didn't know what he was doing or where he was going. Rather, he knew exactly where he was going and how he was going to get back to where he needed to be. This is evident partly from various surviving sketches and revisions where he made changes and adjustments for his more important works, and from the finished result itself where the recapitulation always seems to be achieved wonderfully after the meanderings of the development section.


There is scarcely _any_ development in Schubert. Let's say 'minimal' development.



Partita said:


> Lastly, the suggestion that Schubert was not a good contrapunctalist is an old-fashioned view and no longer accepted as a valid criticism of Schubert.


By whom? You? It's true, as Woodduck suggested, that counterpoint is not the be-all and end-all of music, but it is rather important; especially for works with multiple instruments. You'll find that a great deal of musical interest in pieces you like comes from a facility for counterpoint even if you don't immediately see it.



Partita said:


> OK he's not in the same high league as say Mozart or Haydn, but he did have a facility for this that is not bad. In any case, Schubert's compositional skills in other areas of music creation were so good that he hardly had much need for counterpoint.


You'd never guess by the way people wax lyrical and go to hyperbolic extremes, as in the last sentence there above. Special case Schubert: so great he doesn't need the boring tools everyone else uses...:lol:



Partita said:


> In conclusion, to argue, as some have done in the posts above, that because Schubert did not write music in the same style as Beethoven is evidence of Schubert's inferiority is nonsense. It's different and just as good in its own way.


He _did _write music like Beethoven, but not as well.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Oh right...so it came top in a TC poll. That seals it then. I'll point out that it was also the theme tune to British sitcom _Waiting for God_. It has multiple uses aside from washing machines.


Schubert's Trout quintet is by no means the only piece of classical music used in film, tv, adverts. There are many examples by other composers, including Beethoven.



eugeneonagain said:


> Very innovative. Dussek had used this instrumentation in his quintet in F minor (and he wasn't alone). Dussek died 6-7 years before the Trite Quintet was even composed.So no 'innovation' there. Plus in most string/piano combinations the upper registers are used, not unusual at all.


Agreed but while some previous examples of this combination exist they're insignificant works compared with Schubert's work.



eugeneonagain said:


> Yes, it's not like Beethoven ever did that (*cough* Pastoral Symphony *cough*).


Beethoven's occasional excursion into "romantic" territory, as with the Pastoral Symphony, are firmly based on classical compositional procedures. Schubert was "classical" in his early days but arguable made further advances into romanticism than did Beethoven.



eugeneonagain said:


> More extraordinary evidence of the hyperbolic lengths people will go to. Schubert effected very curious ideas about modulation. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they are just jumps with not much modulation going on at all. Get used to the fact that he was just a regular composer with some good melodic ideas. Inventing magical stories of genius around this won't make them true.


Schubert is well known for his uncanny ability to effect frequent key changes, to good effect.



eugeneonagain said:


> There is scarcely _any_ development in Schubert. Let's say 'minimal' development.


Development in the "Trout" is not like the kind of thing Beethoven contrived. It is mainly in the form of varying the accompaniment by use different instruments, develoing the texture of the watery, liquid imagery.



eugeneonagain said:


> By whom? You? It's true, as Woodduck suggested, that counterpoint is not the be-all and end-all of music, but it is rather important; especially for works with multiple instruments. You'll find that a great deal of musical interest in pieces you like comes from a facility for counterpoint even if you don't immediately see it.
> 
> You'd never guess by the way people wax lyrical and go to hyperbolic extremes, as in the last sentence there above. Special case Schubert: so great he doesn't need the boring tools everyone else uses./


Any such limitation of use by Schubert of counterpoint, if it exists, doesn't bother me. It's the overall effect that I judge, not whether each music component has been achieved in some idealised proportion.



eugeneonagain said:


> He _did _write music like Beethoven, but not as well.


 I guess the majority of classical fans might agree, but Schubert is much better than you give him credit for.

Much as I like Beethoven, I do like a change from his work after a while, as I find that it can become overbearing and somewhat turgid after a while. Schubert provides a welcome change to Beethoven in terms of music from that time period.

On the whole, I rate Schubert's chamber music almost equivalently to Beethoven's, with a slight preference for Schubert. I generally prefer Schubert's piano sonatas. I also like Schubert's Symphony Nos 8 and 9 at least as highly as any of Beethoven's. Schubert's sacred choral work (e.g. Mass 6) is superior to Beethoven's. Schubert's lieder work leaves Beethoven way behind in the dust.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I see Schubert as a mega pop star or the Andrew Lloyd Webber of Classical composers. His music is very approachable and reaches out to a lot of listeners. For sure his music has more craft and complexity than Pop, which a lot of Classical listeners I come across seem to denigrate and think they are way above, but I don't see him as being that far removed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Partita said:


> it demonstrates Schubert's innovative instrumentation. Unusually, it includes a double bass instead of the more usual line up of instruments for a piano quintet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_Quintet
"The composer Johann Nepomuk Hummel had rearranged his own Septet (1816) for the same instrumentation, and the Trout was actually written for a group of musicians coming together to play Hummel's work."



Partita said:


> The "Trout" quintet is one of Schubert's most popular works, and one which I've always liked. Despite the negative comments expressed above, this work normally achieves a high rating amongst chamber works on internet forums polls. Indeed, I believe that on one chamber music poll here at T-C a few years ago it reached the top position.


Overhype for Schubert is especially abnormal here at TC. 
What is the greatest string quintet?
They think Schubert's C major Quintet (with its proto-minimalist slow movement) is the greatest miracle ever in its genre.
I highly doubt if his other proto-minimalist works that are highly regarded, Piano Sonata D960, Death and the Maiden Quartet would be regarded this high ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit ) if they were not written by him.



hammeredklavier said:


> @2:27: "Repetition is what gives form to music"
> 
> everyone repeats,
> some repeat to enhance motivic unity in their work,
> others repeat to fill bars without really having a strong sense of direction.
> 
> I think it's fair to ask the question, which category Schubert's D960 belongs.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> Schubert's Trout quintet is by no means the only piece of classical music used in film, tv, adverts. There are many examples by other composers, including Beethoven.


Hmmm.. that was meant to be mild mockery.



Partita said:


> Agreed but while some previous examples of this combination exist they're insignificant works compared with Schubert's work.


Well they would be wouldn't be? Actually I think Dussek's is better. As are his piano sonatas; the op.77 L'Invocation is more interesting than any of Schubert's efforts in that sphere.



Partita said:


> Beethoven's occasional excursion into "romantic" territory, as with the Pastoral Symphony, are firmly based on classical compositional procedures. Schubert was "classical" in his early days but arguable made further advances into romanticism than did Beethoven.


No he didn't. He moved into it at the end of his life following the general cultural trend, alongside about three dozen other composers doing the same thing. Don't just invent things to say.



Partita said:


> Schubert is well known for his uncanny ability to effect frequent key changes, to good effect.


No, he isn't. 'Uncanny'? It's ridiculous.



Partita said:


> Development in the "Trout" is not like the kind of thing Beethoven contrived. It is mainly in the form of varying the accompaniment by use different instruments, developing the texture of the watery, liquid imagery.


The development is minimal, plus the business of bouncing the same tune (or bits of it) around the various instruments is not especially Schubertian!



Partita said:


> Any such limitation of use by Schubert of counterpoint, *if it exists*, doesn't bother me. It's the overall effect that I judge, not whether each music component has been achieved in some idealised proportion.


Oh, be assured that it exists. It's not about overall effects vs idealised proportions, the effects are realised by technical musical skills. I realise dreamy listeners are not interested in this fact, but a fact it is. Poor old Schubert sometimes ran out of ideas after having come up with a great opening or melody...solution? Pad it out...bit of doubling...jarring modulation here and here. Also some startling passages when he comes up with a really interesting idea, but then back to repeats.

I'll do some repeating: he was an interesting composer of some decent works. Stop pretending he was the reincarnation of Mozart!



Partita said:


> I guess the majority of classical fans might agree, but Schubert is much better than you give him credit for.


I _do_ give him credit, but I don't think he's everything his hyperbolic super-fans think he was.



Partita said:


> Much as I like Beethoven, I do like a change from his work after a while, as I find that it can become overbearing and somewhat turgid after a while. Schubert provides a welcome change to Beethoven in terms of music from that time period.


I hardly listen to Beethoven these days, so it's not a problem for me. There are plenty other composers with a better developed talent than Schubert's who were writing at the time. Yet everyone loves a great tale of tragedy - died too young, boo-hoo! 'Unfinished' symphony...such darkness...of what treasures were we robbed!?



Partita said:


> On the whole, I rate Schubert's chamber music almost equivalently to Beethoven's, with a slight preference for Schubert. I generally prefer Schubert's piano sonatas. I also like Schubert's Symphony Nos 8 and 9 at least as highly as any of Beethoven's. Schubert's sacred choral work (e.g. Mass 6) is superior to Beethoven's. Schubert's lieder work leaves Beethoven way behind in the dust.


Which may explain this entire exchange. It isn't an unbiased account, but the account of a fan.


----------



## Littlephrase

The Adagio from the Schubert's String Quintet is on equal footing with the most sublime slow movements of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn. People, such as myself, are deeply moved by the music, "proto-minimalist" or not. Is it really _that_ outlandish to love the String Quintet of Schubert as much, if not more, than those of Mozart, Brahms or Dvorak?


----------



## Guest

Littlephrase1913 said:


> The Adagio from the Schubert's String Quintet is on equal footing with the most sublime slow movements of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn. People, such as myself, are deeply moved by the music, "proto-minimalist" or not. Is it really _that_ outlandish to love the String Quintet of Schubert as much, if not more, than those of Mozart, Brahms or Dvorak?


I for one would certainly agree with you, as I'm sure would a majority of other T-C members in any decent-sized vote on this topic.

However, you'll have to appreciate that occasionally you come across a "Beethoven fan-boy" (as they're known in the trade) whose hackles rise noticeablty at even the slightest hint that Beethoven was not the greatest composer by far, and that no-one else wrote anything that surpasses the quality of the best of his works in any genre you care to mention. They'll protest vehemently if anyone dares to suggest otherwise, and make up all sorts of silly stories about the other composers' lack of ability in order to try to justify their blinkered views. This Forum has had a string of them in the past, and there are obviously a few still lurking around. Normally, they get rounded upon pretty quickly by other members, but for some strange reason this hasn't happened in this thread to quite the same extent as in the past.

And just for good measure, if you aren't already aware, you ought to be warned about three other very popular types of criticism one often sees at this Forum: one is that Mozart is allegedly highly overrated, another is that Wagner's music stinks because he was an anti-semite, and another is that this Forum's management allows too much adverse criticism of contemporary music. I normally give all this kind of nonsense a wide berth, but on this particular occasion concerning Schubert I thought I'd chip in a few comments by way of support for the "little mushroom", whose work I greatly admire.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> I for one would certainly agree with you, as I'm sure would a majority of other T-C members in any decent-sized vote on this topic.
> 
> However, you'll have to appreciate that occasionally you come across a "Beethoven fan-boy" (as they're known in the trade) whose hackles rise noticeablty at even the slightest hint that Beethoven was not the greatest composer by far, and that no-one else wrote anything that surpasses the quality of the best of his works in any genre you care to mention. They'll protest vehemently if anyone dares to suggest otherwise, and make up all sorts of silly stories about the other composers' lack of ability in order to try to justify their blinkered views. This Forum has had a string of them in the past, and there are obviously a few still lurking around. Normally, they get rounded upon pretty quickly by other members, but for some strange reason this hasn't happened in this thread to quite the same extent as in the past.


Who are these people? Don't count me in, I have minimal interest in Beethoven beyond the usual.

What you are actually describing is your own 'fan boy' view of Schubert as possessing powers of creation "like no other composer" (your words). Rather than seeing him as a poet with technical weaknesses, there is this preposterous attempt to invent more than is there.

The probable reason these Beethoven people you describe haven't been "rounded on" (weird), is that this thread has thrown up questions about Schubert's music that don't fall into the 'he was so sublime' category and many of his strangely fawning fans are simply put out by this. In contrast Beethoven seems to have fared quite well, probably because he is known for having always delivered the goods.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Hmmm.. that was meant to be mild mockery.


Yes, I realised that. In reply I was saying that extracts from other composers' works have often been used as promotional or background material in adverts and such like, so it's no big deal that Schubert's "Trout" quintet has been used in this way. It seems hardly worth attempting a mockery, mild or otherwise.



eugeneonagain said:


> Well they would be wouldn't be? Actually I think Dussek's is better. As are his piano sonatas; the op.77 L'Invocation is more interesting than any of Schubert's efforts in that sphere.


Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Back to the main point, you've been commenting adversely on Schubert's "Trout" quintet, and extolling Beethoven's alleged superior compositional ability in chamber music. And yet Beethoven didn't write a piano quintet using the same instrumentation as Schubert. Therefore, even if Beethoven had done so, you can't be sure that it would have been any better or anything like as good as Schubert's. In fact, using a different line up of instruments (piano and winds), Beethoven's Op 16 piano quintet is not amongst his better works, and is arguably inferior to Mozart's K 452.



eugeneonagain said:


> No he didn't. He moved into it at the end of his life following the general cultural trend, alongside about three dozen other composers doing the same thing. Don't just invent things to say.


That's not my understanding of the situation. I don't know where you got your information from but some authorities reckon that Beethoven remained largely true to classical principles through his entire life, except near the end where he went off on a tangent all of his own. Charles Rosen, for example, has decisively made his case for Beethoven as a Classicist. Others reckon that his venture into Romantic territory was very limited. The Pastoral Symphony, written in 1808, is one of his few pieces to have explicitly programmatic content.

Whether Schubert was largely a Classicist or Romanticist is harder to say. It partly depends on one's definition of the latter. I would hesitate to make emotion the sole or dominant criterion, since there is emotion (like tragedy, comedy,) in some Classical composers, most clearly so in the case of Mozart and Beethoven.

Schubert's emphasis on Lieder and song cycles is more of a Romantic than a Classicist trait. His earlier absolute music is Classicist. However, the expansiveness of some of his late absolute works sounds new and original. The use of a cyclical theme in the Wanderer Fantasie was probably a new technique, that gave inspiration for later composers like Liszt. I would say that it was Schubert's expermentation with looser forms, and his engagement with the poetic world, far more so than Beethoven, that makes him more persuasively an early Romantic.



eugeneonagain said:


> No, he isn't. 'Uncanny'? It's ridiculous.


My comment is not ridiculous at all. I have often heard comments of this nature made by professional musicians concerning the brilliance of some of Schubert's modulation changes.



eugeneonagain said:


> The development is minimal, plus the business of bouncing the same tune (or bits of it) around the various instruments is not especially Schubertian!


I didn't say it was especially Schubertian. You denied there is any "development" in the "Trout", and I referred to it being in the form of varying the accompaniment by use different instruments, giving rise to different watery textures.



eugeneonagain said:


> Oh, be assured that it exists. It's not about overall effects vs idealised proportions, the effects are realised by technical musical skills. I realise dreamy listeners are not interested in this fact, but a fact it is. Poor old Schubert sometimes ran out of ideas after having come up with a great opening or melody...solution? Pad it out...bit of doubling...jarring modulation here and here. Also some startling passages when he comes up with a really interesting idea, but then back to repeats.


Like I said before, I'm more concerned with the overall results, in terms of whether or not I like the work. I don't judge it based on the number of any particular facets of music are incorporated per minute.

Nor do I believe that Schubert padded out his music with repeats, as you allege, simply because he had run out of ideas. A better view is that he did it because he thought it was the most effective way to create the result he was looking for.



eugeneonagain said:


> I'll do some repeating: he was an interesting composer of some decent works. Stop pretending he was the reincarnation of Mozart!


I've not mentioned Mozart in this context, so don't make that up. I would accept that Schubert possibly did run out of ideas in some of his works. That's presumably why so many remained unfinished. It was either that or he had more pressing engagements to fulfil in his very short lifetime.

Further, many works were written with no specific commission in mind, so it's hardly surprising that some were unfinished, as there was no commercial incentive to do so. Remember too that he suffered from periodic bouts of quite severe illness, which could have caused some undesired eeraly finishes.

The fact remains that out of his enormous output he finished enough works of high or very quality to justify the great esteem he is held in many quarters.



eugeneonagain said:


> I _do_ give him credit, but I don't think he's everything his hyperbolic super-fans think he was. .


Oh really? You have a weird way of expressing it. You have said things like:


_Oh yes, Schubert: songwriter and pub pianist posing as a symphonist._ 
_There were boys at school who wrote better fugal material than this as exercises. All those probably went into the bins long ago, yet this sorry excuse for fugal material is trundled out as something special._ 
_Schubert's fans are loathe to admit these huge failings. Hence Nellie the Elephant's posts up there._ 
_He is a minor Viennese composer who somehow got elevated because a load of people seemed to feel his early death unjustly cut him short before he gained any fame. Well bad luck, that's the fate of many composers._ 



eugeneonagain said:


> I hardly listen to Beethoven these days, so it's not a problem for me. There are plenty other composers with a better developed talent than Schubert's who were writing at the time. Yet everyone loves a great tale of tragedy - died too young, boo-hoo! 'Unfinished' symphony...such darkness...of what treasures were we robbed!?


In fact, neither Beethoven nor Schubert features prominently in my listening these days. Long ago I moved on to take an interest in many other composers, but I have a lingering liking for both Beethoven and Schubert.



eugeneonagain said:


> Which may explain this entire exchange. It isn't an unbiased account, but the account of a fan. .


Of course I'm a fan of Schubert. So what? It would hardly be likely that anyone would bother to defend a composer under attack for being allegedly mediocre if they didn't happen to like that composer.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Who are these people? Don't count me in, I have minimal interest in Beethoven beyond the usual.
> 
> What you are actually describing is your own 'fan boy' view of Schubert as possessing powers of creation "like no other composer" (your words). Rather than seeing him as a poet with technical weaknesses, there is this preposterous attempt to invent more than is there.
> 
> The probable reason these Beethoven people you describe haven't been "rounded on" (weird), is that this thread has thrown up questions about Schubert's music that don't fall into the 'he was so sublime' category and many of his strangely fawning fans are simply put out by this. In contrast Beethoven seems to have fared quite well, probably because he is known for having always delivered the goods.


For a start, I do not regard myself as a "Schubert fan-boy". I reserve the term "fan-boy" to people who evidently have a very narrow interest in one or maybe two composers, either because they have studied others and don't like them, or more likely because they haven't yet made suffcient progress along the classical music learning curve to appreciate more than one or two composers they have first encountered. In my case, I like both Schubert and Beethoven almost equally plus many others, based on many years of listening and some musical study.

Since this thread is all about the relative merits of Beethoven and Schubert, and that you've been doing your best to belittle Schubert's work whilst paying only modest credit, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that you are a fan of Beethoven. To give two specific examples of your many comments on the subject, where Beethoven is specifically mentioned:


_Schubert seems always to be compared to Beethoven and it's comparing granmother's cake to cheap shop-bought cake._ 
_The difference is Beethoven developed his music in interesting ways._ 
 In addition to these comments, you have made several other comments rubbishing various aspects of Schubert's work, whilst paying only very limited almost grudging lip-service to some of it. You have come over as if you have some kind of passion to denigrate the man's work. With some of your comments you have, intentionally or otherwise, given the impression that you believe that people who do like Schubert, and don't share your jaundiced views, have defective listening skills.

However, if you do not consider yourself to be a 'Beethoven fan-boy" that's fine by me. I was careful not to label anyone in particular with that description.

But there are clearly some who have contributed in this thread who do seem to fit the description. They can hardly hide their disliking of most other composers in preference to Beethoven. They tend to pop up in threads whenever Beethoven's reputation and credentials in comparison with other great composers, is under discussion, often spouting all manner of musical mumbo-jumbo that is utterly meaningless to the vast majority of people who come onto this Forum. It may sound superficially pretty good to the layman, but often it's basically of quite minor importance.

A few years ago, I caught one of these characters, who often posts at T-C, quoting verbatim a long section of text on the subject of Beethoven's musical style that I recognised was copied directly, word for word, from an internet source that I had seen previously, and happened to remember. The cheeky so-and-so who posted these comments as his own, when challenged on this matter, went quiet for a bit and then simply stated that what he had stated was "common knowledge". I hardly think so, as it was technically complex material that was being quoted.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> Back to the main point, you've been commenting adversely on Schubert's "Trout" quintet, and extolling Beethoven's alleged superior compositional ability in chamber music.


Actually I have barely mentioned Beethoven and said nothing about his chamber music; although his chamber music does happen to be technically better. It's aesthetic qualities will be a matter of taste.



Partita said:


> And yet Beethoven didn't write a piano quintet using the same instrumentation as Schubert. *Therefore*, even if Beethoven had done so, you can't be sure that it would have been any better or anything like as good as Schubert's. In fact, using a different line up of instruments (piano and winds), Beethoven's Op 16 piano quintet is not amongst his better works, and is arguably inferior to Mozart's K 452.


Therefore? You can only use 'therefore' when making an actual argument, there is no argument in the above quote. Just supposition. You keep going on about this 'innovative' instrumentation, but that has already been put to bed. Beethoven's duds are well-known, but his triumphs bury them, as they do all of Schubert. Comparing Beethoven to Mozart is neither here nor there.



Partita said:


> That's not my understanding of the situation. I don't know where you got your information from but some authorities reckon that Beethoven remained largely true to classical principles through his entire life, except near the end where he went off on a tangent all of his own. Charles Rosen, for example, has decisively made his case for Beethoven as a Classicist. Others reckon that his venture into Romantic territory was very limited. The Pastoral Symphony, written in 1808, is one of his few pieces to have explicitly programmatic content.


Then perhaps your understanding of cultural history isn't up to scratch? Appealing to "some authorities" regarding when and where the line may be drawn between classical (actually the original neo-classicism after antiquity) and romanticism makes no difference to the facts of it as a general cultural trend. It wasn't born in music, it came to music much later than literature and pictorial art and Schubert was no more spearheading it than Beethoven or anyone.



Partita said:


> Whether Schubert was largely a Classicist or Romanticist is harder to say. It partly depends on one's definition of the latter. I would hesitate to make emotion the sole or dominant criterion, since there is emotion (like tragedy, comedy,) in some Classical composers, most clearly so in the case of Mozart and Beethoven.


I'd say it doesn't even matter. You were the one who brought all that up and I really don't care all that much about it. It doesn't matter what prevailing musical culture favoured, this is about a composer who (as I said way back this thread) was good at melodic inventiveness, but didn't make the best use of it because of some technical limitations and a tendency to padding-out. Try to keep focus.



Partita said:


> Schubert's emphasis on Lieder and song cycles is more of a Romantic than a Classicist trait. His earlier absolute music is Classicist. However, the expansiveness of some of his late absolute works sounds new and original. The use of a cyclical theme in the Wanderer Fantasie was probably a new technique, that gave inspiration for later composers like Liszt. I would say that it was Schubert's expermentation with looser forms, and his engagement with the poetic world, far more so than Beethoven, that makes him more persuasively an early Romantic.


I haven't and wouldn't dispute some of this. It's one thing having some novel ideas, another thing carrying them out. The songs work better for Schubert because they are short and he clearly had more problems with larger-scale works. Yet even here we have some dull piano accompaniments. The hammered-out chords that have already been mentioned. You can do all you like to try and twist this into a cock-eyed argument in favour of 'innovation', but it will not wash.



Partita said:


> My comment is not ridiculous at all. I have often heard comments of this nature made by professional musicians concerning the brilliance of some of Schubert's modulation changes.


If you had bothered reading what I wrote about further back, you'll see that I also said this is a common view; hence the inclusion in harmony texts and courses. I was disputing it.



Partita said:


> I didn't say it was especially Schubertian. You denied there is any "development" in the "Trout", and I referred to it being in the form of varying the accompaniment by use different instruments, giving rise to different watery textures.


And I dismissed it because it is irrelevant and flatly untrue in terms of it being anything other than what dozens of composers did and have done.



Partita said:


> Nor do I believe that Schubert padded out his music with repeats, as you allege, simply because he had run out of ideas. *A better view* is that he did it because he thought it was the most effective way to create the result he was looking for.


Then you are telling lies to yourself, because everyone knows he did. Read this entire thread and look at how many members here acknowledge this fact, even when they are generally appreciative of Schubert. You haven't provided a better view, but a manufactured one to suit yourself.



Partita said:


> I've not mentioned Mozart in this context, so don't make that up. I would accept that Schubert possibly did run out of ideas in some of his works. That's presumably why so many remained unfinished. It was either that or he had more pressing engagements to fulfil in his very short lifetime.


Oh so now he _does_ run out of ideas? Speaking of Mr Mozart though, his short life was full of pressing engagements and I'll wager that most other composer's lives were too. It's clutching at straws.



Partita said:


> Further, many works were written with no specific commission in mind, so it's hardly surprising that some were unfinished, as there was no commercial incentive to do so. Remember too that he suffered from periodic bouts of quite severe illness, which could have caused some undesired eeraly finishes.


That's a fair point. Yet it just adds to the factual situation that he either didn't or couldn't finish works. That's no crime, plenty of composers have done this, but we don't go about elevating them to the status of 'composer supernova' either.



Partita said:


> The fact remains that out of his enormous output he finished enough works of high or very quality to justify the great esteem he is held in many quarters.


His output wasn't that enormous if you remove the short songs. The rest of that sentence above is just wish-thinking.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> For a start, I do not regard myself as a "Schubert fan-boy". I reserve the term "fan-boy" to people who evidently have a very narrow interest in one or maybe two composers, either because they have studied others and don't like them, or more likely because they haven't yet made suffcient progress along the classical music learning curve to appreciate more than one or two composers they have first encountered. In my case, I like both Schubert and Beethoven almost equally plus many others, based on many years of listening and some musical study.


Good one eh...referring to "people" in general. Why reply to my posts with this detritus-filled idea then? It's a transparent attempt to suggest I am that person. I'd say yo have no idea what I listen to or anyone else listens to. Plus, and this is the most important point: _it does not matter._ The discussion here is about Schubert,not about your extra-curricular listening aside from the Viennese poet.



Partita said:


> Since this thread is all about the relative merits of Beethoven and Schubert, and that you've been doing your best to belittle Schubert's work whilst paying only modest credit...


So now I am paying credit, but it's only modest just to ensure that point remains..:lol:



Partita said:


> ...it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that you are a fan of Beethoven. To give two specific examples of your many comments on the subject, where Beethoven is specifically mentioned:
> 
> 
> _Schubert seems always to be compared to Beethoven and it's comparing granmother's cake to cheap shop-bought cake._
> _The difference is Beethoven developed his music in interesting ways._


To be a musician and a listener of classical music and to not have heard any Beethoven would be a very curious situation. It doesn't mean I am a 'fan'. I never listen to his symphonies. I don't think I've even heard the 7th_._ I think I'm pretty much in the situation of any listener here apart from those with a major Beethoven interest. Yet again, _what does that matter? _If I was a fan or not it's about Schubert's limitations which I started on because of the ridiculous situation everywhere of people writing ludicrously flowery things about Schubert that fly in the face of reality.



Partita said:


> In addition to these comments, you have made several other comments rubbishing various aspects of Schubert's work, whilst paying only very limited almost grudging lip-service to some of it. * You have come over as if* you have some kind of passion to denigrate the man's work. With some of your comments you have, intentionally or otherwise, given the impression that you believe that people who do like Schubert, and don't share your jaundiced views, have defective listening skills.


The bolded bit is correct: as if... I have some passion to denigrate the work. I am not doing that, I am putting forward a view that can be verified by looking at Schubert's scores and which is acknowledged widely: that he repeated a lot, that he overused vamped chords and arpeggiated chords as filler, and often had unvaried harmony. I did so because of the persistent semi-religious fawning over these works and claims of his 'genius'.

You seem to be actually trawling the contents of the thread now. That's good, but don't be selective; I am the one who has been repeatedly told that my listening ability is defective because I don't perceive the divine genius.

I can't really comment on the toing-and-froing of the alleged Beethoven "fanboys" as you refer to them; it doesn't apply to me.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> You seem to be actually trawling the contents of the thread now. That's good, but don't be selective; I am the one who has been repeatedly told that my listening ability is defective because I don't perceive the divine genius.


I don't quite know where to start unpicking your latest comments. None of them makes much if any sense to me.

You basically seem to have a bee in your bonnet about people expressing their liking for Schubert - whether his melodic skills or whatever other aspect they choose to comment upon - in a manner which you deem to be unjustified, given your perception of what you consider to be various shortcomings in Schubert's musical skills.

For example, you have often resorted to dismissive language such as the _"... ridiculous situation everywhere of people writing ludicrously flowery things about Schubert that fly in the face of reality". __

_The kind of writing that you so describe is the way some people choose to describe their feelings towards the music of Schubert. Such writings are often no different from the kind of comments sometimes made by professional musicians if interviewed before a live performance. For instance, I have several audio recordings of interviews with the likes of Alfred Brendel and Mitsuko Uchida etc just before televised concerts involving Schubert's piano works. They express their considerable admiration for Schubert's work often in terms which no doubt you would find too flowery. If they can do it, why do you object so strongly to people here doing similar?

I really don't see why you feel the need so often to express your views in such an antagonistic tone. Hardly anyone appreciates it, and it certainly doesn't make me more inclined to listen to you. Obviously you have a right to express your view that Schubert is over-hyped by many of his fans. You have given your reasons for believing this, and many points have been answered, but still you keep coming back, time and time gain, flogging the same old line that other people have got it all wrong. What you keep on repeating is tedious to say the least, especially since you are very much in a minority view in this thread.

As for the counter-arguments that I and others have attempted to put forward, I have become dizzy trying to follow the various misunderstandings and contortions you have somehow or other contrived to generate out of all this. I'm not going to bother working out any more of it.

The simple facts are that most of us already know about the alleged weaknesses in Schubert's writings that you keep banging on about. I can't speak for other but in my case I don't believe many of them, and in others where there might be a semblance of validity they do not concern me anything like to the point of detracting from my high overall estimation of Schubert.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Partita said:


> I don't quite know where to start unpicking your latest comments. None of them makes much if any sense to me.
> 
> You basically seem to have a bee in your bonnet about people expressing their liking for Schubert - whether his melodic skills or whatever other aspect they choose to comment upon - in a manner which you deem to be unjustified, given your perception of what you consider to be various shortcomings in Schubert's musical skills.


There's nothing to 'unpick' and you don't have the tools to do any unpicking anyway. I'm not against people expressing appreciation for Schubert, I talked about technical limitations and expressed irritation with gross exaggerations. It is not my "perception" of shortcomings, they are actual limitations. Try to be accurate.



Partita said:


> For example, you have often resorted to dismissive language such as the _"... ridiculous situation everywhere of people writing ludicrously flowery things about Schubert that fly in the face of reality". __
> 
> _The kind of writing that you so describe is the way some people choose to describe their feelings towards the music of Schubert. Such writings are often no different from the kind of comments sometimes made by professional musicians if interviewed before a live performance. For instance, I have several audio recordings of interviews with the likes of Alfred Brendel and Mitsuko Uchida etc just before televised concerts involving Schubert's piano works. They express their considerable admiration for Schubert's work in often in terms which no doubt you would find too flowery. If they can do it, why do you object so strongly to people here doing similar.


What are you even talking about?! It was a remark about folk on here writing foolish things like: "It's the greatest piano sonata ever!" "Schubert had a sort of unique divine genius". That sort of twaddle. It deserves some kind of response. Perhaps not the one that pleases you, but, you know, tough luck.



Partita said:


> I really don't see why you feel the need so often to express your views in such an antagonistic tone. Hardly anyone appreciates it, and it certainly doesn't make me more inclined to listen to you.


Well considering you've already taken the trouble to answer several multi-quoted posts and trawl through the archive (selectively), I'd say the evidence of whether or not you are inclined to listen to me is pretty much the opposite of what you claim.



Partita said:


> Obviously you have a right to express your view that Schubert is over-hyped by many of his fans. You have given your reasons for believing this, and many points have been answered, but still you keep coming back, time and time gain, flogging the same old line that other people have got it all wrong. What you keep on repeating is tedious to say the least, especially since you are very much in a minority view in this thread.


Outrageous. The only line be flogged to death is 'Schubert the amazing genius' who has _a _unique _sorte de génie_ other composers lack and that this is evident in his extraordinary music. Once I started registering reservations and questioning this...well you can see where it's at. Being a minority view (though the technical details are by no means minority) doesn't bother me in the slightest. What is bothersome is people who bend facts to suit themselves, which is what you are doing.



Partita said:


> As for the counter-arguments that I and others have attempted to put forward, I have become dizzy trying to follow the various misunderstandings and contortions you have somehow or other contrived to generate out of all this. I'm not going to bother working out any more of it.


There were no counter-arguments. All I see is a total refusal to admit that Schubert has technical limitations or that these mar some of his music. Also to persist in that preposterous use of superlatives when describing music, the like of which can be found in many a contemporaneous composer of Schubert's period.



Partita said:


> The simple facts are that most of us already know about the *alleged* weaknesses in Schubert's writings that you keep banging on about. I can't speak for other but in my case I don't believe many of them, and in others where there might be a semblance of validity they do not concern me anything like to the point of detracting from my high overall estimation of Schubert.


So what you're really saying is that you didn't really know about them and didn't accept them anyway (because they are 'alleged'). In that case, this discussion is not for you. You are looking for: _Forum > Music and Repertoire > Composer Guestbooks > Franz Schubert._


----------



## Phil loves classical

Partita said:


> Yes, I realised that. In reply I was saying that extracts from other composers' works have often been used as promotional or background material in adverts and such like, so it's no big deal that Schubert's "Trout" quintet has been used in this way. It seems hardly worth attempting a mockery, mild or otherwise.
> 
> Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?
> 
> Back to the main point, you've been commenting adversely on Schubert's "Trout" quintet, and extolling Beethoven's alleged superior compositional ability in chamber music. And yet Beethoven didn't write a piano quintet using the same instrumentation as Schubert. Therefore, even if Beethoven had done so, you can't be sure that it would have been any better or anything like as good as Schubert's. In fact, using a different line up of instruments (piano and winds), Beethoven's Op 16 piano quintet is not amongst his better works, and is arguably inferior to Mozart's K 452.
> 
> That's not my understanding of the situation. I don't know where you got your information from but some authorities reckon that Beethoven remained largely true to classical principles through his entire life, except near the end where he went off on a tangent all of his own. Charles Rosen, for example, has decisively made his case for Beethoven as a Classicist. Others reckon that his venture into Romantic territory was very limited. The Pastoral Symphony, written in 1808, is one of his few pieces to have explicitly programmatic content.
> 
> Whether Schubert was largely a Classicist or Romanticist is harder to say. It partly depends on one's definition of the latter. I would hesitate to make emotion the sole or dominant criterion, since there is emotion (like tragedy, comedy,) in some Classical composers, most clearly so in the case of Mozart and Beethoven.
> 
> Schubert's emphasis on Lieder and song cycles is more of a Romantic than a Classicist trait. His earlier absolute music is Classicist. However, the expansiveness of some of his late absolute works sounds new and original. The use of a cyclical theme in the Wanderer Fantasie was probably a new technique, that gave inspiration for later composers like Liszt. I would say that it was Schubert's expermentation with looser forms, and his engagement with the poetic world, far more so than Beethoven, that makes him more persuasively an early Romantic.
> 
> My comment is not ridiculous at all. I have often heard comments of this nature made by professional musicians concerning the brilliance of some of Schubert's modulation changes.
> 
> I didn't say it was especially Schubertian. You denied there is any "development" in the "Trout", and I referred to it being in the form of varying the accompaniment by use different instruments, giving rise to different watery textures.
> 
> Like I said before, I'm more concerned with the overall results, in terms of whether or not I like the work. I don't judge it based on the number of any particular facets of music are incorporated per minute.
> 
> Nor do I believe that Schubert padded out his music with repeats, as you allege, simply because he had run out of ideas. A better view is that he did it because he thought it was the most effective way to create the result he was looking for.
> 
> I've not mentioned Mozart in this context, so don't make that up. *I would accept that Schubert possibly did run out of ideas in some of his works. That's presumably why so many remained unfinished.* It was either that or he had more pressing engagements to fulfil in his very short lifetime.
> 
> Further, many works were written with no specific commission in mind, so it's hardly surprising that some were unfinished, as there was no commercial incentive to do so. Remember too that he suffered from periodic bouts of quite severe illness, which could have caused some undesired eeraly finishes.
> 
> The fact remains that out of his enormous output he finished enough works of high or very quality to justify the great esteem he is held in many quarters.
> 
> Oh really? You have a weird way of expressing it. You have said things like:
> 
> 
> _Oh yes, Schubert: songwriter and pub pianist posing as a symphonist._
> _There were boys at school who wrote better fugal material than this as exercises. All those probably went into the bins long ago, yet this sorry excuse for fugal material is trundled out as something special._
> _Schubert's fans are loathe to admit these huge failings. Hence Nellie the Elephant's posts up there._
> _He is a minor Viennese composer who somehow got elevated because a load of people seemed to feel his early death unjustly cut him short before he gained any fame. Well bad luck, that's the fate of many composers._
> 
> In fact, neither Beethoven nor Schubert features prominently in my listening these days. Long ago I moved on to take an interest in many other composers, but I have a lingering liking for both Beethoven and Schubert.
> 
> Of course I'm a fan of Schubert. So what? It would hardly be likely that anyone would bother to defend a composer under attack for being allegedly mediocre if they didn't happen to like that composer.


Let's not forget Beethoven himself said of Schubert's songs: "Truly in Schubert there is the divine spark." I would disagree that Schubert ran out of ideas. My favourite work of Schubert's is his Unfinished symphony. It is speculated he thought he didn't think he could match the perfection of those 2 movements. I'm glad he didn't tack on some flimsy scherzo and finale. Schubert had a great gift of melody, to me it works enough in some works, he didn't need much development. While some like his last sonata it seemed he was really forcing it, and jamming it down our throats, a result of overconfidence or indulgence, I think. In his Trout, it seemed to me he fell in love with his own charm, or really believed he was Mozart reincarnated, and a bit negligent in the getting down to the task, which Mozart never was.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> There's nothing to 'unpick' and you don't have the tools to do any unpicking anyway. I'm not against people expressing appreciation for Schubert, I talked about technical limitations and expressed irritation with gross exaggerations. It is not my "perception" of shortcomings, they are actual limitations. Try to be accurate.


I was referring to your latest set of contorted responses to my comments. They're too confusing to be understood, and I can't be bothered to work them out,



eugeneonagain said:


> What are you even talking about?! It was a remark about folk on here writing foolish things like: "It's the greatest piano sonata ever!" "Schubert had a sort of unique divine genius". That sort of twaddle. It deserves some kind of response. Perhaps not the one that pleases you, but, you know, tough luck.


If that's what some folk here think, why challenge it in such anguished terms? It's like someone saying for example they wouldn't take Beethoven's music to a desert island because they dislike some aspect of it, e.g. its constant dynamic thrust which they find tedious, and someone saying in response that the person is ill-in informed and grossly exaggerates the issue(s), and that they should like Beethoven. It should be obvious that you seldom achieve anything with this kind of response.



eugeneonagain said:


> Well considering you've already taken the trouble to answer several multi-quoted posts and trawl through the archive (selectively), I'd say the evidence of whether or not you are inclined to listen to me is pretty much the opposite of what you claim.


I was hoping to find out more about your reasons for disliking Schubert, and all I've found out by going back further in the thread is much the same material trotted out time and time again. You obviously have some kind of mission in mind. I'm afraid to say that most of your comments cut no ice with me.

I do accept that some are partly valid (e.g. he left many unfinished works, and some works are not all that well polished etc) but I don't care about any of these. That's because there is a sufficient amount of material that I do like. Also I can understand why there are these omissions and gaps etc, given Schubert's circumstances.

The allegations of his excessive "vamping" you make are your way of saying that you do not like the repeats. I do like them, as do many others, so it would seem. Many themes are worth repeating, as they add value. There is nothing "proto-minimalist" about this. All that much simpler style came much later with Satie.

In regard to many of your concerns I can see also that you have a a largely non-listening audience, and it appears to making you more and more desperate in your attempts to ramp up the general tone of your comments.



eugeneonagain said:


> Outrageous. The only line be flogged to death is 'Schubert the amazing genius' who has _a _unique _sorte de génie_ other composers lack and that this is evident in his extraordinary music. Once I started registering reservations and questioning this...well you can see where it's at. Being a minority view (though the technical details are by no means minority) doesn't bother me in the slightest. What is bothersome is people who bend facts to suit themselves, which is what you are doing.


There's nothing outrageous about my observations concerning the complimentary comments often made about Schubert by top performing artists. They tell are far more convincing story about Schubert's abilities than your utterings.



eugeneonagain said:


> There were no counter-arguments. All I see is a total refusal to admit that Schubert has technical limitations or that these mar some of his music. Also to persist in that preposterous use of superlatives when describing music, the like of which can be found in many a contemporaneous composer of Schubert's period.


 The counter-arguments I'm referring to are just as detailed as your allegations, and all you can expect to get in the circumstances of an internet forum. This is not a music acdemy, university lecture theatre or music seminar room.



eugeneonagain said:


> So what you're really saying is that you didn't really know about them and didn't accept them anyway (because they are 'alleged'). In that case, this discussion is not for you. You are looking for: _Forum > Music and Repertoire > Composer Guestbooks > Franz Schubert._


I'm not saying anything of the sort. I request and obtain all the advice on music I may need from proper sources, not from anonymous people on internet forums with no form except in lashing out at anyone who dares to disagree with them. All the advice I have ever gleaned about Schubert is that, contrary to your wild assertions, he was a competent composer at the technical level, made some interesting innovations, and out it his limited life span and circumstances managed to put together various pieces of music that I and many others find strongly appealing, in some cases more so than anything on offer by other composers.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Overhype for Schubert is especially abnormal here at TC.


Love and praise for Schubert are actually quite common far beyond the borders of the forum. "Overhype," when it continues for centuries, might not be quite the right word. Of course, anything can be overpraised. But who thinks it's worthwhile to measure degrees of praise? (I guess you do.)



> They think Schubert's C major Quintet (with its proto-minimalist slow movement) is the greatest miracle ever in its genre. [


Well, it's generally considered _one_ of the finest works in its genre. And that slow movement (which is nothing like minimalism) is a transcendental inspiration.



> I highly doubt if his other proto-minimalist works that are highly regarded, Piano Sonata D960, Death and the Maiden Quartet would be regarded this high ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/18t_9MHZTENbmYdezAAj4LRM0-Eak_MYO1HssZW2FX1U/edit ) if they were not written by him.


Maybe...But we'll never know, will we? Isn't it a little insulting to accuse people of loving music because it has a famous name attached to it?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck, I don't fully understand your position now. It appears to have altered somewhat from the earlier pages of this thread when you said pigs would fly before Schubert joined the ranks of the great composers? Now the slow movement of his quintet is 'transcendental inspiration'??

Do my eyes deceive me?


----------



## KenOC

Schubert...fat little guy with funny glasses. Even Shostakovich had better glasses than those! No wonder nobody takes him seriously. :devil:


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Schubert...fat little guy with funny glasses. Even Shostakovich had better glasses than those! No wonder nobody takes him seriously. :devil:


Have you seen your avatar! 

Wait a minute...I have a monocle!


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Woodduck, I don't fully understand your position now. It appears to have altered somewhat from the earlier pages of this thread when you said pigs would fly before Schubert joined the ranks of the great composers? Now the slow movement of his quintet is 'transcendental inspiration'??
> 
> Do my eyes deceive me?


Eeeek! You sent me scrambling back over the thread to find where I said that. It turns out that what I said was _"Schubert will surpass Mozart, Beethoven and 'all other composers and the rest of mankind' when pigs fly."_ That was in response to a statement that "Perhaps in some ways, during that September of 1828 Schubert surpassed all, Beethoven, all other composers, the rest of mankind." I don't know how people manage to believe such things, but clearly I didn't think it a point worthy of extended refutation.

For the record, I'd allow Schubert a respectably high position among the great composers, mainly for a large number of superb songs and a fair number of fine chamber works and piano pieces produced within a short span of years. Unlike his most fervent devotees, I think it's presumptuous to rank his overall achievement with those of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, and it's certainly reasonable to point out that he had some technical limitations, but technique as such is an insufficient guage of genius or of artistic value. My several posts in this thread should make my esteem for Schubert, and its limits, clear.


----------



## DaveM

Phil loves classical said:


> ..While some like his last sonata it seemed he was really forcing it, and jamming it down our throats, a result of overconfidence or indulgence, I think....


D960, really? How can one determine that a composer is 'forcing' a work and 'jamming it down our throats'? Btw, I think far more than just 'some' like it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Eeeek! You sent me scrambling back over the thread to find where I said that. It turns out that what I said was _"Schubert will surpass Mozart, Beethoven and 'all other composers and the rest of mankind' when pigs fly."_ That was in response to a statement that "Perhaps in some ways, during that September of 1828 Schubert surpassed all, Beethoven, all other composers, the rest of mankind." I don't know how people manage to believe such things, but clearly I didn't think it a point worthy of extended refutation.
> 
> For the record, I'd allow Schubert a respectably high position among the great composers, mainly for a large number of superb songs and a fair number of fine chamber works and piano pieces produced within a short span of years. Unlike his most fervent devotees, I think it's presumptuous to rank his overall achievement with those of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven, and it's certainly reasonable to point out that he had some technical limitations, but technique as such is an insufficient gauge of genius or of artistic value. My several posts in this thread should make my esteem for Schubert, and its limits, clear.


Okay. This seems very reasonable to me. I fully accept that views of Schubert will vary greatly depending upon how much a person appreciates vocal music; which will tip the scale somewhat for such a listener.

It also seems to have restored the thread to the position it was in before someone restarted it with more crazed adulation.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DaveM said:


> D960, really? How can one determine that a composer is 'forcing' a work and 'jamming it down our throats'? Btw, I think far more than just 'some' like it.


I should have put a comma after some, as in some works. That is my subjective opinion. I heard the D960 described as having "heavenly length" somewhere. It seems there is a whole spectrum of admiration represented here in this thread.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Phil loves classical said:


> I should have put a comma after some, as in some works. That is my subjective opinion. I heard the D960 described as having "heavenly length" somewhere. It seems there is a whole spectrum of admiration represented here in this thread.


I think it's generally a fair criticism. Not that he specifically aimed to push it down anyone's throat (after all much of his music wasnt even played until decades after his death) but that it's very insistent-sounding. I don't think Schubert wrote in a very pianistic manner at all, it's like he's defying piano writing. I don't get this at all when I hear (or play) someone like Grieg who fully knew how to translate the music in his head to the fingers on the piano.

D960 (opening movement) does have shades of what was later to come with Chopin in terms of melancholy, fragile melody, but after building this about three minutes in he goes all weird and plinky-plonky as though it's one of Schumann's children's pieces or a joke bit from a Mozart work and this is where it starts to unravel. We get slightly tedious little motifs against simple rhythmic chords; the two moving between hands and all those insistent repeated notes.... I just wonder what all that adds?

It's a fairly long work for a sonata of the period, so there's a lot in it, though I wouldn't say it all hangs together. I rather see material for several shorter works.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I should have put a comma after some, as in some works. That is my subjective opinion. I heard the D960 described as having "heavenly length" somewhere. It seems there is a whole spectrum of admiration represented here in this thread.


I believe it was Schumann who described Schubert's 9th symphony as having "heavenly length". And Stravinsky said something to the effect that he falls asleep when listening to Schubert, but he's in paradise when he wakes up because it's over.


----------



## Luchesi

Schubert composed heavenly music for his time. What does it mean that he lived under the shadow of Beethoven?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Maybe...But we'll never know, will we? Isn't it a little insulting to accuse people of loving music because it has a famous name attached to it?


but some people pretending like Schubert's String Quintet, String Quartet, Piano Sonata are greater than all the other masterpieces of their respective genres combined (as in the "TC's list of greatest works" and the poll on the "greatest string quintet")-
that seems a little 'abnormal', doesn't it?



Woodduck said:


> it's presumptuous to rank his overall achievement with those of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven,


I would add Handel, Haydn, Hummel, CPE Bach, JC Bach to the list.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> but some people pretending like Schubert's String Quintet, String Quartet, Piano Sonata are greater than all the other masterpieces of their respective genres combined (as in the "TC's list of greatest works" and the poll on the "greatest string quintet")-
> that seems a little 'abnormal', doesn't it?
> 
> I would add Handel, Haydn, Hummel, CPE Bach, JC Bach to the list.


You have no time for Schubert's simplistically spiritual music? What do you listen for in music? Clever counterpoint?

It always depends upon what I'm in the mood for when I sit down to play the piano. They all offer their personal worldviews.


----------



## EdwardBast

If one wishes to see how Schubert was progressing in the contrapuntal arts in the last years of his life, the finale of Sonata 21 in C minor, D. 958 is a good bet. Start at 24:15 in this videos to hear some brilliant, imaginative counterpoint:






There is some really good counterpoint in the first movement as well. His developmental processes were getting interesting. From 3:00 to the recapitulation is ingenious.


----------



## Littlephrase

hammeredklavier said:


> but some people pretending like Schubert's String Quintet, String Quartet, Piano Sonata are greater than all the other masterpieces of their respective genres combined (as in the "TC's list of greatest works" and the poll on the "greatest string quintet")-
> that seems a little 'abnormal', doesn't it?


Ah yes, Hammeredklavier, everyone who enjoys music you don't must be delusional or lying. Surely any adoration for Schubert is out of mere pretense and affectation.

Seriously, why are you still carping on the same polls? Is Schubert's popularity really this shocking to you? Polls are inherently populist. Schubert is incredibly popular. 2 + 2 = 4.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> but some people* pretending *like Schubert's String Quintet, String Quartet, Piano Sonata are greater than all the other masterpieces of their respective genres combined (as in the "TC's list of greatest works" and the poll on the "greatest string quintet")-
> that seems a little 'abnormal', doesn't it?


No one is "pretending." That is insulting. People simply love Schubert, and although they may mistake their enthusiasm for an objective appraisal, your failure to enjoy his music at that level has no more validity as an objective evaluation of his ultimate worth than does their excessive adoration.

It's legitimate to point out that Schubert is not a musical technician on the level of Bach or Mozart, but that is no proof that his music is less meaningful. He has his own things to say musically, they are things other composers don't say, and they are things deeply affecting to a lot of people. Persnickety putdowns of presumed technical deficiencies get us next to nowhere in appreciating a composer's art. There can be extraordinary profundity in simplicity. Artists know how difficult it is to be simple, to say much with little: the art that conceals art. This is something "technocrats" are likely not to understand. But it's just possible that a song of Schubert might touch the heart as no Handelian fugue ever could.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> If one wishes to see how Schubert was progressing in the contrapuntal arts in the last years of his life, the finale of Sonata 21 in C minor, D. 958 is a good bet. Start at 24:15 in this videos to hear some brilliant, imaginative counterpoint:
> 
> There is some really good counterpoint in the first movement as well. His developmental processes were getting interesting. From 3:00 to the recapitulation is ingenious.


Really? "brilliant, imaginative and ingenious"? Now...while I have to say I enjoyed that passage from 24:15, it's really just a simple, repeated leaping motif in the right hand, not a melody, with repeated harmonic intervals underneath, which is then switched around. Classic Schubert (or classic Beethoven?). When the right hand becomes more melodically florid is where it shines, though it is brief. What we are getting are a lot of repeated, standard 6/8 figurations under a staggered motif. It does sound good though.

I'm not totally rubbishing the sonata (which the uploader wrongly marked as no.21, it's actually no.19!), but I'd like a bit of perspective; those three adjectives I cited above are rather exaggerated don't you think?


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> Really? "brilliant, imaginative and ingenious"? Now...while I have to say I enjoyed that passage from 24:15, it's really just a simple, repeated leaping motif in the right hand, not a melody, with repeated harmonic intervals underneath, which is then switched around. Classic Schubert (or classic Beethoven?). When the right hand becomes more melodically florid is where it shines, though it is brief. What we are getting are a lot of repeated, standard 6/8 figurations under a staggered motif. It does sound good though.
> 
> I'm not totally rubbishing the sonata (which the uploader wrongly marked as no.21, it's actually no.19!), but I'd like a bit of perspective; *those three adjectives I cited above are rather exaggerated don't you think?*


Yeah, maybe. You exaggerate in one direction, I'll exaggerate in the other, and maybe it'll average out about right?


----------



## eugeneonagain

I like it. It sounds like a plan for the mutually-assisted destruction of this omnidirectional hyperbole.


----------



## jaigurudevaom

I don't think Beethoven was a good melodist. He mostly get his power with opposite feelings. For me most beautiful melodies come from simple feelings.


----------



## Larkenfield

eugeneonagain said:


> Really? "brilliant, imaginative and ingenious"? Now...while I have to say I enjoyed that passage from 24:15, it's really just a simple, repeated leaping motif in the right hand, not a melody, with repeated harmonic intervals underneath, which is then switched around. Classic Schubert (or classic Beethoven?). When the right hand becomes more melodically florid is where it shines, though it is brief. What we are getting are a lot of repeated, standard 6/8 figurations under a staggered motif. It does sound good though.
> 
> I'm not totally rubbishing the sonata (which the uploader wrongly marked as no.21, it's actually no.19!), but I'd like a bit of perspective; those three adjectives I cited above are rather exaggerated don't you think?


It doesn't work isolating a certain passage from the work as a whole. It destroys the feeling of the whole work, or it certainly disregards it. That's what some of us here have repeatedly pointed out. If someone can't hear the spirit of the work whole then it's not the composer's fault, it's yours, because others have heard it whole. Those repeats help sustain the mood of the work as a whole, at least at this stage in Schubert's development, and listeners who like him are not bothered by it if the repeats are varied with a variety of touch, subtle inflections and shadings, and the pianist knows how to make something out of them, because many of these Schubert works have been played for almost 200 years. During the last year of his life he incorporated more counterpoint into his work, which anyone can hear in a work such as his outstanding and often recorded Fantasy in F Minor, or other such works, played by some of the greatest pianists in the world, such as Richter, Pires, Horowitz, and Alfred Brendel. Unless you and the other denigrators can explain why these great pianists have played Schubert anyway, despite the shortcomings that you hear, you're only speaking for yourself and not universally that he's a poor composer.

For those who haven't heard the Schubert Fantasy:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Partita said:


> On the whole, I rate Schubert's chamber music almost equivalently to Beethoven's, with a slight preference for Schubert. I generally prefer Schubert's piano sonatas. I also like Schubert's Symphony Nos 8 and 9 at least as highly as any of Beethoven's. Schubert's sacred choral work (e.g. Mass 6) is superior to Beethoven's. Schubert's lieder work leaves Beethoven way behind in the dust.


I haven't heard a mass more unimaginatively repetitive than Schubert's Mass No.6 in E flat from any of his Viennese school predecessors. Look how many times within the gloria movement, Schubert repeats this particular passage starting at 6:12 and then 9:02 and 13:57. 
No interesting rhythmic/melodic/harmonic/contrapuntal variation. No demonstration of skillful orchestration. And just way too long-winded for the material. Again, it's not necessarily his lack of counterpoint that I'm criticizing. Schubert is pedantic even in homophony.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> It doesn't work isolating a certain passage from the work as a whole. It destroys the feeling of the whole work, or it certainly disregards it. That's what some of us here have repeatedly pointed out. If someone can't hear the spirit of the work whole, then it's not the composer's fault, it's yours, because others have heard it whole. Those repeats help sustain the mood of the work as a whole, at least at this stage in Schubert's development, and listeners who like him are not bothered by it if the repeats are varied with a variety of touch, subtle inflections and shadings, and the pianist knows how to make something out of them, because many of these Schubert works have been played for almost 200 years. During the last year of his life he incorporated more counterpoint into his work, which anyone can hear in a work such as his outstanding and often recorded Fantasy in F Minor, or other such works, played by some of the greatest pianists in the world, such as Richer, Pires, Horowitz, and Alfred Brendel. Unless you and the other denigrators can explain why these great pianists have played Schubert anyway, despite the shortcomings that you hear, you're only speaking for yourself and not universally that he's a poor composer.
> 
> For those who haven't heard the Schubert Fantasy:


I didn't isolate it, it was put here by Edward Bast and I replied to it. I know this sonata as well as you probably know it (which is why I knew the number wasn't right). 
There's no real counterpoint worth talking about in that sonata, but it's a good sonata nevertheless. I didn't denigrate it and that's obviously there in black and white above. Maybe you should go back and actually read it.

The rest of your post is the usual praise to high heaven and astonishment that others don't share it...and as such is simply boring. I'm discussing the music not a religious experience.


----------



## Larkenfield

eugeneonagain said:


> I didn't isolate it, it was put here by Edward Bast and I replied to it. I know this sonata as well as you probably know it (which is why I knew the number wasn't right).
> There's no real counterpoint worth talking about in that sonata, but it's a good sonata nevertheless. I didn't denigrate it and that's obviously there in black and white above. Maybe you should go back and actually read it.
> 
> The rest of your post is the usual praise to high heaven and astonishment that others don't share it...and as such is simply boring. I'm discussing the music not a religious experience.


 When his counterpoint is repeatedly discounted or dismissed, it's worth talking about. His Fantasy ends with Bach counterpoint which some of the denegrators haven't bothered to notice or mention after two full minutes of fugal counterpoint that roars and thunders... Who knows this work more? Someone who fully appreciates it, or someone who condemns it with faint praise?... who never has wholeheartedly exalted in anything by this inspired composer, played by countless great pianists?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> who never has wholeheartedly exalted in anything by this inspired composer, played by countless great pianists?


When you keep writing this ^ sort of stuff my eyes glaze over with boredom. There is no "Bach counterpoint". I'm beginning to think you don't even know what counterpoint or a fugue is.

I get it, you worship Schubert and he makes you go all tingly.


----------



## Larkenfield

Around the 15 minute mark, the Schubert Fantasy starts to roar and thunder with counterpoint, rarely if ever acknowledged or appreciated by his detractors... and it couldn’t be more obvious. A delightful and joyous work.


----------



## Luchesi

eugeneonagain said:


> When you keep writing this ^ sort of stuff my eyes glaze over with boredom. There is no "Bach counterpoint". I'm beginning to think you don't even know what counterpoint or a fugue is.
> 
> I get it, you worship Schubert and he makes you go all tingly.


I'm curious. Boccherini, Salieri, Hummel, Paganini, Stamitz, Albrechtsberger. For your listening, are any of these better composers than Schubert?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Luchesi said:


> I'm curious. Boccherini, Salieri, Hummel, Paganini, Stamitz, Albrechtsberger. For your listening, are any of these better composers than Schubert?


All of them. Especially that Jew's Harp work by Albrechtsberger.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> many of these Schubert works have been played for almost 200 years.


I'm reminded of this sentence from Wright's article
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf#page=5
_"the symphonies were not popular. No one wanted to publish them and, in fact, they were not published until fifty years after Schubert's death."
_


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm reminded of this sentence from Wright's article
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf#page=5
> _"the symphonies were not popular. No one wanted to publish them and, in fact, they were not published until fifty years after Schubert's death."
> _


Wright is a tendentious fool. Why do you insist on digging up his tabloid music-porn?

Schubert's symphonies contain plenty of fine music. Who cares that he didn't get them published? And how do you guage the "popularity" of unpublished works? My choral works and poetry aren't "popular" either.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I just want to make it clear that 'David Wright' is not a pseudonym of mine.


----------



## Guest

Over the past 13 years, I have collected a number of audio recordings taken from the BBC's Radio 3 station of various professional musicians' assessments of several composers' main works.

In 2012, the BBC devoted an entire week's (24/7) schedule of Radio 3 programming to Schubert's work exclusively. They have only ever done this kind of thing for a very limited number of major composers (Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Mozart) and not all of these ran for a whole week, as did the one for Schubert. 

The name of the 2012 schedule was _"Spirit of Schubert"._ During the week, interspersed with the music, there were many professional assessments of various aspects of Schubert's work, from his lieder, piano work, chamber, stage work, orchestral, sacred work etc. 

I taped several of these "talks" and have been running over them again over the past few days. They were either in the form of interviews, discussions involving several people, or simply a short talk by an expert immediately before a particular work was played. It was all well done, in good BBC fashion, even though I guess some listeners might have thought it went on for rather too long by the end of the week.

The people involved comprised a wide mix: reputable musicians, modern composers, music academics, Radio 3 presenters - each focusing on different aspects of Schubert's life and musical output. All aspects were covered: the good the bad and the occasional ugly. Certainly, it was by no means a one-sided, glossy account, as the seamier side of Schubert's life was also covered. 

From all this, the over-riding impression that I gleaned from these discussions was that Schubert is a very highly regarded composer in professional circles. His high popularity amongst the wider classical music public goes without saying, as otherwise the BBC would not have put on such an extensive treatment of his work.

That's not to say that the programme presented him as a technical wizard in all aspects of music, or that he never produced any poor or mediocre work. The general view, however, was that he was more than adequate in most aspects of music construction, and excelled in certain areas. It's a matter of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, insofar that Schubert excelled in areas that matter most to many people, in particular his ability to create many great tunes sometimes in a very melancholic manner, and to string it all together in a manner that many people like (whether by repeat or otherwise), so that it looks seamless.

Any technical weaknesses in his musical armoury were not made much of, as far as I can recall, which convinces me that a great deal of the recent discussion in this thread on this topic of his alleged failings is completely wrong, if not downright mischievous by a tiny minority.

To illustrate the kind of comments I'm talking about, the following is what Alfred Brendel said in his short piece by way of introduction to a performance of Piano Sonata No 21, D 960 (I have copied it out word for word, as he spoke it). Take special note of the language used in the second paragraph, which bears out what I was saying earlier in the thread that its not uncommon to hear highly regarded musicians using methods of expression that some (or rather one) find over-the-top._

__Schubert's sonata in B flat major bears as the title D 960. Even considering that the majority of important composers, whether Bach, Handel, Haydn or Mozart, had been extremely industrious, Schubert's output is incomparable. And not only for the figure of nearly1000 works, but for what he achieved in terms of growth and quality within a lifetime of only 31 years. _​
_Of Schubert's last piano sonatas the one in B flat has in out time cast the strongest spell, and could call it the most beautiful and moving, the most resigned and harmoniously balanced. _

_The first two movements sound valedictory - a gentle serene, hymn like facet can be identified, which we also find in the slow movement of the string quintet … _

_The marvellous second movement in C sharp minor must be the favourite slow movement of many. Of all great composers Schubert seems to me the most immediately moving. There is a clear sighted melancholy in this andante sostenuto that is all the more poignant because it is completely devoid of pathos. _

_In the scherzo and finale we get into a happier world. There were people who found in the last movement fatigue and resignation. I thoroughly disagree. What I hear is graceful resolution, playful vigour, ironic twinkle and stubborn tenacity.

_​_(source: Alfred Brendel, talk "Spirit of Schubert", 2012, BBC Radio 3)
_​


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Schubert...fat little guy with funny glasses. Even Shostakovich had better glasses than those! No wonder nobody takes him seriously. :devil:


One story I read was that Schubert was so attached to his glasses that he went to bed with them on.

In the room where I listen to most of my music, I have five marble-like busts of composers: Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Handel, Schubert. It took me several years to acquire them all because I was fussy about quality and didn't want any cheap-looking things. The most difficult one to find, and the most recent, is Schubert. I picked it up in Vienna a few years ago.

Each of these composers is lined up on a shelf above the floor-standing speakers, separated by a few CDs of their respective works. I can honestly say that these items, and my hi-fi system, are my most treasured possessions.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Wright is a tendentious fool. Why do you insist on digging up his tabloid music-porn?
> 
> Schubert's symphonies contain plenty of fine music. Who cares that he didn't get them published? And how do you guage the "popularity" of unpublished works? My choral works and poetry aren't "popular" either.


Quite right. Wright is a joke. Nobody takes him seriously.

As for Schubert's symphonies, I love them all, or rather all of the recognised ones Nos 1-9. Nos 3,5, 8 and 9 are my favourites, and I consider these to be as good as anyone else's, save for possibly Beethoven's. [I'm not a great lover of Mahler, Bruckner or Shostakovich. I'd place Sibelius, Schumann and Brahms higher than these, but that's another matter)

As people ought to know, but evidently some people possibly don't know, several of Schubert's symphonies were not discovered until many years after the composer's death, so it's not surprising that some were delayed in publication. Others were often written without any commission, so there would be a delay expected here too. Further, at the time Schubert and Beethoven were turning out symphonies the "market" was somewhat drifting away from that kind of music, more towards stage works largely influenced by the fashionable Rossini.

In the case of Symphony No 9, I have long regarded this as among my overall favourite classical works of any description. It was conceived by Schubert on a very large scale, I believe out-doing even Beethoven's Ninth in terms of resources required.

Schubert's No 9 contains some very lovely sections throughout, and I never find it too long, as is sometimes suggested by some people. It's roughly as long as Beethoven's Ninth, but is entirely orchestral. I especially like the horn introduction, the delicate involvement of oboes and clarinets, and the frequent use of trombones. The modulations in the various movements are all wonderfully done. There's even a touching tribute to Beethoven in the final movement in the form of a mini "ode to joy".

It's one of the most uplifting works I know, and to say that Schubert put the final touches to this monumental work in his miserable, damp flat on the outskirts of Vienna whilst very ill during his last days, is a wonder.

The main reason why Schubert's Symphony No 9 didn't become immediately popular after Schumann discovered it some 20 years after Schubert's death was because orchestras found it too demanding to play, given the much lighter symphonies they were used to. Also, its length was offputting. It was this work, not D960 piano sonata No 21, that Schumann described as being of heavenly length". The sustained heavy demands placed on all sections, especially the strings, was too much for many orchestras to handle at the time. But all that has changed. It has now become a standard major work, in my opinion the equal of anything Beethoven or anyone else wrote in symphonic form.


----------



## eugeneonagain

A curse on Schumann for that. One dull composer recognises another.


----------



## Enthusiast

Wow! What a thread. I love Schubert and my love has not been diminished through being shown aspects of his method that apparently mean his music is cheap trash. I suggest that those who feel these critiques are important may be missing some of the most delightful, magical and profound music there has ever been through their adherence to apparently academic views of how music should be. To me, if Schubert breaks these rules then he it is all the more miraculous that he achieves such results. 

But how to discuss this without resorting to an endless "yes he is", "no he's not" tennis match? Even more than arguments about newer music this disagreement seems unstoppable and impossible to resolve. In this one we are still seeing the detractors suggesting that the fans are merely responding to reputation and saying what they are supposed to say. That sort of argument has been mostly dropped by the detractors of modernism but it lives on here. Why is it so difficult for those who feel Schubert is rubbish to accept that others love his music and that no-one is going to change their minds no matter how many time we repeat (apparently like Schubert) the same arguments again and again without development? 

I have tried a thought experiment whereby I tried to internalise the ideas of the detractors as a sort of role play. I listened to some fairly early and unsophisticated Schubert (the 4th symphony) and tried to focus only on the alleged flaws and tried to feel that they matter. I did get as far as hearing what the detractors were talking about but I couldn't see why they feel that Schubert's methods can't and don't lead to wonderful music. Perhaps the detractors can try listening without focusing on the apparent flaws that spoil Schubert for them and without searching for the kind of development that they have been feeling is somehow essential to all great music. Instead they can try to find the wonderful music that many of us claim is there. It will help to choose a piece they don't know very well. I'll bet that after two or three hearings they are happily whistling along to it. Eventually they will be able to move on to the more profound and earth shattering music.


----------



## Guest

I believe that Robert Schumann deserves big thanks for the efforts he made to seek out and promote the works of Schubert. Schumann was a very able writer who promoted the careers of various other composers, Brahms in particular. He even had kind words to make of Liszt, even though Clara disliked him intensely.

I also think that Schumann is a brilliant composer, and the best of his generation, although Mendelssohn was almost as good. It's very sad that both of these, and Chopin too, all succumbed to early deaths.

Robert Schumann became very impressed with Schubert's works the more he gathered and as they became available. But by the time of Schumann's demise, the full extent of Shubert's was still unfolding To give Beethoven his due in this context, it was Beethoven who both Robert and Clara Schumann, and Brahms, admired the most. If you read Robert and Clara's diaries they used to pour over Beethoven's sonatas and chamber works in amazement as his brilliance and ingenuity.

Returning to Schubert, even as late as the 1850 quite a lot of Schubert's work had still not been published. Brahms spent a lot of time sifting through much of this work as it became available, so he too is owed a lot of credit. By the 1870's Schubert's reputation was more firmly established. Bruckner and Dvorak were much influenced by Schubert, and Dvorak had a very high regard for him. Stravinsky too was big admirer of Schubert. 

Generally, it would seem that as the 20th C progressed Schubert's reputation increased further. Several well known pianists took an interest in his piano work and this helped move things along yet more. This was because their interest helped to rid the previous notion that Schubert's piano sonatas were somehow inferior to Beethoven's, and that instead they were different in style but still reflecting great skill. Some people prefer the style of Schubert to Beethoven. I find them both very good.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> and my love has not been diminished through being shown aspects of his method that *apparently* mean his music is cheap trash


Key word rendered bold and underlined, which marks the sentence as an assertion: false.

I don't think Schubert is cheap trash and didn't say so except for some off-the-cuff remarks when tired of responding to people. I think it is not what his ardent fans make it out to be. First your "more profound and earth shattering music". Also: uniquely inspired; genius; beyond what other composers have done; magic; greatest ever... check through the thread for all these and more bizarre showers of worship and superlatives.

Try and find any other composer under the 'big three' and within the most popular classical period, receiving this sort of deranged canonisation. Most notably when the works contain glaring technical flaws. We overlook these things generally because if the music achieves its goal of pleasing the listener, it has succeeded on an important level.

Nevertheless, there are other things to consider in a _total_ appreciation, which aren't likely to affect the end result for the listener pleased by what they hear and experience, but ought to play a role in an overall judgement beyond the mere Epicurean delights.

Let me change tack and use as an example a composer I very much _do_ like: Erik Satie. *His major strength*: original ideas and disregard for rules over such content; uninterested in proving himself according to the accepted musical ideas of the day; harmonic innovator. *His weaknesses* - early on before 1906: a lack of technical skill; tendency to repetition of ideas, often as a result of those technical limitations; lamentable-to-no orchestration skills. Later on after the Schola Cantorum the technical flaws were largely remedied and turned out to be easily acquired (and where Albert Roussel teaching there called him a 'natural musician'). Orchestration remained a weakness, but only if judged by the large-scale ideas of the day (plus it was a bit late in the day to acquire a lifetime's worth of new experience at it). Whether the structure of his music was a deliberate decision based on ideas, or a 'decision' more forced by circumstance is difficult to ascertain.

So what we have here is someone who had technical flaws which obviously affected his music, but not enough to extinguish what is good about it - probably making it even more appealing. I apply this same appreciation to Schubert - incidentally Monsieur Satie always referred to *Schubert as 'a musical poet*' - whose works may delight, but suffer flaws, which may be pushed far into the background for those most pleased by what is fine and intoxicating about them. In both cases it may be justly thought of as a sort of forgiving approach; the sort we practise with our friends and lovers and those we admire most. An emotional bias of the better sort.

When we talk about Mozart - unless a person is trying to be deliberately iconoclastic - we have to recognise both an artistic achievement in the end product _and_ a dizzying technical ability enough to make anyone stop and admire, even if they don't quite find it to their taste. I wouldn't dream of placing Satie in that bracket, it would be foolish, and there are three dozen or more other composers I listen to regularly whom I wouldn't place there either and yet it doesn't diminish what they are in themselves.

There are a few composers about whom I am ambivalent and Schubert is one of them. Others are Brahms, Mahler, Schumann. I know they have strengths, but having no particular taste for their particular art, their flaws (which all artists have) appear more evident. Is that my _fault_? Yes, in some part it is, but it does at least allow me to see beyond the blind adulation which causes one to ignore and dismiss shortcomings (as we do with friends and lovers). That is my position. There is actually more to this game of music appreciation than just sensual wallowing, even if that plays a large part.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I haven't heard a mass more unimaginatively repetitive than Schubert's Mass No.6 in E flat from any of his Viennese school predecessors. Look how many times within the gloria movement, Schubert repeats this particular passage starting at 6:12 and then 9:02 and 13:57.
> No interesting rhythmic/melodic/harmonic/contrapuntal variation. No demonstration of skillful orchestration. And just way too long-winded for the material. Again, it's not necessarily his lack of counterpoint that I'm criticizing. Schubert is pedantic even in homophony.


If you think that Schubert's Mass 6 (D 950) is long-winded, and the only mass of its kind involving both repetition of certain sections of the Gloria and stretches of homophony, I can only suggest that you haven't looked very far.

I have just listened through the Gloria of Bach's Mass in B Minor, Mozart's Mass in C minor 'Great' K 427, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, in addition to Schubert's Mass 6. There are examples of repetition and homophony in each of these works, and the others are also long.

Among all of these masses the Gloria section in Schubert's Mass 6 is the shortest, so this work is likely to have the fewest repetitions. Also, in the other masses, where there is repetition it is similarly difficult to identify any clear differences between the repeated sections. There is a significant section in Schubert's Mass 6, the last 25% or so, which comprises a very good 4-part fugue.

Of all these masses, I would say that Schubert's offers the neatest and clearest exposition of the Gloria. Mozart's is also pretty good. In the case of Bach's Mass In B Minor, the Gloria is very long indeed and and could be shortened considerably with no great loss. As for Beethoven's effort, I'm afraid that I find the Gloria to be the least attractive, with rather too much confusing polyphony, such that it's often impossible to work out at what the singers are actually saying.


----------



## Bulldog

My personal view of Schubert's music:

Solo Piano - a few wonderful works.
Chamber - same.
Symphonies - The "unfinished" is the only one I enjoy.
Masses/Operas - nothing special.
Lieder - the best.

Overall, I tend to feel that Schubert's always trying to find his way home. When he does, his music has the greatest impact on me.


----------



## caters

If you think Schubert is a superior melodist over Beethoven because his melodies flow effortlessly, that would be like saying that Haydn is superior over Mozart for x reason, unfair and unjustifiable. No composer is flawless. No, not even Johann Sebastian Bach. Every composer has his/her strengths and weaknesses. Sure, it may be harder to spot the weaknesses in say Bach or Mozart than other composers but they are there.


----------



## Larkenfield

For those who have not heard the Schubert symphonies (which were edited by Johannes Brahms), you might enjoy the complete set by Herbert Blomstedt:






Schubert wrote his First at the age of 16 and completed what he did by the age of 29. Had he had a chance to hear them, he would have undoubtedly made some revisions. But it appears obvious that he did have ambitions for his symphonies to write so many while he was so young. But I do not imagine that he was trying to compete with Beethoven. I believe he was trying to do something else in a symphonic form, something more lyrically and vocally inspired, but of course without words. Had he lived longer he would have undoubtedly been more invested in his use of counterpoint which he got into more during the last year of his life, as shown in his Fantasy in F Minor. Blomstedt treats the symphonies with respect, as obviously did Brahms, or he wouldn't have spent his precious time editing them... He thought they were worth it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Partita said:


> If you think that Schubert's Mass 6 (D 950) is long-winded, and the only mass of its kind involving both repetition of certain sections of the Gloria and stretches of homophony, I can only suggest that you haven't looked very far.





Partita said:


> I have just listened through the Gloria of Bach's Mass in B Minor, Mozart's Mass in C minor 'Great' K 427, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, in addition to Schubert's Mass 6. There are examples of repetition and homophony in each of these works, and the others are also long.





Partita said:


> Of all these masses, I would say that Schubert's offers the neatest and clearest exposition of the Gloria.


None of them relies on Schubert's kind of homophony to build on their material-- endless monotonous vamping and padding of chords and arpeggios; just a sad excuse for 'homophony'. Bach and Mozart structure , vary, contrast their Gloria movements through a huge variety of material and techniques. Each developed through melodic, harmonic, contrapuntal variations.



Partita said:


> Among all of these masses the Gloria section in Schubert's Mass 6 is the shortest, so this work is likely to have the fewest repetitions.


The Gloria in Bach's B minor Mass consists of subsections: _Et in terra pax, Laudamus te, Gratias agimus tibi, Domine Deus, Domine Deus, Qui sedes, Quoniam tu solus sanctus, Cum sancto spiritu._
The Gloria in Mozart's C minor Mass consists of subsections: _Gloria in excelsis Deo, Laudamus te, Gratias agimus tibi, Domine Deus, Qui tollis, Quoniam tu solus, Cum sancto spiritu_ .

Not even Beethoven relies on Schubert's kind of monotonous vamping and padding to build on his material.



Partita said:


> Also, in the other masses, where there is repetition it is similarly difficult to identify any clear differences between the repeated sections. There is a significant section in Schubert's Mass 6, the last 25% or so, which comprises a very good 4-part fugue.


It's not even a good fugue. And no, the fugue isn't even 25% of the movement. Schubert's Gloria drags on with no variation or development for 14 minutes and the actual fugue section goes on for less than 2 minutes. The fugue is very elementary at best. There is no skillful demonstration of advanced contrapuntal techniques such as inversion, augmentation, stretto, etc to actually build and develop on the subjects. Bach, Mozart went beyond writing standard fugues to demonstrate contrapuntal mastery in double and triple fugues. For example, Mozart's Jesu Christe Cum Sanctu Spiritu is a double fugue. Whereas Schubert's is not even a good standard fugue.
There is a reason why most academics (not just David Wright) say "Schubert never wrote a good fugue".

_"He [Schubert] never wrote a good fugue and his counterpoint was indifferent."_
A Popular History of the Art of Music - From the Earliest Times Until the Present By William Smythe Babcock Mathews 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=GyE5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA388

For example (after the exposition of subjects, countersubjects, answers) this is the kind of stuff Schubert does at measure 317 for a developmental episode. Then he reverts back to the same technique he relied on in Fantasy D940. "Rinse and repeat." Let's not forget they were all written in the last year of his life.











Partita said:


> Robert Schumann became very impressed with Schubert's works


Schumann revered Haydn and Hummel more than he did Schubert. both Haydn 



 and Hummel 



 wrote masses superior to Schubert's. Schumann recognized Schubert merely as a good melody writer. Nothing more.


----------



## Littlephrase

hammeredklavier said:


> Schumann revered Haydn and Hummel more than he did Schubert. both Haydn
> 
> 
> 
> and Hummel
> 
> 
> 
> wrote masses superior to Schubert's. Schumann recognized Schubert merely as a good melody writer. Nothing more.


Any proof of this claim? Where, oh where, did Schumann claim that Schubert was a mere tunesmith? From what I understand, Schumann thought of old Franz as a genius of the highest musical order.


----------



## KenOC

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Any proof of this claim? Where, oh where, did Schumann claim that Schubert was a mere tunesmith? From what I understand, Schumann thought of old Franz as a genius of the highest musical order.


Schumann generally praised Schubert's music highly. I believe his was the phrase "heavenly length" referring to the Great C-major symphony.

But he was a bit baffled by Schubert's last piano works, through the D.960. He wrote a review that was generally favorable but it was obvious he didn't know quite what to make of them. His review (in English) is somewhere online. It's a good remainder of the "newness" in that music, of a type never heard before and, perhaps, since.


----------



## jdec

hammeredklavier said:


> Schumann recognized Schubert merely as a good melody writer. Nothing more.


Oh come on  ...

*Robert Schumann on Franz Schubert's C Major Symphony*:

"_I'll say it most frankly: he who does not know this symphony, knows but little of Schubert, and after that, which Schubert has already given to Art, this may be perceived as praise that is hardly to be believed...

Here there is, beyond the masterful musical technique of the composition, yet life in every fibre, color even in the most delicate nuance, significance everywhere, the keenest expression of the particular, and finally the whole suffused with a romanticism, that Schubert is known for from elsewhere. And the heavenly length of the symphony...

It must always be called an extraordinary talent, that he, who heard so few of his instrumental works during his lifetime, succeeded in such an idiomatic treatment of the instruments on the scale of the orchestra, that often speak all at once like human voices and the choir. This likeness to the singing voice have I never come across, outside of many a Beethoven work, in such a striking and surprising way..._"


----------



## Larkenfield

Robert Schumann may have revered Haydn, but in a review of a symphony in 1841 said: “One can learn nothing more from him. He is like a regular house friend, always gladly and respectfully received, but no longer of deeper interest for our age.” 

That’s some reverence. Whatever interest Schumann had had faded by the time he was in his early 30s. He looked elsewhere and found it... Some of Schubert’s vocal works are still performed today, despite their shortcomings, because listeners enjoy his lightness and poetry of spirit that Schubert had in his own distinct voice as a composer, which can sometimes trump a skillful gazillion-part fugue or complex counterpoint. Even in his early works there is still the inspiration and the sense that something more would eventually develop in him, at least in my estimation, and he did indeed get involved in the study of developmental and contrapuntal techniques (and I like the fugue that he used in his Fantasy) ...This man wrote around a 1000 works, being incredibly prolific, and yet some have never found anything worthy of praise - not his poetic attributes, not his lyrical melodic gifts, nothing; and yet he was influential on such composers as Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Liszt, and such musicians as Horowitz, Brendel, Richter, with many of his symphonies being played by the top conductors and orchestras in the world. What’s wrong with the balance of perspective in this lopsided picture? Everything... because he’s still delighting audiences and the public pays to hear him.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> Robert Schumann may have revered Haydn, but in a review of a symphony in 1841 said: "One can learn nothing more from him. He is like a regular house friend, always gladly and respectfully received, but no longer of deeper interest for our age."


_Suddenly, Schumann was promoting Haydn's music, which supposedly had "ceased to arouse any particular interest," at the expense of Beethoven. 
The intense study of Haydn's quartets brought Schumann's published criticisms of the composer to an abrupt and irrevocable halt in 1842._
https://books.google.ca/books?id=B5SlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28


----------



## eugeneonagain

Will Schubert's terrified super-fans ever deal with the issue at hand? I've read this thread carefully from beginning to end three times. All 25 (now 26) pages of it. What happens is that piles of information are ignored and sidestepped; quotes are ripped out of context or the worst and most meaningless ones regurgitated.

On the page before this one I gave a fair representation of why I'm taking the position I am taking (which hasn't altered one jot since I made the argument; unlike 95% of those still posting in this thread); which _does not_ 'trash' Schubert, but merely questions the completely exaggerated view taken from an emotional listening perspective. It is avoided because they don't want to face it and never will face it, because like most listeners they are merely seekers of luxurious sensuality. Like those people who love food and call themselves "a gourmet", but have no practical and realistic interest in how it is created and what insights that might provide. Dilettantes all.

It's a sheer waste of time.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> None of them relies on Schubert's kind of homophony to build on their material-- endless monotonous vamping and padding of chords and arpeggios; just a sad excuse for 'homophony'. Bach and Mozart structure , vary, contrast their Gloria movements through a huge variety of material and techniques. Each developed through melodic, harmonic, contrapuntal variations.
> 
> The Gloria in Bach's B minor Mass consists of subsections: _Et in terra pax, Laudamus te, Gratias agimus tibi, Domine Deus, Domine Deus, Qui sedes, Quoniam tu solus sanctus, Cum sancto spiritu._
> The Gloria in Mozart's C minor Mass consists of subsections: _Gloria in excelsis Deo, Laudamus te, Gratias agimus tibi, Domine Deus, Qui tollis, Quoniam tu solus, Cum sancto spiritu_ .
> 
> Not even Beethoven relies on Schubert's kind of monotonous vamping and padding to build on his material.
> 
> It's not even a good fugue. And no, the fugue isn't even 25% of the movement. Schubert's Gloria drags on with no variation or development for 14 minutes and the actual fugue section goes on for less than 2 minutes. The fugue is very elementary at best. There is no skillful demonstration of advanced contrapuntal techniques such as inversion, augmentation, stretto, etc to actually build and develop on the subjects. Bach, Mozart went beyond writing standard fugues to demonstrate contrapuntal mastery in double and triple fugues. For example, Mozart's Jesu Christe Cum Sanctu Spiritu is a double fugue. Whereas Schubert's is not even a good standard fugue.
> There is a reason why most academics (not just David Wright) say "Schubert never wrote a good fugue".


 I dispute all of the above for the following reasons:

1. You keep on insisting that the only way to write decent music is by incorporating _"… a huge variety of material and techniques. Each developed through melodic, harmonic, contrapuntal variations_". 

2. The fact is that, to most listeners, dense polyphonic structures are not always suitable. It can become tiresome if overdone. It can become especially tiresome in Mass settings where the words have meaning and need to be listened to in order to gain full appreciation. Some polyphony is fine, but over-loading a sacred work such as a Mass is a mistake. Especially in a sacred work of this nature, many people like to hear the words of the Mass, not just a sequence of complex interweaving of voices, which can often lead to a confusing masking of the underlying material they're singing about. 

3. As I said before, I find the _Gloria_ in Schubert's Mass 6 to be perfectly adequate in its complexity, given its place in the Mass, and in the overall nature of the work. In a concert-scale Mass setting a certain amount of polyphonic complexity is appropriate, but it can be overdone. As I mentioned before, the Gloria in Beethoven's Missa Solemnis sounds to me to be over-complicated in polyphony and it too contains repetition. 

4. There are also the requirements of the Church to consider. They used to set standards of compliance for this sort of work. If you go into a RC Church and hear a sung mass they're not usually highly elaborate works. This particular mass was composed for Schubert's local church in Liechtental, not some great Cathedral. Admittedly, this particular Mass was constructed on a larger scale than is normal for a typical mass, but there was still a need to bear in mind the necessarily more limited resources available to the local church/choir.

5. As far as I can tell, Schubert incorporated all of the standard text of the _Gloria_ in his Mass 6, even though he was known to make occasional textual excisions in other parts of the Mass. I don't believe, as you allege, that Bach incorporated any more text in his _Gloria_ than did Schubert. Bach just made more of as dog's breakfast of the whole thing, by over-extending it to a quite ludicrous length. As is quite well-known, Bach was for ever fiddling around with his Mass in B Minor, and never quite finished it to the point where he stopped making adjustments. 

6. Schubert's Mass 6 work was another major work that Schubert never heard. It was his last Mass. He worked on it during 1828, when he was ill and getting steadily worse. Its first performance was almost a year after his death, and in fact was performed by an amateur choir attached to his local church. So again this was a work that Schubert had finished quickly, never heard in practice, and thus had no chance to change in any way, unlike Beethoven and Bach both of whom took ages to complete their major masses.

7. I said that there is a significant section in the _Gloria_ during the last 25% or so, which comprises a very good 4-part fugue. You denied this saying it's not a good fugue and goes on for less than 2 minutes. I can't argue with you about whether or not it's "good fugue" because that is a matter of taste, but I like it. However, I have measured the length of this section in my favoured version of Mass 6 (Wolfgang Sawallisch/Bavarain Radio Symphony Orchestra) and the fugue _Cum Sancto Spiritu _begins at 9.54 out of a total length of 13.51, which if you do the sums gives a fugue lasting over 28%. So, I'm correct on this matter, at least as far as this notable recording of the work is concerned. I haven't checked others.

8. I note that you concentrate on just one part of this entire Mass, the _Gloria_. You fail to recognise that the other sections are very good:



[*=1]I especially like the way the _Kyrie_ begins with a reverential soft tones from wind chords, and building up gradually into quite a nervous, tense _Christe_ through the use of repeated triplets of the strings. 
 
[*=1]The _Credo_ is arguably the best part, are probably the best parts, which you conveniently overlook. For example, the _Et incarnatus est_ in the Credo is oe of the most beautiful passages in the whole work, and for me, it's one of the most magical of all Schubert's creations in the entire sacred music repertoire. 
 
[*=1]The _Sanctus_ is awe-inspiring, with its contrasting harmonically distant chords There are nice fugues in the following _Osanna in excelsis_, and _the Agnus Dei_, which yields to the key of E-flat major for the beautifully serene _Dona nobis pacem._ 

9. Overall I find Schubert's Mass 6 to be well-proportioned. I can follow it easily, and love all aspects of the music. I commend it to the House as yet another Schubert triumph.


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> Bach just made more of as dog's breakfast of the whole thing, by over-extending it to a quite ludicrous length.


There you go. Pump up the Schubert mass by disparaging Bach's.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> There you go. Pump up the Schubert mass by disparaging Bach's.


Thanks for your comment. It shows that some people read what I write. I'm actually very flattered to see that you've taken the trouble to come out of your kennel, where I'm sure you must have more pressings to do managing and keeping track of those polls, simply to tell me that.

May I just point out that the amount of "disparaging" of Bach I have done in this thread and elsewhere is miniscule. I happen to rate Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert almost equally. In the comment above, I was simply pointing out that, in my estimation, the Gloria in Bach's Mass in B Minor is too long, as it suited the wider argument I was making about some works (or in this case parts of longer works) being unnecessarily over-complex.


----------



## Guest

Most people who profess an interest in classical music aren’t bothered in the slightest about the alleged weaknesses of Schubert's composing style. Many would be either astonished to hear, or too bored to be concerned about, the fact that Schubert wasn’t the finest master of counterpoint to come out of the Classical/Romantic tradition. 

What they’re far more interested in are the many wonderful tunes he dreamed up, and the various forms in which he was able to find expression for them, whether through lieder, piano solo, piano duet (yet another genre in which he virtually revolutionised), chamber music, orchestral music of various types, choral works including stage and sacred, etc. In virtually every genre he wrote music which today is recognised as top class.

In any case I don’t believe that his counterpoint skills were a let down in any significant way, given his growing interest in a more "wandering" style that he developed. In this kind of music there was little if any need for counterpoint, which I would judge was beginning to go out of fashion anyway. 

He had received some instruction in counterpoint whilst still a student. I understand that his decision in his last year of life to seek more advanced instruction on counterpoint was partly to enable to make occasional trips away from his brother’s flat where he spent his last months in a very ill state of health. He may have had wider purposes in mind, but we shall never know.

To dwell on the issue of his alleged weaknesses, as some continue to do, suggests to me that they realise they’re out of line and have over-played their very weak hand, but find it difficult to extricate themselves gracefully. It would save a lot of wasted effort if they’d just admit they’ve got it all wrong.


----------



## Bulldog

Partita said:


> Thanks for your comment. It shows that some people read what I write. I'm actually very flattered to see that you've taken the trouble to come out of your kennel, where I'm sure you must have more pressings to do managing and keeping track of those polls, simply to tell me that.


My dogs and I will always have time for you. :kiss:


----------



## Littlephrase

eugeneonagain said:


> Will Schubert's terrified super-fans ever deal with the issue at hand? I've read this thread carefully from beginning to end three times. All 25 (now 26) pages of it. What happens is that piles of information are ignored and sidestepped; quotes are ripped out of context or the worst and most meaningless ones regurgitated.
> 
> On the page before this one I gave a fair representation of why I'm taking the position I am taking (which hasn't altered one jot since I made the argument; unlike 95% of those still posting in this thread); which _does not_ 'trash' Schubert, but merely questions the completely exaggerated view taken from an emotional listening perspective. It is avoided because they don't want to face it and never will face it, because like most listeners they are merely seekers of luxurious sensuality. Like those people who love food and call themselves "a gourmet", but have no practical and realistic interest in how it is created and what insights that might provide. Dilettantes all.
> 
> It's a sheer waste of time.


This thread has just made me appreciate Schubert more rather than less. My dilettantism must be appalling.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> Will Schubert's terrified super-fans ever deal with the issue at hand? I've read this thread carefully from beginning to end three times. All 25 (now 26) pages of it. What happens is that piles of information are ignored and sidestepped; quotes are ripped out of context or the worst and most meaningless ones regurgitated.
> 
> On the page before this one I gave a fair representation of why I'm taking the position I am taking (which hasn't altered one jot since I made the argument; unlike 95% of those still posting in this thread); which _does not_ 'trash' Schubert, but merely questions the completely exaggerated view taken from an emotional listening perspective. It is avoided because they don't want to face it and never will face it, because like most listeners they are merely seekers of luxurious sensuality. Like those people who love food and call themselves "a gourmet", but have no practical and realistic interest in how it is created and what insights that might provide. Dilettantes all.
> 
> It's a sheer waste of time.


Agreed and amen - it really is a waste of time. There has been so much "I don't greatly like Schubert" thread activity over the last year that there surely cannot be anything left to discuss. Those who were open to changing or developing their view have done so. Everyone else is merely repeating what they have written before or messing about.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Will Schubert's terrified super-fans ever deal with the issue at hand? I've read this thread carefully from beginning to end three times. All 25 (now 26) pages of it...


And that's an hour of your life you'll never get back.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> And that's an hour of your life you'll never get back.


I'm a fast reader.


----------



## eugeneonagain

This sort of goalpost-shifting:



Partita said:


> In any case I don't believe that his counterpoint skills were a let down in any significant way, given his growing interest in a more "wandering" style that he developed. In this kind of music there was little if any need for counterpoint, which I would judge was beginning to go out of fashion anyway.


Wants to have it both ways, trying to cover all bases. First saying (in complete contradiction to the facts) that the skills _were_ there, but that they actually weren't necessary for Schubert's allegedly innovative new direction. How convenient. Later on we have:



Partita said:


> I understand that his decision in his last year of life to seek more advanced instruction on counterpoint was partly to enable to make occasional trips away from his brother's flat where he spent his last months in a very ill state of health. He may have had wider purposes in mind, but we shall never know.


Just leaving every door open with 'maybe' and 'perhaps' whilst also insisting on a firm personal aesthetic opinion. It's truly dishonest fanboyism and a refusal to accept honest weaknesses that make Schubert just a normal composer with something to say, but which didn't always succeed. A bit of a challenge to the 'great and innovative composer' mythology you refuse to relinquish.


----------



## Guest

Littlephrase1913 said:


> This thread has just made me appreciate Schubert more rather than less. My dilettantism must be appalling.


 My appreciation of Schubert has also increased based on a little further research I have carried out as a result of delving into various comments made in this thread.

Schubert was on my "hot list" of favourite composers many years ago, and to be frank I've moved on a long way since then into exploring many dozens of other composers. There's only so much time in the day for listening to music, and Schubert's "quota" of time has been quite low for several years. But I've maintained my admiration for him, and it would take a great deal more than the pathetic attempts that have been made by some here to damage that admiration.

I know all about his alleged weaknesses, as I've seen them trotted out before. The majority view is that they hardly amount to much. They don't bother me as they do not impact on the music sufficiently badly.

In order to respond to some of the more technical issues that have been raised, I've had to dig around in various other places, music journals etc. Yes, I found the occasional criticism of some of his composition skills, but they are like nothing taking into account his many outstanding virtues. Take for example the criticism of the _Gloria_ in his Mass 6. I could not find anything from any reputable sources that remotely justified the negative comment made by one member earlier.

I'm therefore of the opinion that these critics are a very tiny minority of people who seem want to stir up a dislike of a major composer based on a large measure of ignorance, personal prejudice, and possibly an attempt at self-aggrandisement.

The really galling thing, however, is that they try to make out that the people who like Schubert, and don't worry over much about his alleged weaknesses, are some kind of musical ignoramuses. When the comments of these people are refuted, it's amusing to watch how personally insulting some of them can become, and the laughable and self-deluded manner in which they believe they have gained a victory.


----------



## Larkenfield

eugeneonagain said:


> Will Schubert's terrified super-fans ever deal with the issue at hand? I've read this thread carefully from beginning to end three times. All 25 (now 26) pages of it. What happens is that piles of information are ignored and sidestepped; quotes are ripped out of context or the worst and most meaningless ones regurgitated.
> 
> On the page before this one I gave a fair representation of why I'm taking the position I am taking (which hasn't altered one jot since I made the argument; unlike 95% of those still posting in this thread); which _does not_ 'trash' Schubert, but merely questions the completely exaggerated view taken from an emotional listening perspective. It is avoided because they don't want to face it and never will face it, because like most listeners they are merely seekers of luxurious sensuality. Like those people who love food and call themselves "a gourmet", but have no practical and realistic interest in how it is created and what insights that might provide. Dilettantes all.
> 
> It's a sheer waste of time.


"they are merely seekers of luxurious sensuality."

Sounds good… And what business is it of yours what they seek? Maybe the love of luxurious sensuality is exactly what they need. Some people love a composer despite his acknowledged "faults", just like in human relationships it's sometimes necessary to love another person despite his or her faults, which everyone has after logically understanding those shortcomings. It's called forgiveness and acceptance, and in the arts, Schubert is not beyond that just like you aren't. If people loved only perfection, some of us might be standing out in the cold. Luxurious sensuality indeed. The arts are also about the freedom to choose without coercion and pressure from others.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> "they are merely seekers of luxurious sensuality."
> 
> Sounds good… And what business is it of yours what they seek? Maybe the love of luxurious sensuality is exactly what they need. Some people love a composer despite his acknowledged "faults", just like in human relationships it's sometimes necessary to love another person despite his or her faults, which everyone has after logically understanding those shortcomings. It's called forgiveness and acceptance, and in the arts, Schubert is not beyond that just like you aren't. If people loved only perfection, some of us might be standing out in the cold. Luxurious sensuality indeed. The arts are also about the freedom to choose without coercion and pressure from others.


Yes. And of course there's much more to Schubert than luxurious sensuality. In fact, I don't think he even offers much of that, at least not to me. What he does offer me is a poignant sense of the fragility of love and happiness and the cruel irony of mortality, and he frequently does it with a deceptive, _gemutlich_ simplicity that fooled me for years into thinking him superficial.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Basically I am out of this discussion whether I like it or not since the moderators now delete my posts and effectively allow the cloying rubbish to which I may have replied, to stand. 

It's another attempt to alter a discussion so it fits into a particular mould. A very nefarious business.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Basically I am out of this discussion whether I like it or not since the moderators now delete my posts and effectively allow the cloying rubbish to which I may have replied, to stand.
> 
> It's another attempt to alter a discussion so it fits into a particular mould. A very nefarious business.


What posts have been deleted? There's a large number of your posts throughout the thread, and your views are clearly represented.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> What posts have been deleted? There's a large number of your posts throughout the thread, and your views are clearly represented.


I'm probably not allowed to say. You may also note that replies to me to which I have responded still stand, whereas the response is gone. 
That's not being represented.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm probably not allowed to say. You may also note that replies to me to which I have responded still stand, whereas the response is gone.
> That's not being represented.


I believe you. Have other people's been deleted, or can't you be sure?


----------



## mmsbls

Some posts that included insults and chiding (as well as responses to these posts) have been moderated for further review. We do allow posts that do not attempt to put down other posters. We also allow posts that include rubbish or wisdom, naivete or knowledge, silliness or serious content. This is a forum. Please return to the thread topic.


----------



## insomniclassicac

There exists, in certain types of people, the relentless, confounding need to elevate those they most revere as their pet "immortals", by way of toppling other, immensely-gifted greats in the same field; likewise showering their admirers with the rubble. Why this binary, sneering ideology, I would prefer not to guess at. Suffice it for me to opine that the music's the thing--why can't we focus on valuing the priceless wealth bequeathed us by these genius men and women, instead of peevishly harping on perceived imperfections in the mint?


----------



## DaveM

Some Schubert to soothe the savage beast:


----------



## eugeneonagain

insomniclassicac said:


> There exists, in certain types of people, the relentless, confounding need to elevate those they most revere as their pet "immortals", by way of toppling other, immensely-gifted greats in the same field; likewise showering their admirers with the rubble. Why this binary, sneering ideology, I would prefer not to guess at. Suffice it for me to opine that the music's the thing--why can't we focus on valuing the priceless wealth bequeathed us by these genius men and women, instead of peevishly harping on perceived imperfections in the mint?


Who has done that here in this thread? The "_relentless, confounding need to elevate those they most revere as their pet "immortals_" is all I have witnessed here.

I don't think you have read this thread.


----------



## eugeneonagain

mmsbls said:


> Some posts that included insults and chiding (as well as responses to these posts) have been moderated for further review. We do allow posts that do not attempt to put down other posters. We also allow posts that include rubbish or wisdom, naivete or knowledge, silliness or serious content. This is a forum. Please return to the thread topic.


Insults and "chiding". I'm tired of hearing about this. Are these people four years-old or something? An ironic or mild sarcastic response (which as you should note comes from ALL quarters) is so common in discourse, online and offline, that it doesn't warrant special status here as insults and "chiding". Welcome to the world of adult discourse where the seas are choppy and the terrain is rocky at least some of the time.

There folk here who can give it, but can't take it.


----------



## Enthusiast

The terrified super-fans of Schubert have managed to organise a conspiracy. And they probably have a special handshake.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> The terrified super-fans of Schubert have managed to organise a conspiracy. And they probably have a special handshake.


The special handshake is: up and down in a repeated motion for 10 minutes, then down and up for the remaining 5 minutes.


----------



## Guest

insomniclassicac said:


> There exists, in certain types of people, the relentless, confounding need to elevate those they most revere as their pet "immortals", by way of toppling other, immensely-gifted greats in the same field; likewise showering their admirers with the rubble. Why this binary, sneering ideology, I would prefer not to guess at. Suffice it for me to opine that the music's the thing--why can't we focus on valuing the priceless wealth bequeathed us by these genius men and women, instead of peevishly harping on perceived imperfections in the mint?


.................................................


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> The terrified super-fans of Schubert have managed to organise a conspiracy. And they probably have a special handshake.


Two days ago:



Enthusiast said:


> Wow! What a thread. I love Schubert and my love has not been diminished... Why is it so difficult for those who feel Schubert is rubbish to accept that others love his music and that no-one is going to change their minds no matter how many time we repeat (apparently like Schubert) the same arguments again and again without development?


So what was that special handshake again?


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> Some Schubert to soothe the savage beast:


Thanks for posting this very lovely piece.

It's a while since I last listened to this. The version that I happen to have is Wolfgang Sawallisch/ Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra. It has a fine line up of singers: Helen Donath, Lucia Popp, Brigitte Fassbaender, Peter Schreier, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.

It's one of Schubert's late works, composed in 1827. It's not a Mass in the traditional sense, but a series of poems that Schubert scored. It was intended for church use but permission was refused because it departed too from from the accepted.

It has several beautiful tunes and the orchestration is interesting, being heavily based on wind instruments. It doesn't contain any counterpoint, or not much, but who cares? If anyone hasn't heard this work, and they like sacred music, this must be on their list. The entire 9 sections are wonderful, especially section 6 that you referred to. It is very calming indeed.

For the past couple of days I've been wallowing in Schubert's sacred works, and this has been among my favourites.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Schubert also wrote a lot of instrumental melodies suitable for setting stanzas of poetry that are easy to whistle and remember. Unfortunately, they aren't always particularly promising as the basis of large dynamic structures. *Beethoven wrote exactly the right melodies for the kind of works he composed. That is what great melodists do.*
> ...
> ...
> 
> Yes, he [_Schubert_] was a great tune smith. That isn't the same as being a great melodist. If the OP had asked if Schubert wrote better vocal style, periodic melodies in a limited range, the answer would be an easy yes. *Melodist is a much broader category. It includes the ability to write good fugue subjects, sonata themes, melodies that exploit the full range of the piano keyboard, themes with dramatic internal contrasts, obligato countermelodies, and many other styles of writing. Beethoven excelled at all of them.* Schubert didn't.


Looks like Leonard Bernstein (who greatly admired Beethoven) disagrees with you on what melody is, and on how good Beethoven was as a melodist:

*Leonard Bernstein Discussing Beethoven's 6th and 7th Symphony*






4:51:

"_That's his tune, for good or bad, that's the way Beethoven wrote melodies….he was *not* a great melodist._"

5:18:
"_This is one of the most unremarkable melodies ever written._"

6:02:
"_There's no aspect of Beethoven in which you can say: Beethoven is great, as a melodist, a harmonist, counterpointist, a tone painter, his orchestration. You'll find fault with all of them. If you take any one of these elements, separately, you find nobody. There's nothing there._"

But of course, you know better than Lenny.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Looks like Leonard Bernstein (who greatly admired Beethoven) disagrees with you on what melody is, and on how good Beethoven was as a melodist:
> 
> *Leonard Bernstein Discussing Beethoven's 6th and 7th Symphony*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4:51:
> 
> "_That's his tune, for good or bad, that's the way Beethoven wrote melodies….he was *not* a great melodist._"
> 
> 5:18:
> "_This is one of the most unremarkable melodies ever written._"
> 
> 6:02:
> "_There's no aspect of Beethoven in which you can say: Beethoven is great, as a melodist, a harmonist, counterpointist, a tone painter, his orchestration. You'll find fault with all of them. If you take any one of these elements, separately, you find nobody. There's nothing there._"
> 
> *But of course, you know better than Lenny.*


Actually, he does, and so does anyone who knows Beethoven - INCLUDING LENNY. This was not Bernstein's finest hour. "Lenny" was a showman who loved to exaggerate, on and off the podium. Can you really miss the hyperbole in a statement such as _"There's no aspect of Beethoven in which you can say: Beethoven is great, as a melodist[/COLOR], a harmonist, counterpointist, a tone painter, his orchestration. You'll find fault with all of them. If you take any one of these elements, separately, you find nobody. There's nothing there"_?

Nobody? Nothing there? You'll see through this if you focus on the one clause in that statement that bears examination: "if you take any one of these elements, separately..." Composers writing a piece, and musicians analyzing or performing it, don't "take elements separately." In a real sense, elements don't even exist separately; to the extent that a work is good, all its elements are shaped by the concept of the whole. And that is exactly the point EdwardBast is making in the parts of his post you've put in bold. Probably no composer was better than Beethoven in fitting the "separate" elements of a work to its overall purpose and effect. That's why the "minimalist" melody of the second movement of the 7th Symphony, simple not only by Beethoven's standards but by anyone's, is a great melody: it's great because of its setting and the use to which it's put. The terse note of foreboding in the opening chord of the movement, the implacable tread of the rhythm, the strange shifts in the harmony, the passionate counterpoints (those are melodies too!), the sensitive and varied instrumentation, the cumulative effect of the buildup of tension, the brief benediction of the new melody which provides momentary relief, the troubled agitation which continually invades, the use of the main melody in a fugue, the halting, haunted reminiscence of the opening cortege and its collapse and termination in a gesture both decisive and anxious...

Beethoven isn't writing pretty tunes here. He's devising a striking, original melody that allows him to create just the mood and the drama he wants. What that amounts to is the very opposite of "nobody and nothing there."


----------



## jdec

Of course Bernstein was on purpose exaggerating on that part ("you find nobody, there's nothing there"), but he did it precisely to emphasize his point that Beethoven was not one of the greatest melodists, contrary to what EdwardBast wants (us) to believe. Furthermore, Lenny was using the term melody/melodic correctly, as simple as it is, and not the elaborated way EdwardBast tries to define it. (And no, I don't believe Edward knows better than L. Bernstein. Sorry)


----------



## Phil loves classical

Here is an interesting piece I came across on Bach as a melodist, which I think shares some resemblance to Beethoven as one.

Interesting questions posed: A lengthy jazz solo is clearly melodic, but is it a melody? Are Beethoven's thematic germs long enough to be considered melodies?

http://whybach.crosstownbooks.com/c1/


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> Of course Bernstein was on purpose exaggerating on that part ("you find nobody, there's nothing there"), but he did it precisely to emphasize his point that Beethoven was not one of the greatest melodists, contrary to what EdwardBast wants (us) to believe. Furthermore, Lenny was using the term melody/melodic correctly, as simple as it is, and not the elaborated way EdwardBast tries to define it. (And no, I don't believe Edward knows better than L. Bernstein. Sorry)


Yes, the argument from authority, what people resort to when they have no argument. Alas, Bernstein was not an authority on this subject and he was engaged in a childish rhetorical exercise rather than giving serious opinions on Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows

*A Question of Melodists: Is Schubert really a more talented melodist than Beethoven?*

In terms of long, flowing melodies, perhaps he was.

I remember KenOC saying that Beethoven's 7th was "full" of melodies. Well, yes if you consider these Scottish-sounding jigs to be the apotheosis of "long flowing melodies," which I don't:

dum-diddle-um-bum
dum-diddle-um-bum 
dum-diddle-um-diddle-um 
bum-bum-bum-bum
bum-bum-bum-bum
buuuum.

This is just as much a rhythmic statement as a melodic statement. In fact, I'd say its real identity comes from the rhythm.


----------



## Larkenfield

Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas and only about eight are well known for their melodic content and they have names like the Waldstein, Moonlight, Pastoral, etc., and I don't particularly miss the others though they're of course worth hearing and exploring for other reasons in order to follow his artistic development as a composer and the way that he works out his ideas. The ones that don't have memorable melodies, IMO, are built on something else related more to rhythm or a motif that he develops and is so skillfully done. When one looks at his wide field of compositions, there are very few that seem melodically memorable. But he could do it, write a great melody, even if he didn't always do it, or one didn't come to him, and the work is held together by something else, quite often, it seems, by the sheer expression of his own inimitable vitality and energy.

I'm not going to draw a comparison between him and Schubert other than to say that I have an overriding impression that pure uncomplicated melody came much easier to Schubert, perhaps because he was more focused on vocal writing which depends more on melody. But I love the melodies in Beethoven's violin concerto and his more well known piano sonatas which I've heard many times. In fact, I can sing the classic melodies of his VC to myself right now and I think they're beautiful.

Bernstein is an authority figure but it doesn't mean that one has to agree with him. I found him much more concise, thoughtful and insightful when he was conducting the NYP. However, in the interview at the piano, he seems to be more impulsively casual and talking more off the top of his head or flying by the seat of his pants. I do not care for sweeping generalities about a composer when specific works aren't taking into account, and Bernstein casually dismisses Beethoven as if he never composed a great melody in his life. Bad boy! But I believe what Bernstein was trying to say is that it was a combination of factors that might not appear outstanding by themselves but when combined there was the magic and the power and the energy and the beauty and the rhythm of an immortal, though Bernstein didn't describe him that way and it was more implied.


----------



## jdec

Larkenfield said:


> Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas and only about eight are well known for their melodic content and they have names like the Waldstein, Moonlight, Pastoral, etc., and I don't particularly miss the others though they're of course worth hearing and exploring for other reasons in order to follow his artistic development as a composer and the way that he works out his ideas. The ones that don't have memorable melodies, IMO, are built on something else related more to rhythm or a motif that he develops and is so skillfully done. When one looks at his wide field of compositions, there are very few that seem melodically memorable. But he could do it, write a great melody, even if he didn't always do it, or one didn't come to him, and the work is held together by something else, quite often, it seems, by the sheer expression of his own inimitable vitality and energy.
> 
> I'm not going to draw a comparison between him and Schubert other than to say that I have an overriding impression that pure uncomplicated melody came much easier to Schubert, perhaps because he was more focused on vocal writing which depends more on melody. But I love the melodies in Beethoven's violin concerto and his more well known piano sonatas which I've heard many times. In fact, I can sing the classic melodies of his VC to myself right now and I think they're beautiful.
> 
> *Bernstein is an authority figure* but it doesn't mean that one has to agree with him. I found him much more concise, thoughtful and insightful when he was conducting the NYP. However, in the interview at the piano, he seems to be more impulsively casual and talking more off the top of his head or flying by the seat of his pants. I do not care for sweeping generalities about a composer when specific works aren't taking into account, and Bernstein casually dismisses Beethoven as if he never composed a great melody in his life. Bad boy! *But I believe what Bernstein was trying to say is that it was a combination of factors that might not appear outstanding by themselves but when combined there was the magic and the power and the energy and the beauty and the rhythm of an immortal, though Bernstein didn't describe him that way and it was more implied.*


That's what I believe too.

BTW, when I say Beethoven (one of my absolute favorites) was not one of the greatest melodists I don't imply he never wrote great or beautiful melodies. He did. But I also find it ridiculous when somebody tries to reduce Schubert's melodic abilities just to those of a "_tunesmith_".


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, the argument from authority, what people resort to when they have no argument. Alas, *Bernstein was not an authority on this subject* and he was engaged in a childish rhetorical exercise rather than giving serious opinions on Beethoven.


What subject? "Melody"? "Melodists"? Beethoven's music in general? 
So Bernstein (one of the major figures in orchestral conducting in the second half of the 20th century) was not an authority on these "subjects"? hehe


----------



## Phil loves classical

Beethoven's clearest theme is probably his Ode to Joy. The variations that followed were pretty straight forward. Beethoven at his most Schubertian.


----------



## Fabulin

The legendary Marche Militaire wins it for Schubert. There is nothing Beethoven could do to challenge it if he tried. (to soften the blow, Beethoven fans, bear in mind that Schubert also tried to match it and cash in on producing similar pieces, and never came close to replicating it).


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas and only about eight are well known for their melodic content and they have names like the Waldstein, Moonlight, Pastoral, etc., and I don't particularly miss the others though they're of course worth hearing and exploring for other reasons in order to follow his artistic development as a composer and the way that he works out his ideas. The ones that don't have memorable melodies, IMO, are built on something else related more to rhythm or a motif that he develops and is so skillfully done. When one looks at his wide field of compositions, there are very few that seem melodically memorable. But he could do it, write a great melody, even if he didn't always do it, or one didn't come to him, and the work is held together by something else, quite often, it seems, by the sheer expression of his own inimitable vitality and energy.
> 
> I'm not going to draw a comparison between him and Schubert other than to say that I have an overriding impression that pure uncomplicated melody came much easier to Schubert, perhaps because he was more focused on vocal writing which depends more on melody. But I love the melodies in Beethoven's violin concerto and his more well known piano sonatas which I've heard many times. In fact, I can sing the classic melodies of his VC to myself right now and I think they're beautiful.
> 
> Bernstein is an authority figure but it doesn't mean that one has to agree with him. I found him much more concise, thoughtful and insightful when he was conducting the NYP. However, in the interview at the piano, he seems to be more impulsively casual and talking more off the top of his head or flying by the seat of his pants. I do not care for sweeping generalities about a composer when specific works aren't taking into account, and Bernstein casually dismisses Beethoven as if he never composed a great melody in his life. Bad boy! But I believe what Bernstein was trying to say is that it was a combination of factors that might not appear outstanding by themselves but when combined there was the magic and the power and the energy and the beauty and the rhythm of an immortal, though Bernstein didn't describe him that way and it was more implied.


Think about what would have happened to his works if Beethoven had come up with enticing and flagrant melodies. I'm sure you can.


----------



## samm

Fabulin said:


> The legendary Marche Militaire wins it for Schubert. There is nothing Beethoven could do to challenge it if he tried. (to soften the blow, Beethoven fans, bear in mind that Schubert also tried to match it and cash in on producing similar pieces, and never came close to replicating it).


March Militaire? Are you sure about that dude? I hope you're not seriously planning on knocking Beethoven into a hat with that little bon-bon. If Schubert also didn't manage to match this alleged pinnacle of his composing career (which I'm certain is not even true) then we could only conclude that he was not much of a composer.

March Militaire indeed. Colonel Bogey is better and I don't believe Frederick Joseph Ricketts has been inducted into the pantheon of great composers on the back of it. I dunno, maybe he should be.


----------



## Luchesi

samm said:


> March Militaire? Are you sure about that dude? I hope you're not seriously planning on knocking Beethoven into a hat with that little bon-bon. If Schubert also didn't manage to match this alleged pinnacle of his composing career (which I'm certain is not even true) then we could only conclude that he was not much of a composer.
> 
> March Militaire indeed. Colonel Bogey is better and I don't believe Frederick Joseph Ricketts has been inducted into the pantheon of great composers on the back of it. I dunno, maybe he should be.


Sorry, but this is glaring.. Play them both on the piano and just with your ears you would reconsider.


----------



## Fabulin

samm said:


> March Militaire? Are you sure about that dude? I hope you're not seriously planning on knocking Beethoven into a hat with that little bon-bon. If Schubert also didn't manage to match this alleged pinnacle of his composing career (which I'm certain is not even true) then we could only conclude that he was not much of a composer.
> 
> March Militaire indeed. Colonel Bogey is better and I don't believe Frederick Joseph Ricketts has been inducted into the pantheon of great composers on the back of it. I dunno, maybe he should be.


Yeah, let's trash talk a demanding showpiece that was considered a perfect choice to please both common listeners and critics and remained Schubert's most famous composition for nearly a century.

A recommended read: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-319-pp-5500/441A9DE3A2E6DF086A5E9EF02C7BA348


----------



## Littlephrase

Fabulin said:


> Yeah, let's trash talk a demanding showpiece that was considered a perfect choice to please both common listeners and critics and remained Schubert's most famous composition for nearly a century.
> 
> A recommended read: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-319-pp-5500/441A9DE3A2E6DF086A5E9EF02C7BA348


Schubert wrote hundreds of melodies greater than the Marche Militaire. To single out this trivial, albeit charming, miniature of Schubert as somehow exemplary is a little absurd, considering the vast wealth of exquisite Schubert melodies that exist out there.


----------



## KenOC

I think we need a knock-down heavyweight brawl between March Militaire and Fur Elise. :lol:


----------



## Guest

Fur Elise and Marche Militaire hardly seem the best candidates to assess the merits of Beethoven's and Schubert's piano writing or melodic skills in general. They're not even of similar form, the first being a bagatelle and the second a march for piano duet. It's a naive discussion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, the argument from authority, what people resort to when they have no argument.


In many cases, it is still better argument than "I think [something] is great because I think it is or because I want to believe it is."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Some good melodies in Beethoven:


----------



## flamencosketches

samm said:


> March Militaire? Are you sure about that dude? I hope you're not seriously planning on knocking Beethoven into a hat with that little bon-bon. If Schubert also didn't manage to match this alleged pinnacle of his composing career (which I'm certain is not even true) then we could only conclude that he was not much of a composer.
> 
> March Militaire indeed. Colonel Bogey is better and I don't believe Frederick Joseph Ricketts has been inducted into the pantheon of great composers on the back of it. I dunno, maybe he should be.


This exchange was hilarious :lol: I couldn't stop laughing when I read all that.

I agree with KenOC that the only way to settle this one and for all is a heavyweight bout between these two "legendary" pieces.


----------



## Fabulin

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Schubert wrote hundreds of melodies greater than the Marche Militaire.


I can't say I have heard all works by Schubert, but so far my search for this supposed El Dorado of melodies has been fruitless. Please do mention the titles or provide some links.


----------



## Larkenfield

Fabulin said:


> I can't say I have heard all works by Schubert, but so far my search for this supposed El Dorado of melodies has been fruitless. Please do mention the titles or provide some links.


If you are relying on certain academics who are pointing out March Militaire as the best in Schubert, you will be led astray. It sounds like your exposure has been very limited and there's a big wide world of Schubert out there. There is no one "El Dorado" of melodies for any composer but there are far better examples of Schubert's melodic and poetic genius. March Militaire is well known but it's also one of his most elementary and is rarely mentioned, if at all, as one of his best. It really helps to have wider exposure to his 600 compositions before offering an opinion that's going to be challenged by just about everyone. Here is the Schubert Fantasy in F Minor that is a great example of his melodic genius, and there are others representative of his soul and personality. But how can one possibly understand and appreciate the beauty of his melodies without having a much wider exposure to his works?


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> In many cases, it is still better argument than "I think [something] is great because I think it is or because I want to believe it is."


Yes, your second favorite argument.


----------



## flamencosketches

One example of countless beautiful, Schubertian melodies.






Here's another. Literally jam packed with fascinating melodies.


----------



## Fabulin

Larkenfield said:


> If you are relying on academics who are pointing out March Militaire as the best in Schubert, you will be led astray. It sounds like your exposure has been very limited and there's a big wide world of Schubert out there. There is no one "El Dorado" of melodies for any composer but there are countless better examples of Schubert's melodic and poetic genius. March Militaire is well known but it's also one of his most elementary works and is rarely mentioned, if at all, as one of his best. It really helps to have wider exposure to his 600 compositions before offering an opinion that's going to be challenged by just about everybody. Here is the Schubert Fantasy in F Minor that is a great example of his melodic genius, and there are countless others representative of his soul and personality. But how can one possibly understand and appreciate the beauty of his melodies without being exposed to more of what he wrote?


I am not relying on academics, but on my own ears. Reading an entire book about it came as a result of my interest, 20 years after I first heard it.
As for the piece you provided, it does show how many tricks does Schubert have up his sleeve, but just because a certain variation _can _be done, it does not mean that it is the best option at a given point. Schubert did not have a clear idea what should follow what and the result sounds like a glorified improvisation---a knowledgeable one, but not planned for effect. Just take a look at the hilarious excitement of the audience.:








P.S. I have listened to the symphonies a couple of times and they did not particularily impress me in terms of melody, while the relative popularity of Ave Maria has always been utterly baffling to me. It is just a random church hymn, the type of which there are thousands from the medieval times onward through renaissance, Bachs, Mozart and all the way up to the 19th, 20th century and beyond. It is no Mozart's Lacrimosa---because if it were, it would take me a mere couple of bars to notice.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Both wrote about equally great melodies I believe. My favourite melodies by Beethoven is in his Emperor Concerto and Tempest sonata. My favourite melodies in Schubert are the 2nd movement of his 9th symphony, and maybe that theme and variations in Death and the Maiden. In terms of more interesting development I would always give it to Beethoven. Beethoven was a bigger risk taker. I think that part is obvious. Schubert always stepped back when it started getting hairy. He was probably at his most adventurous in the Unfinished Symphony. I was disappointed by his 9th in general (except for the 2nd movement as mentioned). He seemed content to go back to padding it up.


----------



## Woodduck

flamencosketches said:


> One example of countless beautiful, Schubertian melodies.


Parenthetical, perhaps, but the singer is not Maria Callas.


----------



## Luchesi

A pretty girl is like a melody.






Many of us have come to CM in pursuit of better melodies.


----------



## flamencosketches

Woodduck said:


> Parenthetical, perhaps, but the singer is not Maria Callas.


Bummer. Shows what I know about sopranos, I'm not a big vocal music guy.

@Fabulin, Schubert's Ave Maria, believe it or not, is not a hymn at all. It's a Lied which is a setting of a Walter Scott poem.

Your opinion on the F minor Fantasy is kind of baffling to me, but to each his own, I guess. That was one of the pieces that got me into classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

Melody of the Schubertian sort - complete, beautifully balanced, seemingly simple yet richly poignant melody - is practically a forgotten art, not only in classical music but in popular music as well. When I hear the grinding three-note patterns accompanied by repetitive rhythms and stagnant harmonies that pass for popular songs nowadays, and hear young people actually "singing" along in their whiny voices, not even suspecting that any nutrients are missing from the junk food they're ingesting, I can only expect a diminishing audience for Schubert's melodic genius. It's become an exquisite artifact in the holodeck of the mind. It's the sound of a lost world.


----------



## Guest

Phil loves classical said:


> Both wrote about equally great melodies I believe. My favourite melodies by Beethoven is in his Emperor Concerto and Tempest sonata. My favourite melodies in Schubert are the 2nd movement of his 9th symphony, and maybe that theme and variations in Death and the Maiden. In terms of more interesting development I would always give it to Beethoven. Beethoven was a bigger risk taker. I think that part is obvious. Schubert always stepped back when it started getting hairy. He was probably at his most adventurous in the Unfinished Symphony. I was disappointed by his 9th in general (except for the 2nd movement as mentioned). He seemed content to go back to padding it up.


I'm afraid that I disagree with some of what you've said. in my opinion Schubert had the edge over Beethoven in the melody department. Beethoven, for sure, wasn't short short of good melodies but they came more naturally to Schubert, and it tends to show. Also, I prefer Schubert's melodies on the whole to Beethoven's.

I give credit to Beethoven for being the better technician and one who clearly fussed a lot more than Schubert to extract and exploit every last ounce of value out of his creations. Beethoven's work has the impression of being more solidly built, with a driving energy that remains largely unmatched. Schubert's creations were more the result of what seems to be the spontaneous outpourings of a creative genius of the highest order. He certainly created some really splendid works across several main genres.

Schubert developed new compositional approaches arguably as much as did Beethoven in terms of later take-up by other composers. For example, his innovations in the Wanderer Fantasy (single continuous movement) created a strong favourable impression on later romantics, especially Schumann and Liszt in terms of their work on the development of the symphony and the new style "symphonic poems" that were to become very popular by a range of composers.

To me, Beethoven was more the last great Classical composer rather than the first great Romantic composer. They're obviously both top notch composers, and on balance I find it difficult to separate them in terms of my personal preference.


----------



## Littlephrase

Fabulin said:


> I can't say I have heard all works by Schubert, but so far my search for this supposed El Dorado of melodies has been fruitless. Please do mention the titles or provide some links.


In the realm of lieder alone: Winterreise, Die Schone Mullerin, Schwanengesang, Im Fruhling, An Die Musik, Sei mir gegrusst, Auf dem Wasser zu singen, Der Hirt auf dem Felsen, Auf dem Strom, Du bist die Ruh, Wehmut, Mignon-Lied, Nacht und Traume, Heidenroslein, Am Bach im Fruhling, Des Fischers Liebesgluck, An Sylvia, Das sie hier gewesen, Du liebst mich nicht, Seligkeit, Nachtstuck, Am Tage Aller Seleen, Fruhlingsglaube, Ganymed, Der König in Thule, Bei dir Allen, Iridisches Gluck, Der Wanderer an den Mond, Nahe des Geliebten, An den Mond, Der Fluss, Lob der Tranen, Wanderers Nachtlied, Die junge Nonne, Der Zwerg, Suleika, Nachtviolen, Im Frien, Auf dem See, Vor meiner Weige, Totengrabers Heimweh, Herbst, Die Sterne, Der Musensohn, Abendstern...

Is this enough of an El Dorado?


----------



## Luchesi

Bach was often writing to help people with their religious faith.

Schubert was often writing exquisitely for his friends who loved melodies, within that context.

Beethoven was often writing for the future of music. 
Beethoven said about Op. 106 “a sonata that will give pianists something to do, and that it will be played 50 years hence”

The melodies can be examined with the awareness of the different goals these composers had.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> I can't say I have heard all works by Schubert, but so far my search for this supposed El Dorado of melodies has been fruitless. Please do mention the titles or provide some links.


What a naive comment and question.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Partita said:


> *I'm afraid that I disagree with some of what you've said*. in my opinion Schubert had the edge over Beethoven in the melody department. Beethoven, for sure, wasn't short short of good melodies but they came more naturally to Schubert, and it tends to show. Also, I prefer Schubert's melodies on the whole to Beethoven's.
> 
> I give credit to Beethoven for being the better technician and one who clearly fussed a lot more than Schubert to extract and exploit every last ounce of value out of his creations. Beethoven's work has the impression of being more solidly built, with a driving energy that remains largely unmatched. Schubert's creations were more the result of what seems to be the spontaneous outpourings of a creative genius of the highest order. He certainly created some really splendid works across several main genres.
> 
> Schubert developed new compositional approaches arguably as much as did Beethoven in terms of later take-up by other composers. For example, his innovations in the Wanderer Fantasy (single continuous movement) created a strong favourable impression on later romantics, especially Schumann and Liszt in terms of their work on the development of the symphony and the new style "symphonic poems" that were to become very popular by a range of composers.
> 
> To me, Beethoven was more the last great Classical composer rather than the first great Romantic composer. They're obviously both top notch composers, and on balance I find it difficult to separate them in terms of my personal preference.


I'd be worried if you agreed with everything I wrote :lol:. Good melodies aren't that hard to write. I hear some in lesser known composers and pop music. What separates the wheat from the chaff is development. It is unproven, but I have little doubt that if Beethoven wanted to, he could focus more on melody and themes, and go easier on motivic development and tension building. While the converse is not true, I hear Schubert try to develop more as in the first movement of his last sonata. I hear what he intends on doing, but doesn't have the means (either talent or skill) to do. I know there are big fans of his last sonata here, so I tread lightly. He doesn't sound eloquent to me. It's like he's tearing his hair out to say something, but can only by repetition. In a way it works, but from a less optimistic or skeptical standpoint, I feel he failed.


----------



## Guest

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd be worried if you agreed with everything I wrote :lol:. Good melodies aren't that hard to write. I hear some in lesser known composers and pop music. What separates the wheat from the chaff is development. It is unproven, but I have little doubt that if Beethoven wanted to, he could focus more on melody and themes, and go easier on motivic development and tension building. While the converse is not true, I hear Schubert try to develop more as in the first movement of his last sonata. I hear what he intends on doing, but doesn't have the means (either talent or skill) to do.


Good melody is the hardest part of composition in my view because it can't be taught. I couldn't dream up a good melody to save my life, whereas I can knock up a bit of counterpoint at the drop of a hat (not much good mind you).

The gift of good melodic ability results partly from inspiration and whether or not the Muses are smiling on the composer. In the case of Schubert the Muses were well pleased, and we can enjoy the benefits.

In the case of Beethoven, his "melody" was probably more the result of perspiraton. It still sounds very good, but for me it's not as enchanting and outright beautiful as the Schubert brand at his best.


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> Good melodies aren't that hard to write. What separates the wheat from the chaff is development.


Good melodic construction and good development can both be taught, and the result may be music that no one cares about.


----------



## crispi

JTech82 said:


> I don't think Schubert wrote better melodies than Beethoven, in fact I'll go even further and say that Schubert wasn't that great of a composer compared to Beethoven.
> 
> Listen to Beethoven's symphonies and concertos they are oozing with melody. Schubert wasn't even in the same league as Beethoven.


I don't think the comparison is all that fair. Schubert died at the age of 31, Beethoven lived to be 56. By his 31st year, Beethoven had for instance only composed one single symphony, his first two piano concertos, his first set of 6 string quartets. That's putting things more into a fair perspective.

EDIT: Sorry if this was mentioned already, just realised there were so many posts in this thread.


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd be worried if you agreed with everything I wrote :lol:. Good melodies aren't that hard to write. I hear some in lesser known composers and pop music. What separates the wheat from the chaff is development. It is unproven, but I have little doubt that if Beethoven wanted to, he could focus more on melody and themes, and go easier on motivic development and tension building. While the converse is not true, I hear Schubert try to develop more as in the first movement of his last sonata. I hear what he intends on doing, but doesn't have the means (either talent or skill) to do. I know there are big fans of his last sonata here, so I tread lightly. He doesn't sound eloquent to me. It's like he's tearing his hair out to say something, but can only by repetition. In a way it works, but from a less optimistic or skeptical standpoint, I feel he failed.


You think he was trying to be elegant. I hear him saying goodbye and being happy for other people who will live on. There's also some warnings about the sad parts of life that they will inevitably encounter. There's a lot of foreboding in the way Richter plays it. Hesitations and silences and trying to be positive within the drumroll rhythm of life's realities.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Partita said:


> Good melody is the hardest part of composition in my view because it can't be taught. I couldn't dream up a good melody to save my life, whereas I can knock up a bit of counterpoint at the drop of a hat (not much good mind you).
> 
> The gift of good melodic ability results partly from inspiration and whether or not the Muses are smiling on the composer. In the case of Schubert the Muses were well pleased, and we can enjoy the benefits.
> 
> In the case of Beethoven, his "melody" was probably more the result of perspiraton. It still sounds very good, but for me it's not as enchanting and outright beautiful as the Schubert brand at his best.


Good melody is inseparable from development, within the line. Certain tensions, resolutions, implied harmony within the line. Just by melodies or themes, I prefer Tchaikovsky and Ravel over Schubert. Quite a bit of Schubert comes across as bland to me. But I agree he does have the gift which is evident in his best.

I'll add this. Schubert was great at microdevelopment within a melodic line, but not as good as Beethoven in macrodevelopment within a movement. Beethoven usually favoured macro development of a movement over the microdevelopment of a melody or theme.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> You think he was trying to be elegant. I hear him saying goodbye and being happy for other people who will live on. There's also some warnings about the sad parts of life that they will inevitably encounter. There's a lot of foreboding in the way Richter plays it. Hesitations and silences and trying to be positive within the drumroll rhythm of life's realities.


No, I hear him as infusing some drama or tension, when he repeats the theme louder and with repeated notes. It is a common device used in pop, but I expected more from a 20 minute movement in Classical after Beethoven. Hence, my belief that Schubert was not as adept as Beethoven at macro development as in the above post.


----------



## Guest

Phil loves classical said:


> Good melody is inseparable from development, within the line. Certain tensions, resolutions, implied harmony within the line. Just by melodies or themes, I prefer *Tchaikovsky and Ravel* over Schubert. Quite a bit of Schubert comes across as bland to me. But I agree he does have the gift which is evident in his best.


Agreed, both Tchaikovsky and Ravel were great melodists, among the very finest. Regards Schubert, it has to be remembered that he wrote vast amounts of music, and therefore it's to be expected that the quality would vary. Much of it was written purely for his own and friends' amusement, so he was hardly likely to be able to pull out all the stops in every single work. At his best, in my opinion, he was the supreme melodist. By "best" these are dotted around most parts of his short career, but are highly concentrated during the time after Beethoven's death until his own - arguably the greatest concentration of high quality works by any composer in the history of music.


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> No, I hear him as infusing some drama or tension, when he repeats the theme louder and with repeated notes. It is a common device used in pop, but I expected more from a 20 minute movement in Classical after Beethoven. Hence, my belief that Schubert was not as adept as Beethoven at macro development as in the above post.


You can talk yourself out of appreciating any piece of music. You've heard them many more times than anyone during the lifetime of these composers. Push a button, repeat sections.

And I think you're missing a lot if you don't reduce it to chords and try to play it. It seems to me that Schubert tried to make it easy enough for an amateur pianist. He was concerned with expectations of symmetry using broad memorable material with simple yet surprising figurations adding to the general feeling. That was his world. You can disagree with his approach after hearing all of Beethoven and his drama and provocations.


----------



## samm

Woodduck said:


> Good melodic construction and good development can both be taught, and the result may be music that no one cares about.


The latter perhaps, but an ear for good melody is not so easily taught. I'd say it's either there or it isn't.

This is kind of an odd thread. I read through some previous pages to clarify the positions of those involved, though it's too long to read it all. Some have bailed out and at least one guy is banned. The ones still posting mostly seem to be Schubert fans who don't care for any criticisms no matter how justified. I don't mind me a bit of Schubert, but the guy was hardly the pinnacle of music or even great melody. So your description of his melody writing as 'melodic genius' seems somewhat overemphasized.

If it isn't that then at least his melodies ought to be considered as part of their musical whole. The guy didn't really make capital from what he had and pretty much squandered any melody with less than exciting structure. It sort of works in the songs which are small-scale and rely on melody, but the longer works require more than just a melodist.

At this point I feel like a latecomer rehashing discussions from earlier in the thread, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Guest

crispi said:


> I don't think the comparison is all that fair. Schubert died at the age of 31, Beethoven lived to be 56. By his 31st year, Beethoven had for instance only composed one single symphony, his first two piano concertos, his first set of 6 string quartets. That's putting things more into a fair perspective.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry if this was mentioned already, just realised there were so many posts in this thread.


This type of comment has been made many times, not just in this thread but in dozens of others where Schubert has been compared with other composers. It's obvious that if Schubert had lived a much longer life, and had continued to produce works of the same or even better quality, then his general standing would be even higher than it is already. But that's all speculation. We can only compare what he actually produced with what others (in this case Beethoven) produced. Otherwise we'd be involved in a highly dubious process of comparing the output of composers based on some harmonised age limit. Any such process would be stupid for all sorts of reasons, like some composers didn't start until late, or may have deliberately decided to produce works more slowly for various reasons. Therefore, like it not, we're stuck with actuals not hypotheticals.


----------



## Guest

samm said:


> The latter perhaps, but an ear for good melody is not so easily taught. I'd say it's either there or it isn't.
> 
> This is kind of an odd thread. I read through some previous pages to clarify the positions of those involved, though it's too long to read it all. Some have bailed out and at least one guy is banned. The ones still posting mostly seem to be Schubert fans who don't care for any criticisms no matter how justified. I don't mind me a bit of Schubert, but the guy was hardly the pinnacle of music or even great melody. So your description of his melody writing as 'melodic genius' seems somewhat overemphasized.
> 
> If it isn't that then at least his melodies ought to be considered as part of their musical whole. The guy didn't really make capital from what he had and pretty much squandered any melody with less than exciting structure. It sort of works in the songs which are small-scale and rely on melody, but the longer works require more than just a melodist.
> 
> At this point I feel like a latecomer rehashing discussions from earlier in the thread, so I'll leave it at that.


Interesting. I seem to recall very similar thoughts being expressed earlier in this thread.


----------



## samm

That's right. I did say I had read through and don't claim to be original, but I kinda agree with those sentiments.
You are saying pretty much the same thing from two dozen pages ago. It's a sort of carousel.


----------



## Larkenfield

samm said:


> The latter perhaps, but an ear for good melody is not so easily taught. I'd say it's either there or it isn't.
> 
> This is kind of an odd thread. I read through some previous pages to clarify the positions of those involved, though it's too long to read it all. Some have bailed out and at least one guy is banned. The ones still posting mostly seem to be Schubert fans who don't care for any criticisms no matter how justified. I don't mind me a bit of Schubert, but the guy was hardly the pinnacle of music or even great melody. So your description of his melody writing as 'melodic genius' seems somewhat overemphasized.
> 
> If it isn't that then at least his melodies ought to be considered as part of their musical whole. The guy didn't really make capital from what he had and pretty much squandered any melody with less than exciting structure. It sort of works in the songs which are small-scale and rely on melody, but the longer works require more than just a melodist.
> 
> At this point, I feel like a latecomer rehashing discussions from earlier in the thread, so I'll leave it at that.


This "guy"? How insightful and classy. Schubert shortcomings have often been discussed on this forum, including in other threads, and those who appreciate and understand him are also trying to point out the reasons for his lasting appeal, because he still has great appeal and is considered one of the greatest composers of all time, not by you of course or some others, but he's been played by the top soloists and orchestras in the world for over 200 years, and evidently some of his critics have no idea way, though such world-class musicians as Brendel, Horowitz, and Richter obviously do, just for starters. So whether one likes him or not, or thinks this "guy" is overrated, he's a beloved composer to many for his sensitivity, his poetry and for having one of the greatest gifts of melodic inspiration of any of the major composers, of which he is. Was he as masterful as Beethoven in the way he developed his ideas? Of course not, but he had different intentions and his music is based more on lyrical vocal writing. Yet his style and personality is just as distinct and as recognizable as any composer who ever lived, and some of you might consider that in your lukewarm and half-hearted praise of melody and his other gifts that's some of you discount because you seem to think it's all so easy to write a great melody or do anything else that he did. His style, his character, his personality, his individuality is no less distinct than Beethoven's, and he was superior in his _instinctive_ and natural melodic invention because he did far more of it, though Beethoven was certainly capable of writing a great melody.


----------



## hammeredklavier

samm said:


> The ones still posting mostly seem to be Schubert fans who don't care for any criticisms no matter how justified. I don't mind me a bit of Schubert, but the guy was hardly the pinnacle of music or even great melody. So your description of his melody writing as 'melodic genius' seems somewhat overemphasized.
> If it isn't that then at least his melodies ought to be considered as part of their musical whole. The guy didn't really make capital from what he had and pretty much squandered any melody with less than exciting structure. It sort of works in the songs which are small-scale and rely on melody, but the longer works require more than just a melodist.


I have to agree Schubert's treatment of melody is somewhat overrated at least in instrumental works, especially ones involving large forms.
This impromptu is actually considered one of his major works written in the last year of his life and frankly it is unintelligent and tiresome in terms of melody in certain sections.
Listen to the left hand from 0:45 to 1:30.


----------



## Littlephrase

Oh, hammeredklavier. What would TC be without your tireless illumination of the compositional inadequacies of Chopin and Schubert?


----------



## flamencosketches

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Oh, hammeredklavier. What would TC be without your tireless illumination of the compositional inadequacies of Chopin and Schubert?


I think it's hilarious when he uses incredibly beautiful, thoughtful, and powerful music as a kind of example to illustrate why x composer is bad. :lol:


----------



## samm

I don't know about "powerful". That impromptu hammeredklavier posted really is a pretty dull piece of music. It ain't terrible, it starts out good but goes downhill rapidly. When it gets to the trio it's like another piece of music just bolted on to fill the running time. The trio is actually pretty dramatic, if a bit static. Anyone here with a bit of honesty about them knows better piano works; even by so-called "lesser composers". 

hammaredklavier his hitting his head against a wall, everyone rushes to defend the underdog and that's what Schubert was.


----------



## flamencosketches

samm said:


> I don't know about "powerful". That impromptu hammeredklavier posted really is a pretty dull piece of music. It ain't terrible, it starts out good but goes downhill rapidly. When it gets to the trio it's like another piece of music just bolted on to fill the running time. The trio is actually pretty dramatic, if a bit static. Anyone here with a bit of honesty about them knows better piano works; even by so-called "lesser composers".
> 
> hammaredklavier his hitting his head against a wall, everyone rushes to defend the underdog and that's what Schubert was.


Your opinion is just that, one man's opinion. Yes, I know better piano works, but this impromptu is a damn good one. You may not like it, but you're not going to persuade me out of understanding the power of this music. :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

András Schiff on Schubert:





Pianist Paul Lewis:
https://www.npr.org/2013/11/07/242103926/paul-lewis-confronting-schuberts-nightmare

Kirsten Flagstad Four Schubert lieder: 




Berlin Philharmonic Schubert playlist (excerpts):
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-IXdkJ4LY4lzDPcyv-lCjrCIR0hgIbFL

Pires - the four Schubert Impromptus:





"Appreciation of Schubert's music while he was alive was limited to a relatively small circle of admirers in Vienna, but interest in his work increased significantly in the decades following his death. Felix Mendelssohn, Robert Schumann, Franz Liszt, Johannes Brahms and other 19th-century composers discovered and championed his works. Today, Schubert is ranked among the greatest composers of the 19th century, and his music continues to be popular."

Schubert is no longer an "underdog" in need of being promoted.


----------



## Woodduck

Well, OK, I'm listening to the Op. 90/4 Impromptu for the first time in years to see what all this argy-bargy could be about. Lovely piece. Nothing wrong with it. Samm, you're out to lunch about the middle section being "like another piece of music just bolted on to fill the running time." And, as usual, hammeredklavier, you dig up a literal, unimaginative performance to support your own low opinion of whichever composer you single out for scorn. In fact, this one isn't even literal, as it ignores the music's clear markings at many points. You can only get away with that if you have something compelling to substitute, and this pianist doesn't.

Schubert looks simpler on the surface than he is in the depths of his soul. Let's listen to what Rachmaninoff finds in this music that lesser musicians miss:


----------



## Larkenfield

samm said:


> I don't know about "powerful". That impromptu hammeredklavier posted really is a pretty dull piece of music. It ain't terrible, it starts out good but goes downhill rapidly. When it gets to the trio it's like another piece of music just bolted on to fill the running time. The trio is actually pretty dramatic, if a bit static. Anyone here with a bit of honesty about them knows better piano works; even by so-called "lesser composers".
> 
> hammaredklavier his hitting his head against a wall, everyone rushes to defend the underdog and that's what Schubert was.


Why don't you ask your avatar picture why he liked Schubert? Schumann did, you know, along with Mendelssohn, Liszt, and Brahms. Some guess, fly by the seat of their pants and seem to have no feel for certain composers, though this "guy" had his shortcomings just like any other composer and no one is obligated to like him. I believe the only critics whose opinions hold water are those who can illuminate a composer's virtues as well as his weaknesses rather than being encumbered with too many myopic, narrow blind spots to illuminate the genius of anyone, including Schubert, with any measure of heart, constructive insight, and balance. Rather than simply complaining or discounting Schubert's creative efforts, an astute listener could be looking for the best in what he had to offer, out of his astonishing 1500 works in 31 years, to understand the value and enjoyment that others find in him, including many of the top soloists and orchestras in the world, or respectfully move on to someone else.

Schumann and Schubert:

"When Franz Schubert died on November 19, 1828, he left a legacy that included about one hundred published works circulating principally in Austria and Germany, a respectable collection of panegyrics by Viennese obituarists, and an uncertain number of admirers that nonetheless included one zealous teenager studying law in Leipzig who had written (but not sent) a letter to the older composer earlier that summer and who had recorded in his diary the single word "dismay" upon learning of Schubert's passing. One year later, that youthful enthusiast, Robert Schumann, wrote to his piano teacher Friedrich Wieck asking him to send to Schumann all of the composer's music that had appeared since his death. These works were the first signs of what would prove to be a large number of posthumous publications during the ensuing decade. By the end of that period, Schubert's music was inciting responses that ranged from a near cultish vogue among members of the Paris cultural elite to rearguard carping by London's principal music critic. It was Schumann, however, now an established composer, who had become Schubert's leading literary propagandist through articles that appeared in the _Neue Zeitschrift für Musik_, the music journal established in 1834 through his leadership.

"Still in its nascent stage, Schubert's reception was canalized in 1838 by a passage in one such essay in which Schumann reviewed some of the composer's newly issued works for piano, the Grand Duo (D. 812, op. posth. 140) and three sonatas (D. 958-60), which the publisher Diabelli had dedicated, respectively, to Clara Wieck, the daughter of Schumann's teacher and the composer's future wife, and Schumann himself." - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/schubert-in-the-european-imagination/robert-schumanns-schubert-inventing-a-madchencharakter/FC261E7096BBFA6C50BE29EB71285D1F


----------



## flamencosketches

Woodduck said:


> Well, OK, I'm listening to the Op. 90/4 Impromptu for the first time in years to see what all this argy-bargy could be about. Lovely piece. Nothing wrong with it. Samm, you're out to lunch about the middle section being "like another piece of music just bolted on to fill the running time." And, as usual, hammeredklavier, you dig up a literal, unimaginative performance to support your own low opinion of whichever composer you single out for scorn. In fact, this one isn't even literal, as it ignores the music's clear markings at many points. You can only get away with that if you have something compelling to substitute, and this pianist doesn't.
> 
> Schubert looks simpler on the surface than he is in the depths of his soul. Let's listen to what Rachmaninoff finds in this music that lesser musicians miss:


I would recommend Schnabel as well.


----------



## hammeredklavier

_"Some of the vocal lines in his songs are very amateurish and banal. Some are so bad that they are like five finger exercises on a piano...
It has been said, and with truth, that Schubert holds the record for composing the most flops and he is top of this leader board by miles...
The first movement has an attractive theme but it is played without variation over and over and over and over again. There is no rhythmic contrast or harmonic variation..."_
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf

I quote David C F Wright regarding the issue with Schubert not because he's an authority in the subject, but he correctly describes these "truths" of Schubert in great detail in his writing. I'm baffled why people say they don't like "appeal to authority" and care about whether or not Wright actually holds a valid PhD in music or not. It doesn't matter he has one. Anyone without a PhD degree can easily see that many of Schubert's instrumental compositions are not very "professional". A great composer alright, but I don't think it's too unreasonable a claim to suggest that Schubert was less "professional" than most other composers.

Impromptu Op.90 No.2 (composed by 30-year old Schubert)





Rondo a Capriccio Op.125 (composed by 25-year old Beethoven)





Impromptu Op.29 (composed by 27-year old Chopin)


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I would recommend Schnabel as well.


There's something about that Schnabel recording which isn't for me, a tense nervousness, though I can hear he has a sense of the drama and the line which is wonderful. From that generation, as Woodduck says, Rachmaninov is outstanding, and so is Edwin Fischer I think, My favourite is Sofro, this live performance made when he may well have been using opiates (for pain) -- it sounds to me as though he's in a very special place. One of the really great Schubert performances I'd say -- all due respect to Rachmaninov etc.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> There's something about that Schnabel recording which isn't for me, a tense nervousness, though I can hear he has a sense of the drama and the line which is wonderful. From that generation, as Woodduck says, Rachmaninov is outstanding, and so is Edwin Fischer I think, My favourite is Sofro, this live performance made when he may well have been using opiates (for pain) -- it sounds to me as though he's in a very special place. One of the really great Schubert performances I'd say -- all due respect to Rachmaninov etc.


Thanks for bringing up Fischer: 




Although I love Rachmaninoff's freedom and drama, I think Fischer's quiet inwardness is just as affecting. I have to admit that I find Sofro a little brutal, though I admire the risk-taking I also hear, combined with greater refinement, in Rach.

I wonder if the difficulty some have with Romantic music arises from the fact that so few now know how to perform it. The "impromptu" is a Romantic invention, and the word means "spontaneous and unplanned." It's up to the performer to make us feel as if he's expressing himself in the moment and that the music is arising out of that. Above all that requires throwing away the metronome: tempo is no longer about measuring time, but about playing with it and wrestling with it, and timing comes not from the notes but from the gesture behind them.


----------



## Mandryka

I think the romantic impromptu is the same sort of thing as the earlier toccata or fantasy.


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> I would recommend Schnabel as well.


OK, Schnabel's recordings were famous in their day, but I find them to be let down by generally poor sound quality on account of their age, and generally bettered by more recent artists.

Some of my favourites are.

For the Impromptus: Radu Lupu, Maria João Pires, Paul Lewis (there are many more)

Moments Musicaux: Paul Lewis, Imogen Cooper, Clifford Curzon

Wanderer Fantasy: Maurizio Pollini

Late Piano Sonatas: Alfred Brendel, Mitsuko Uchida, Maria João Pires (plus several more)

Fantasia for piano duet (D 940): Murray Perahia/Radu Lupu (there are several others)

Sonata for piano duet (D 812): Evgeny Kissin/James Levine


----------



## Larkenfield

Some play it too fast, tense and banging, IMO, but Rubinstein doesn't. This impromptu has a wonderful rippling effect in the right hand that flows so beautifully, lyrically, and seems so natural. It's so much better to me when it's played more relaxed and cascading.


----------



## annaw

I was listening to András Schiff's lecture about Beethoven Sonata in A major Op. 2 No. 2 and he talked a bit on the topic of people claiming that Beethoven wasn't a great melodist (if someone is interested, then listen to 15:14 - 17:05 of the lecture).


----------

