# So, who is to blame for the classical era?



## Rubens

After the splendors of the baroque era, with its ever-expanding richness of expression and complexity of craft, the evolution of the music was suddenly hijacked by the most restrictive dumbing-down known as the classical era. 
No era has produced fewer big names than the classical era. Yes, there were Haydn and Mozart, but they were the exceptions, for they managed to write interesting music within the the most restrictive stylistic shackles ever imposed on composers; this is akin to swimming with their hands tied behind their backs - an admirable feat for sure, but not the best conditions for the production of masterpieces. It took a revolutionary , slightly insane man (LvB) to free humanity from this most boring of all eras, and I have no doubt that his deafness was a blessing in disguise, for he had to be deaf to the terrible music of his time to be able to bring music back to its freedom!

So who is to blame for this monstrosity called the classical era?? Is it the taste of the aristocracy of that time? But what could have led them to such bad taste? Why did all the harmonic richness get dumbed down to the most basic formulas? And who decided that most the music would be written in major keys? Was it the Mannheim school? More precisely Stamitz?? Could one man really have caused all this damage??
Again, thank God for Beethoven. After him, the music was free to evolve again. Sure, some people may object to the 2nd viennese school, but even that era was less restrictive than the classical era.
Voila, that was my rant. If you don't agree, kindly buzz off.


----------



## Jacck

it was the whole ideology of classicism. It probably started in architecture, when they admired the classical buildings of ancient greece, their simple architecture, sense of balance a proportions and no complicated ornaments etc. And they thought, they music should be like the classical buildings, simply, elegant, in correct proportions etc. 
but I agree that classicism is the most boring era in music


----------



## DBLee

Considering Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven were the most influential composers of the classical era, I suppose you'd have to blame them.


----------



## Schoenberg

I have asked a similar question on a different forum, and this is the reply I have received:

_It basically happened through opera. Already well before Bach died, around 1730 Italian opera had adopted a relatively simple style that was really useful for making sharp, quick, and punch dramatic effects. Listen to something like La serva padrona by Pergolesi, and you'll find a lot of the kind of dialogue between singer and orchestra that Mozart would use 50-60 years later




This was really serving a dramatic need. On stage, you wanted all of your attention focused on the singer. The orchestra needed to amplify what they were doing, not usually distract from that too much. And that's what the simple textures of the 1730s did phenomenally well, they really cast the spotlight on the singer.
I should say theatrical rather than dramatic
Anyway, that's really the basis of the classical style. Not only for classical opera, but for symphonies as well (symphonies originally being the things that come before operas). The rest is a gradual build up of orchestral effects, the transfer of these sorts of textures to other vehicles like the piano sonata.
It's no coincidence that Mozart's very earliest influences were primarily known as opera composers: JC Bach and Josef Myslivecek.
That's not the whole story of course. You have to talk about Sammartini and the Mannheim school, the Empfindsamer stile of CPE Bach, the cult of sentimentality in the 60s, etc.
But if you had to simplify it to just one thing, "Italian opera" is a good tradition to follow. As the seeds of the classical style are there VERY early, and it continued to be perhaps the most prestigious (and lucrative) artform to the end of the century_

The question I asked was: "Can anyone give me a rundown of how the baroque period transitioned into the classical period?"
Credit to nmitchell076#6216 on discord for providing this answer.


----------



## Larkenfield

To say who's to 'blame' is dismissive and offensive historically. There was more to it than Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Gee, and I thought the Classical era was based on a resurgence of Greek ideals that influenced all the arts from literature to painting to music in the pursuit of an ideal of balance in form and content without excesses. Some were better at this balance of form and content than others and I see the lack of interest in many of them not because they weren't good composers but because the world has changed starting in the Romantic era that was more about the rise of individuality and personal self-expression rather than conforming to a Greek ideal and the aristocracy who had so very often been a patron of the arts and the musicians depended on them for their livelihoods. If for no other reason, the Classical era represents refuge from some of the tiring up and down emotional excesses of the Romantic era. But such great composers as Chopin, Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms made great contributions to the history of the music and it's absurd to think of them as being of diminished capacity as composers; they simply had a different focus in life as composers. Such an idea should final be relegated to the trash heap because it shows no understanding or insight into the Romantic era at all.

Other Classical era names: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/musicappreciation_with_theory/chapter/overview-of-the-classical-era/


----------



## Gallus

You know that the Baroque era itself was a relative dumbing-down of harmony from the late Renaissance, right? Compare the harmonic language of Corelli to that of Gombert or Gesualdo. So why did that dumbing-down happen? Because Baroque composers were looking for a more dramatic, more human (and yes, more streamlined) way of composing which could express a greater range of emotions. So it was for the transition from Baroque to Classical: listen to a Handel opera and a Mozart opera and it's night and day in terms of being actual dramatic compositions.

Like one thing to note is that generally a Baroque composition expresses one emotion, while a classical piece can shift between different emotions within a single piece. Beethoven wasn't just "breaking out" from classical strictures, but building on what they had already developed.


----------



## MarkW

Yes, the best of the Baroque was masterful, but an awful lot of it was dreadfully repetitious. Can you honestly tell the difference between anonymously presented pieces by Corelli, Torelli, Locatelli, Albinoni, Frescobaldi, A. Scarlatti, Tartini, etc. . . .? Can't you sleep through it as easily as through the more uninspired works by CPE Bach, Salieri, Dittersdorf, Boccherini, even the youthful Mozart and Haydn . . ? Blame the eighteenth century record companies that needed a new style to market.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Rubens said:


> After the splendors of the baroque era, with its ever-expanding richness of expression and complexity of craft, the evolution of the music was suddenly hijacked by the most restrictive dumbing-down known as the classical era.


Not every baroque composer was a Bach or a Handel. Vivaldi was another great composer, but do you admire every one of 500 concertos he wrote? Again, I don't understand this mentality of generalizing periods without carefully looking at each composer case by case.
If I were to follow your logic, I would consider early Romanticism more of a deterioration of music than the classical era. At least classical era masters explored development and sonata forms in many of their works, starting in 19th century (with some exceptions) composers started writing huge quantities of miniatures that don't develop anything. 
A lot of Chopin's miniatures, like Mazurka Op.24 No.2, for example. Huge bunch of 19th century waltzes in general are a form far more dumbed-down in structure or texture (endless 3/4 time accompaniment from start to finish) than anything that preceded them. Look at Schubert's huge bunch of lieders and constant proto-minimalistic vamping and padding in his extended works, for example. As others have pointed out, there are unique works of orchestral color like Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, but would you consider every genre flourished in the Romantic era as being truly great? I wouldn't.
To my ears, there's far less emphasis on structure and part-writing, more emphasis on over-sentimentality and overblown bombast. Overall there's just too much emphasis on 'songs and miniatures', in works such as Mendelssohn's Songs without Words. 


Rubens said:


> No era has produced fewer big names than the classical era.


I think it's because while baroque era is generally considered as spanning 1600~1750, classical era is much shorter 1750~1800. I still consider CPE Bach, JC Bach, Michael Haydn 



 in higher regard than Schubert (and even Schumann) and I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that they are more proficient in technical aspects.



Rubens said:


> Yes, there were Haydn and Mozart, but they were the exceptions, for they managed to write interesting music within the the most restrictive stylistic shackles ever imposed on composers; this is akin to swimming with their hands tied behind their backs - an admirable feat for sure, but not the best conditions for the production of masterpieces.


I don't get it. The greatest of baroque composers (and arguably the greatest of all), Bach is admired for writing convincing music based on sets of rules and restrictions. If you're looking for music free from rules and restrictions, Bach's music wouldn't be the best for you: 



This is the thing I don't get about people who always criticize Haydn and Mozart as being formulaic, nitpicking cadences and stuff, but would not say the same about Bach after listening to a bunch of Bach fugues that end with a pedal point and a picardy third to tonic major. Or stuff like:








I sometimes get this impression people often just justify their bias and favoritism with excuses. I'm not questioning Bach's greatness. I just think that people should treat him and the other greats by the same criteria.



Rubens said:


> It took a revolutionary , slightly insane man (LvB) to free humanity from this most boring of all eras, and I have no doubt that his deafness was a blessing in disguise, for he had to be deaf to the terrible music of his time to be able to bring music back to its freedom!


Again, another attempt to hype Beethoven as a "messiah who brought emotion to music". Composers with the most natural talent? As pointed out by other members of the forum, Schubert and Beethoven weren't the only guys doing new stuff starting in the 19th century. "Writing in a new style" was a cultural trend of the time, with a bunch of his other contemporaries doing it, Hummel, Spohr, Cherubini, Danzi, Weber, Dussek etc. Beethoven could be considered the greatest of the bunch, but still doesn't change the fact there was also a huge bunch of his contemporaries doing different stuff from the 18th century styles.



Rubens said:


> So who is to blame for this monstrosity called the classical era?? Is it the taste of the aristocracy of that time? But what could have led them to such bad taste? Why did all the harmonic richness get dumbed down to the most basic formulas? And who decided that most the music would be written in major keys? Was it the Mannheim school? More precisely Stamitz?? Could one man really have caused all this damage??


the kind of thing often said by some classical music fans with certain obsession for minor keys. Yes, many of the pieces have their home keys in major, but have you actually taken time to look at how many of them explore through minor keys within their structures by use of contrast? Slow movements, development sections, trios in minuets and stuff? Take Hoffmeister's viola concerto 



 for example.
Also, use of tritones actually increased as time went, and it also did from baroque to classical era. 
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...den-laws-of-evolution-behind-classical-music/


----------



## Woodduck

I wish I didn't agree with the OP as much as I do. Still, I have to give the Classical period a bit more credit than he does. In exploring music composed between Bach's time and Beethoven's in hopes of filling out my understanding of the period and discovering some great but obscure music, I've listened to a lot of music by a lot of late-18th-century composers not named Haydn or Mozart. There's plenty of well-written, pleasing music to be heard, as well as a variety of styles which the term "Classical" and the dominance of those two masters might tend to obscure. The period of time between the last works of Bach and the startling innovations of Beethoven's "middle period" was barely more than half a century, but the aesthetic change was amazing, and a single composer such as C.P.E. Bach can take us on a dizzying ride through the gamut of styles from Baroque to Classical to indescribable.

Listeners particularly fond of certain traits of Baroque style - the dramatic gestures, tense dissonances, counterpoint, free ornamentation, extended melody, and driving rhythms - may find the homophonic textures, insistent diatonicism, short, balanced phrases, and general ease and elegance of Classicism a bit dull by comparison. Ideals such as "balance,""proportion" and "tastefulness" don't exactly get my pulse racing, and when its possibilities are not illuminated by the joyous wit and timing of a Haydn or the melodic richness and poignancy of a Mozart there isn't much about the Classical style that attracts me. (NOTE: I'm leaving Beethoven out of this, as I regard him as only partly Classical. He was certainly not an exemplar of Classical "balance," despite his brilliant sense of structural proportion.)


----------



## Larkenfield

By the time one reads about both sides of the Classical era posted on this thread, the subject becomes entirely sickening, toxic and poisoned. The music is spoiled even by those who supposedly like it. Every era of music has its strengths and weaknesses and the change from one era to the next is inevitable  because changes in aesthetics and society never remain static.


----------



## KenOC

It's interesting how little would be lost if all the music of the "classical era" excepting its top three or four composers were to vanish. But what would be left fills a good portion of my music shelf!


----------



## paulbest

Yes agree, thankfully the classical and romantic styles are long gone
Afterwards composers got down to writing really interesting material. 

Just think, if you can , if composers got stuck in a rut,,and continued writing like the great romantics, No
2nd Viennese, No Shostakovich, No Ravel<<<< Just think if composers today, still continued writing music exactly like Schubert, Schumann, Chopin..,,,variations on the same old themes, .

I'd still be in to R N R if that was the case,,,Moody Blues, maybe the old blues masters like Muddy Waters, J Lee Hooker. 

Along with lots N lots of Mozart and Wagner.


----------



## hammeredklavier

paulbest said:


> Yes agree, thankfully the classical and romantic styles are long gone
> Afterwards composers got down to writing really interesting material.
> 
> Just think, if you can , if composers got stuck in a rut,,and continued writing like the great romantics, No
> 2nd Viennese, No Shostakovich, No Ravel<<<< Just think if composers today, still continued writing music exactly like Schubert, Schumann, Chopin..,,,variations on the same old themes, .


I don't find Shostakovich particularly interesting compared to the classical and romantic composers mentioned above. For example, I find stuff like 




kind of disappointing for

-using dissonant ostinatos to create funny 'sound effects' (which I find shallow)
-sometimes using lower strings just as waltz accompaniment
-having like 50% of the music in sustained tones that go on and on for pages at a time. 
-weak use of strettos, canonic devices
-weak part-writing compared to string quartets of the First Viennese.

Later orchestral stuff like Glazunov sounds a bit like film music and piano music by Debussy sounds like new age to me, with some exceptions. I think music didn't get particularly interesting during and after Romantic era, aside from some greats such as Bruckner, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Schoenberg etc.


----------



## KenOC

paulbest said:


> Yes agree, thankfully the classical and romantic styles are long gone
> Afterwards composers got down to writing really interesting material.


After the late 1820s, the decline began. We are left with its sorry residue today.


----------



## Portamento

The decline started with Pérotin. Everything after him is garbage, not worth listening to, yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I think music didn't get particularly interesting during and after Romantic era, aside from some greats such as Bruckner, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Schoenberg etc.


I agree about all those, including the "etc."


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

For me each era loses something I like in its transition to the next, but there are definitely things about the baroque era I miss when listening to almost any other. I don't have the theoretical vocabulary to describe it specifically, but I guess the emphasis on counterpoint gave the rhythm this constantly shifting quality that I find much, much more interesting than the rhythmic character of any other era. This allegro by Telemann and presto by Bach, from the b minor flute sonata, are good examples.










The way the momentum is transferred through all these differing phrases just makes it inexhaustible to me, whereas something like the finale of Mozart's 40th, for all its aggression, just seems to move a bit predictably. I enjoyed it for a few listens the first time I've heard it, and then I finished with it. Over five years later I'm still dazzled by the variety of motion in the Bach and Telemann pieces (sometimes Mozart does hit this spot for me though, like in the finale of his 14th quartet).

I actually feel like Haydn did a better job of combining this quality with classical era principles than even most romantic era composers. Fast movements by Bruckner and Brahms and Schumann and etc just sound so "square" compared to Haydn, Handel, Bach, and sometimes even CPE Bach. Though obviously there are things I like in the romantic pieces that the classical/baroque ones don't have.

Also, I know Schoenberg tends to be compared to the classical era, but I feel reminded of the baroque era when I listen to a lot of his stuff, like the wind quintet, maybe the density of it, and I love it for that reason.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I agree about all those, including the "etc."


I added etc in there just in case I missed one or two. I don't think there are many more to be included to the list. I still maintain that early Romantic period is worse than late classical period. Many of the leading figures of early romantic era lacked in technical aspects compared to those of late classical.


----------



## Guest

Rubens said:


> After the splendors of the baroque era, with its ever-expanding richness of expression and complexity of craft, the evolution of the music was suddenly hijacked by the most restrictive dumbing-down known as the classical era.
> No era has produced fewer big names than the classical era. Yes, there were Haydn and Mozart, but they were the exceptions, for they managed to write interesting music within the ;
> ..
> 
> Voila, that was my rant. If you don't agree, kindly buzz off.


Ignoring your last comment, you paint a far too simplistic picture of the switch from baroque to "classical" era music, as if it happened almost over night, with no intermediate stages. There were several stages from early galante through to late classical.

There were several important composers over this period apart from Haydn and Mozart. Just to mention a few there was Albinoni, Porpora, D Scarlatti, Sammartini, C P E Bach, Pergolesi, Gluck, J C Bach, Boccherini, Cimarosa.

These and many other composers wrote a great deal of very good music that was nothing like the description you give it: "the most restrictive stylistic shackles ever imposed on composers".


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I added etc in there just in case I missed one or two. I don't think there are many more to be included to the list. I still maintain that early Romantic period is worse than late classical period. Many of the leading figures of early romantic era lacked in technical aspects compared to those of late classical.


What composers besides Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven constitute the "late Classical period" which you rightly praise so highly? Everyone with any musical understanding regards these as among the greatest of composers (at least in terms of technique, whether one cares for them personally or not). But given that they represent the height of the development of a style, isn't it senseless to compare their work with early efforts in the next great movement in music?

If you must compare, it makes more sense to compare Weber, Schubert and Chopin with early representatives of Classicism - Johann Stamitz, J.C. Bach and William Boyce, for example. But even then, on the basis of what traits do you compare them? Can you "prove" that the former trio is "worse" than the latter? Do your "technical aspects" constitute such proof? (Those were rhetorical questions. Of course you can't, and of course they don't.)

The OP is over the top and a little bit absurd. Why answer it with more absurdities?


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## PlaySalieri

How odd - I always sense that music is in chains when listening to baroque - the familiar rythms and style feel like the music is just never going to break free. It seems to me the classical era was necessary as a step to free music from this absurdly long period and move it "forward" so that Beethoven and others could really press forwards. Thankfully we have two great classical era composers - three if Beethoven is included - and classical era music at its best is as impressive as any other.


----------



## Woodduck

It's important to remember that what we usually refer to as the "Classical period" was really rather short, only about 60 years even if we include that interesting transitional period known as "Rococo," when styles were all over the map and when that great invention of the Classical era, sonata form, had yet to show its potential for quasi-dramatic narrative. We might have had more truly great Classical composers had the social and political developments of a revolutionary era not propelled the arts so rapidly toward Romanticism.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I added etc in there just in case I missed one or two. I don't think there are many more to be included to the list. I still maintain that early Romantic period is worse than late classical period. Many of the leading figures of early romantic era lacked in technical aspects compared to those of late classical.


As you may have gathered from a previous discussion regarding Schubert, I'm afraid that I disagree with your negative opinion about the early "romantics". They didn't lack technical expertise, as you allege. They simply didn't need all of the techniques that their predecessors had used. Nor did they abandon completely "classical" principles, but instead provided an extended range of forms, and a general loosening up of the "classical" style, largely in response to the requirements of the age, when audiences were seeking additional variety from what had gone on before.

Much as I like Beethoven, Mozart etc, I'm very pleased that things moved on to explore new avenues in music. By the time of the early romantics from around 1820 onwards, J S Bach had been almost completely forgotten. Mozart's reputation was weakening, and his widow Constanze had to work hard to keep it alive. Beethoven's reputation was, of course, strong because he was still alive, but after his death the style he had developed was virtually dropped, until Brahms attempted to pick it up again several decades later.

We all have our favourite eras. Yours is clearly "late classical" and you seem to be focussed on that era alone. I would say that my overall favourite is early romantic, my particular favourites being Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, early Liszt. But I'm almost as happy with large chunks of medieval music, almost the entire renaissance era, all of the baroque era, much of the classical era, the remainder of the romantic era, and quite a lot of the modern era too.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> What composers besides Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven constitute the "late Classical period" which you rightly praise so highly?


I think Clementi, Michael Haydn, CPE Bach would compare favorably with Schumann, Schubert, Chopin


----------



## Phil loves classical

Usually don't take the middle-of-the-road view, but I see advantages over disadvantages of any era, except Midieval at its most primitive, and contemporary at its most superficial (love the great gags, though).


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> I think Clementi, Michael Haydn, CPE Bach would compare favorably with Schumann, Schubert, Chopin


Ooooo - have to disagree there.

Schubert is virtually Mozart and Beethoven's equal - Schumann and Chopin left a legacy important enough to feature regularly in the modern concert hall, tend to be considered masters in the way the three you mention are not.

No Clementi M Haydn and CPE are like - I dont know - three composers of the mid 19thC I have never heard of.

We are lucky that we have Mozart and Haydn from the classical era - the former particularly - since without those I would really have to agree with the OPs premise that the classical era was an utter washout for music until Beethoven arrived.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> The way the momentum is transferred through all these differing phrases just makes it inexhaustible to me, whereas something like the finale of Mozart's 40th, for all its aggression, just seems to move a bit predictably. I enjoyed it for a few listens the first time I've heard it, and then I finished with it. Over five years later I'm still dazzled by the variety of motion in the Bach and Telemann pieces (sometimes Mozart does hit this spot for me though, like in the finale of his 14th quartet).
> 
> I actually feel like Haydn did a better job of combining this quality with classical era principles than even most romantic era composers. Fast movements by Bruckner and Brahms and Schumann and etc just sound so "square" compared to Haydn, Handel, Bach, and sometimes even CPE Bach. Though obviously there are things I like in the romantic pieces that the classical/baroque ones don't have.


I'm not hating early Romanticism, but it feels like in terms of intricacy of orchestration, part-writing, late classical period is underrated in comparison. Except Mendelssohn, it seems like the bewigged guys paid more attention to actual composition skills than writing sentimental pieces for the Parisian salon for example.

Michael Haydn was one of the pioneers combining contrapuntal elements with classical forms:
22th symphony: 



28th: 



39th:


----------



## hammeredklavier

stomanek said:


> Ooooo - have to disagree there.
> Schubert is virtually Mozart and Beethoven's equal - Schumann and Chopin left a legacy important enough to feature regularly in the modern concert hall, tend to be considered masters in the way the three you mention are not.


I told you about this once. Not everyone likes Bach's Art of Fugue, does that make it a bad work?
If something is very popular, and you defend its quality by only talking about how popular it is, not by how ingenious it is in terms of skills and craftsmanship and its impact on later music and composers, you're just essentially proving how 'overrated' it is. An extreme example would be modern pop song requiring no skills of music theory to write. 
Some people criticize Johann Strauss II for being limited in variety of expression, but countering that argument by saying "he still left a legacy to feature regularly in the modern concert hall" is a very weak logic.

Beethoven esteemed Clementi as the father of pianoforte, 
and Mozart esteemed Michael Haydn, CPE Bach, for their craftsmanship, 
the way they influenced music is underrated and neglected, just cause they didn't write sentimental stuff like the early Romantic counterparts.



hammeredklavier said:


> I never said Schumann's overrated or underrated. I don't want to criticize his music, but since you bring up the topic, I'll discuss what I honestly think are his technical flaws, (unrelated to other composers): the orchestration of his symphonies (particularly his 4th) and piano concerto in A minor where he uses the orchestra to double the hell out of every line. (Again, I don't hate his music. )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, look how many instruments play in unison from 6:00 to 9:00


----------



## paulbest

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't find Shostakovich particularly interesting compared to the classical and romantic composers mentioned above. For example, I find stuff like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kind of disappointing for
> 
> -using dissonant ostinatos to create funny 'sound effects' (which I find shallow)
> -sometimes using lower strings just as waltz accompaniment
> -having like 50% of the music in sustained tones that go on and on for pages at a time.
> -weak use of strettos, canonic devices
> -weak part-writing compared to string quartets of the First Viennese.
> 
> Later orchestral stuff like Glazunov sounds a bit like film music and piano music by Debussy sounds like new age to me, with some exceptions. I think music didn't get particularly interesting during and after Romantic era, aside from some greats such as Bruckner, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Schoenberg etc.


 Many great and excellent posts in this topic,,,I'm learning a lot reading and carefully logging in all the wonderful insights and beliefs. 
Just simply amazing, how we all feel about not only 1 era, but the whole spectrum..
I tend to agree, in part. Take Shostakovich SQ's, some are good, others get on my nerves. Now who wants music that gets on the nerves in todays, nerve racking times, traffic jams, worthless $ stress, , etc.....

I think Schoenberg's bridges the gap , old and new better than Shostakovich. .. Yet if we look at chamber music as a whole, then surely the post 1870 birthed composers , offer more than any previous era composers.

As a whole I say,,,there are duds throughout the post 1870 birthed composers,,,through say 1940 birthed composers,,,(Stockhausen is a anaomoly,,, he sort of slipped in,, = *odd man out*, varese is the real deal, Stock is a fake and fraud....lets be clear about that )… Now what I wish to emphasize here is this possibility, this evident fact.
The classical era,,,yes, a few spectacular works, the romantic, again, triple the classical era as far as spectacular works,,,But when we move past that transition era, Wagner is the principle transition player,,, composers born 1870-1940<<<>>>
Is this<<<<For every 1 masterpiece Beethoven through say early Brahms, you had 2,3,4,maybe up to 5 X's more vs the strict classical era materpieces <<now in the in the romantic era,,,for every 1 masterpiece in the romantic era there might be 10 masterpices written in this 1870 birthed - 1940 birthed composers
For every

CM era 1 masterpiece
There are
Romantic era 5 masterpieces

Every 1 romantic masterpiece there are

5 modern music masterpidces

Post modern ,,zero masterpieces, because it is not the High Arts it is something else now.

So although there are *duds* in the 1870 born composers through 1940 born composers, there are 5 X's the number of masterpieces offered over any previous era,,which has a few hits, but also a lot of duds.

Quote *Oh how I love Mahler's so an so movement from this sym,,,much kore than the other movements* = the sym has issues = a dud...
Shostakovich has his duds, no doubt,,but he was working under evil, constricting condictions,,,never able to write what he really wanted, for the most part.
But take his VC,,which composer previous scored any VC even close to his OP80? See what I am getting at. 
Take Ravel,,which composer prior offers anything even close to his unreal solo piano? Ravel really renders obsolete all previous piano solo.

I could go on forever as to why the 1870 born era - 1940 born era, is so vastly superior to any previous era. 
I think you get my point, as to why , inspite of the fact there are duds in the modern era, there are endlessly more masterpieces written in the glorious finale epoch of the High Arts. Other than Mozart and wagner (would not wish to live w/o either Crown Jewels ,,,+ a few Vivaldi,, that's it from pre Wagner. In my 400 cd collection

At least that's the way I see things. 
You have a valid point, but only taken in context. Context is everything when speaking in generalities. = Forest for the trees. take astep back and one step higher up the mountain to see the whole landscape.


----------



## Larkenfield

I think I finally have the gist of the thread: who to "blame"... and there's no era without its treasures, including the Romantic era with Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, and so many others who could finally speak out for themselves without somebody of noble birth telling them what to write and do. I "blame" Michael Haydn for writing one of the glories of the Classical era with his Schrattenbach-Requiem. I find it simply magnificent with its intelligence and heart, without having to draw it into a senseless comparison with anything else:






Would love to have heard this incredible performance live!


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> I told you about this once. Not everyone likes Bach's Art of Fugue, does that make it a bad work?
> If something is very popular, and you defend its quality by only talking about how popular it is, not by how ingenious it is in terms of skills and craftsmanship and its impact on later music and composers, you're just essentially proving how 'overrated' it is. An extreme example would be modern pop song requiring no skills of music theory to write.
> Some people criticize Johann Strauss II for being limited in variety of expression, but countering that argument by saying "he still left a legacy to feature regularly in the modern concert hall" is a very weak logic.
> 
> Beethoven esteemed Clementi as the father of pianoforte,
> and Mozart esteemed Michael Haydn, CPE Bach, for their craftsmanship,
> the way they influenced music is underrated and neglected, just cause they didn't write sentimental stuff like the early Romantic counterparts.


You are talking to someone who is sympathetic to the classical era. I just cant put the three composers you cite in the same league as Chopin and Schumann and particularly Schubert. There's a huge distinction between being merely influential and,in being influential and good. Of CPE, M Haydn and Clementi - which works do you seriously think are anywhere near Schubert's great Str Quintet, or Chopin's polonaises, or Schumann's rheinish symphony or superlative PC/ pf quintet.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Many great and excellent posts in this topic,,,I'm learning a lot reading and carefully logging in all the wonderful insights and beliefs.
> Just simply amazing, how we all feel about not only 1 era, but the whole spectrum..
> I tend to agree, in part. Take Shostakovich SQ's, some are good, others get on my nerves. Now who wants music that gets on the nerves in todays, nerve racking times, traffic jams, worthless $ stress, , etc.....
> 
> I think Schoenberg's bridges the gap , old and new better than Shostakovich. .. Yet if we look at chamber music as a whole, then surely the post 1870 birthed composers , offer more than any previous era composers.
> 
> As a whole I say,,,there are duds throughout the post 1870 birthed composers,,,through say 1940 birthed composers,,,(Stockhausen is a anaomoly,,, he sort of slipped in,, = *odd man out*, varese is the real deal, Stock is a fake and fraud....lets be clear about that )… Now what I wish to emphasize here is this possibility, this evident fact.
> The classical era,,,yes, a few spectacular works, the romantic, again, triple the classical era as far as spectacular works,,,But when we move past that transition era, Wagner is the principle transition player,,, composers born 1870-1940<<<>>>
> Is this<<<<For every 1 masterpiece Beethoven through say early Brahms, you had 2,3,4,maybe up to 5 X's more vs the strict classical era materpieces <<now in the in the romantic era,,,for every 1 masterpiece in the romantic era there might be 10 masterpices written in this 1870 birthed - 1940 birthed composers
> For every
> 
> CM era 1 masterpiece
> There are
> Romantic era 5 masterpieces
> 
> Every 1 romantic masterpiece there are
> 
> 5 modern music masterpidces
> 
> Post modern ,,zero masterpieces, because it is not the High Arts it is something else now.
> 
> So although there are *duds* in the 1870 born composers through 1940 born composers, there are 5 X's the number of masterpieces offered over any previous era,,which has a few hits, but also a lot of duds.
> 
> Quote *Oh how I love Mahler's so an so movement from this sym,,,much kore than the other movements* = the sym has issues = a dud...
> Shostakovich has his duds, no doubt,,but he was working under evil, constricting condictions,,,never able to write what he really wanted, for the most part.
> But take his VC,,which composer previous scored any VC even close to his OP80? See what I am getting at.
> Take Ravel,,which composer prior offers anything even close to his unreal solo piano? Ravel really renders obsolete all previous piano solo.
> 
> I could go on forever as to why the 1870 born era - 1940 born era, is so vastly superior to any previous era.
> I think you get my point, as to why , inspite of the fact there are duds in the modern era, there are endlessly more masterpieces written in the glorious finale epoch of the High Arts. Other than Mozart and wagner (would not wish to live w/o either Crown Jewels ,,,+ a few Vivaldi,, that's it from pre Wagner. In my 400 cd collection
> 
> At least that's the way I see things.
> You have a valid point, but only taken in context. Context is everything when speaking in generalities. = Forest for the trees. take astep back and one step higher up the mountain to see the whole landscape.


I dont go along with your numbers

symphonic masterpieces - maybe 6 from mozart and 10 from haydn = 16.

what are these 80 romantic symphonic masterpieces then? Its more like 20-30 (Beet 6 Schub 2 Mendel 2 Schuman 2 Brahms 4 Sibelius 4 Tchaik 3 Mahler ?)

Mozart's 10 great piano concertos (or more) ? x 5 = 50 romantic pcs

No - It's more like a dozen at best.

Same with chamber. Mozart and Haydn between them must have composed 30 great works - I dont see 150 great romantic chamber works in the romantic era.

Let's reduce you multiplier down to 2, maybe.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> I think I finally have the gist of the thread: who to blame... and there's no era without its treasures, including the Romantic era with Chopin, Schumann, Brahms, and so many others who could finally speak out for themselves without somebody of noble birth telling them what to write and do. I blame Michael Haydn for writing one of the glories of the Classical era with his Schrattenbach-Requiem. I find it simply magnificent with its intelligence and heart without having to draw it into a senseless comparison with anything else:


Thats probably M Haydn's best work.


----------



## mikeh375

Brexit....(sorry Rubens


----------



## Enthusiast

The Classical period in music was a short one unless you include Beethoven and Schubert (which I don't but most people here do). If you do include those last two then it must come close to being the "greatest period" (silly concept, I know) with four of the absolute biggest names and quite a few others. If it is the briefer period before Beethoven and Schubert then the presence of Mozart and Haydn is also quite something. All that is left is the familiar argument that many threads revert to that some or all of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and Schubert are somehow not all they are cracked up to be. 

I would also like to suggest that CPE Bach - who often sounds like he has one foot in the Baroque and the other in the Classical - is far more than a mere minor composer.


----------



## tdc

Charles Rosen's book _The Classical Style_ has helped me appreciate the Classical era more. If you read that book you will realize Classical era music was not a dumbing down. Music became less about counterpoint and more about form. Despite the seeming surface simplicity of the thematic content, form was expanded and made more complex. As far as its origins Classical era music was influenced by comic opera. After the seriousness of the Baroque, people craved something different. It's connection to opera made it effective at expressing dramatic action/scenarios. I think the dramatic forms of Haydn and Mozart were big stepping stones towards the Romantic era, it was not just Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier

stomanek said:


> Of CPE, M Haydn and Clementi - which works do you seriously think are anywhere near Schubert's great Str Quintet, or Chopin's polonaises, or Schumann's rheinish symphony or superlative PC/ pf quintet.


I wouldn't put CPE Bach's masterpieces like Flute Concerto in D minor WQ22, Fantasy in F sharp minor WQ67 at a place any lower than Schubert's minimalist Quintet.

listen for example, 3:00 ~5:00,




overall, the piece consists of 1/3 both hands going in unison, 1/3 left hand chords, 1/3 Mazurka





2:50 two pages of lefthand octaves vamping on E and E flat

Stuff like this is what appeals to majority of amateur piano players and piano fans out there,
long ago, as an amateur piano player myself, I got a little sick of fellow piano players' overhype for stuff like this.
Since then, "Chopin expressed greater range of emotion through piano than the classical era masters" - I've never bought into this sort of argument.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> The Classical period in music was a short one unless you include Beethoven and Schubert (which I don't but most people here do). If you do include those last two then it must come close to being the "greatest period" (silly concept, I know) with four of the absolute biggest names and quite a few others. If it is the briefer period before Beethoven and Schubert then the presence of Mozart and Haydn is also quite something. All that is left is the familiar argument that many threads revert to that some or all of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and Schubert are somehow not all they are cracked up to be.


As you say, a lot depends on how Beethoven and Schubert are treated.

It would seem that OP clearly thinks that Beethoven was entirely in the "romantic" era. I'm not sure what he thinks about Schubert, but I'll assume he thinks that Schubert was also a "romantic". [I would place Beethoven mainly in the "classical" era, and Schubert somewhere in the middle veering towards the "romantic" era, but no matter.]

On that premise, he thinks that it was only Mozart and "Papa" Haydn in the entire Classical era who were any good. As for the rest, they were largely a waste of time. Because of this, he thinks that overall the entire classical era was the worst of all eras, a "monstrosity", as he calls it.

I think basically he's just telling us that he is big admirer of Beethoven, whom he sees as rescuing classical music from a fate worse than death. He's also asking which of the "classical era" composers was the most guilty in creating the basic musical forms that became its norm.

He doesn't say anything about later "romantics", partly I suspect because he's not familiar enough to comment. I wonder if he's aware that after Beethoven died, the true early romantics like Schumann and Liszt developed things in a different manner from what he might have guessed based on a consideration of Beethoven's style of music.

This forum has had many similar Beethoven enthusiasts over the years. They come in all shapes and sizes, but all with the same message that Beethoven was "god's gift", and the rest mainly a load "w..k..s".

As usual, in discussion around this issue we're seeing quite a bit of misunderstanding, and a repeat of all the same arguments that have been trotted out many times before.


----------



## janxharris

The Youtube of Michael Haydn's Requiem distorts - this is better quality.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> I dont go along with your numbers
> 
> symphonic masterpieces - maybe 6 from mozart and 10 from haydn = 16.
> 
> what are these 80 romantic symphonic masterpieces then? Its more like 20-30 (Beet 6 Schub 2 Mendel 2 Schuman 2 Brahms 4 Sibelius 4 Tchaik 3 Mahler ?)
> 
> Mozart's 10 great piano concertos (or more) ? x 5 = 50 romantic pcs
> 
> No - It's more like a dozen at best.
> 
> Same with chamber. Mozart and Haydn between them must have composed 30 great works - I dont see 150 great romantic chamber works in the romantic era.
> 
> Let's reduce you multiplier down to 2, maybe.


You arev astute,,,I was running numbers off the top of my head. Correct you are sir.

Mozart , apart from his operas, 
Last 6 syms, 
Last 6 or 7 PC;s...
major masterworks. 
Chamber is OK, nothing really *great*, his 5 VC's are a bit dull/boring.
So yes my #'s are way over inflated.

Romantic era also,, is a lot smaller in terms of real, identifiable masterpieces.

When we arrive at the post 1870 list of composers through say 1940 birthed composers (1940 at the VERY latest year) the list of real identifiable masterpieces, is staggering.

Right you are.
The romantic era grew out of the classical era, the modern era was the full blossoming, ~~~Fruiting and Flowering~~~ of all that went before. 
And my Oh my, what a abundance,,,something for everyone. A real cornucopia.

Don't like one fruit, try another.

There are *duds* and *sour* grapes in the bunch though,,,watch out. 
Its not all sweet juicy and perfect = Prokofiev's 4th, Shostakovich's 10th, duds. Some of his SQ's, a bit sour.
No problem, there 's always Bartok's...Don't like his, move to Ravel;s, Schoenberg, Bergs SQ's.

Good observation on your part.


----------



## Larkenfield

janxharris said:


> The Youtube of Michael Haydn's Requiem distorts - this is better quality.


Sorry to hear that. I've heard it three times in the US and it doesn't distort. The sound quality is excellent. Wish I could be of more help. I did happen to notice that there were other online performances available, but I really liked this one. If you happen to find one, I think you'll enjoy it. I was blown away.


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> Sorry to hear that. I've heard it three times in the US and it doesn't distort. The sound quality is excellent. Wish I could be of more help. I did happen to notice that there were other online performances available, but I really liked this one. If you happen to find one, I think you'll enjoy it. I was blown away.


It's no worries - the distortion isn't huge - I think the issue is at the high end - it sounds a bit crackly.

I posted a link to another version:


----------



## Enthusiast

Partita said:


> As you say, a lot depends on how Beethoven and Schubert are treated.
> 
> It would seem that OP clearly thinks that Beethoven was entirely in the "romantic" era. I'm not sure what he thinks about Schubert, but I'll assume he thinks that Schubert was also a "romantic".
> 
> On that premise, he thinks that it was only Mozart and "Papa" Haydn in the entire Classical era who were any good. As for the rest, they were largely a waste of time. Because of this, he thinks that overall the entire classical era was the worst of all eras, a "monstrosity", as he calls it.


So, that was a very short period and two towering names is a pretty good showing. Case dismissed!


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> So, that was a very short period and two towering names is a pretty good showing. Case dismissed!


when you finally arrive at the foothills to the Himalayas , one is very impressed, especially for someone living here in the flat lands of south Louisiana,,,but when one finally arrives at the mountains near Mt Everest,,,,,,you see its all a matter of perspective.

btw I just heard snippets of Mozart's sym 36, Bernstein/Vienna. zero stars out a possible 10. = does nothing to make the classical era *great*, detracts in fact.

Whereas a crappy record of Shostakovich's 5,7,8 syms, still retains its brilliance and monumentalism. = Bullet proof, , Mozart is not bullet proof.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ As I (and Partita) have noted this is really a thread for knocking Mozart and Haydn (and perhaps promoting Beethoven) in disguise so you have come to the right place, Paul. I do quite like Bernstein's Mozart but you should try a few others in Mozart if Bernstein doesn't do it for you. Klemperer, Krips, Pinnock, Norrington, Harnoncourt, Mackerras, and others all have very different approaches to the music. That all of them work is a suggestion of the greatness of Mozart - there are so many sides to the works he composed.


----------



## Rubens

Partita said:


> [...] It would seem that OP clearly thinks that [...] I'll assume he thinks
> [...] On that premise, he thinks that [...] Because of this, he thinks that [...]


Your interest in reading my mind is flattering. And I'm afraid you are not very good at it.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> ^ As I (and Partita) have noted this is really a thread for knocking Mozart and Haydn (and perhaps promoting Beethoven) in disguise so you have come to the right place, Paul. I do quite like Bernstein's Mozart but you should try a few others in Mozart if Bernstein doesn't do it for you. Klemperer, Krips, Pinnock, Norrington, Harnoncourt, Mackerras, and others all have very different approaches to the music. That all of them work is a suggestion of the greatness of Mozart - there are so many sides to the works he composed.


Oh no, you have me wrong. 
What I was attempting to express, is how magnificent Mozart is ,,in his finest works, late syms, late PC's, operas...A level of composition which requires and demands, the finest of orch and conducting,,,nothing less. 
His opears, I am a bit more forgiving,,,though the golden 1950's era was by all accounts the *Classical recording* period for Mozart's operas (same can be said for wagner, the 1950's).

Now In his late syms, , you can read all the coments over at amazon on Walter/Columbia, Bohm/Berlin , if you don't want to take my word for it, both are stunningly accurate. 
As you say, there are others as well which offer fine accounts,,,,and others not so *great*.

Mozart fulfills all my needs for the classical era,,,and then some more. 
It is the early romantic, through late romantic era which I find,,not all that interesting, aftera few listens.

Which is why I date my composers born 1870 afterwards. Debussy, 1880,,,wrong,,,born 1862!!!! UNREAL. so from his birth onwards through say,,,,1940, that's stretching it, as Carter, Schnittke, Henze, Pettersson all born way before 1940,,,let me check,,,be right back.....

Elliott Carter 1908

Schnittke 1934

Pettersson 1911

Henze 1926

and
Szymanowski 1882!! Unreal

It is this era, which offers 5X's the number of masterpieces compared to any previous era. 
Which stands to reason.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ OK. That's alright, then!


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> Elliott Carter 1908
> 
> Schnittke 1934
> 
> Pettersson 1911
> 
> Henze 1926
> 
> and
> Szymanowski 1882!! Unreal
> 
> It is this era, which offers 5X's the number of masterpieces compared to any previous era.
> Which stands to reason.


Yes! The Modern Mighty Five... best of any era. When will the haters finally realize?


----------



## mikeh375

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes! The Modern Mighty Five... best of any era. When will the haters finally realize?


But there's soo many more....


----------



## paulbest

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes! The Modern Mighty Five... best of any era. When will the haters finally realize?


hahaha

Yeah like thats a take off on the mighty Russian Five
You got me on that one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_(composers)


----------



## paulbest

mikeh375 said:


> But there's soo many more....


No he was chumping down my 5 picks....,,,but certainly we could not say *The Mighty Modern Five*,,,it would have to be something along the lines of say,,,
~~The Mighty Modern Twenty~~~
Five cuts out wayyyy too many


----------



## paulbest

Problem there is everyones ~~Twenty~~ will look different. At least the Russian Five is cast in stone, done deal. 
Mighty Modern Twenty, will never be defined,,,thougha few names are sure to pop up on everyones list , 100%,,like Shostakovich. He will be on everyones Mighty Twenty. aside from Shostakovich,,,well maybe Bartok as well, 100% on everyones list as Mighty Twenty,,Just those 2,,all others will not be a 100% guarantee to make The Mighty twenty Modern. Well, Debussy, Ravel would be nearly a 95+% chance to make everyones Mighty Twenty list.


----------



## mikeh375

Oh God, don't get me started Paul...oh well...what about one of _the_ greatest (on a par with Mozart for ability)...Britten????
The man could write 12 pages of full score a day, straight from brain to ms and just happened to be one of the greatest pianists of his generation. No wonder he and Dimitri hit it off...
Perhaps this is a digression too far from the OP though.


----------



## Guest

Rubens said:


> Your interest in reading my mind is flattering. And I'm afraid you are not very good at it.


I'm sorry to hear that.

Rather than me making further guesses at what you meant, perhaps you could clarify exactly how you see Beethoven fitting into the overall scheme of things in terms of the transition from the "classical" era to the "romantic" era. Specifically, do you regard Beethoven as fitting wholly in one or other of these eras, or was he a transitional figure? What about Schubert?

Picking up your comment in post #1 : "_Again, thank God for Beethoven. After him, the music was free to evolve again ...".

_Could you possibly explain in what ways you think that music "was free to evolve again"? Which composers do you consider took the greatest advantage of the new-found freedom won by Beethoven's efforts? Can you provide some specific examples of the music these composers produced which you think would not have been possible if Beethoven had not done what he did?

It would be most useful if you could attempt to provide answers to these questions, in the interests of clarifying your purpose in opening his thread, and possibly ending any further totally irrelevant comments and speculation, great fun though they are.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> when you finally arrive at the foothills to the Himalayas , one is very impressed, especially for someone living here in the flat lands of south Louisiana,,,but when one finally arrives at the mountains near Mt Everest,,,,,,you see its all a matter of perspective.
> 
> *btw I just heard snippets of Mozart's sym 36, Bernstein/Vienna. zero stars out a possible 10. = does nothing to make the classical era *great*, detracts in fact.
> *
> Whereas a crappy record of Shostakovich's 5,7,8 syms, still retains its brilliance and monumentalism. = Bullet proof, , Mozart is not bullet proof.


Well - many disagree with you. You dont like Mozart's chamber music for example and you dont like his violin concertos. You are writing off the great clarinet quintet, K452, the g minor string quintet. Do you live in some weird isolation to the extent you dont realise these are some of the great repertoire pieces?

You need to try and be objective when estimating a composer's worth in relation to other periods, composers.

I factored into my multiplier of great romantic work many that I personally dont like that much - but in trying to arrive at as objective a conclusion as possible - I take into account how the works are generally regarded. Do I like Mahler's 8th sy? No - its a damned noise. Is it to be counted as one of the great sy of the 19th C. Yes.

I actually think - being as subjective as you are - that Mozart's best work exceeds the entire rest of musical history. But I would be an clot to present that as some kind of point worth putting forward since we are trying to find consensus among each other and not just butting heads.


----------



## Haydn70

tdc said:


> Charles Rosen's book _The Classical Style_ has helped me appreciate the Classical era more. If you read that book you will realize Classical era music was not a dumbing down. Music became less about counterpoint and more about form. Despite the seeming surface simplicity of the thematic content, form was expanded and made more complex. As far as its origins Classical era music was influenced by comic opera. After the seriousness of the Baroque, people craved something different. It's connection to opera made it effective at expressing dramatic action/scenarios. I think the *dramatic forms of Haydn* and Mozart were big stepping stones towards the Romantic era, it was not just Beethoven.


Yes, Haydn provides drama!!


----------



## paulbest

*isolationist weierdo,,,or something...*
Yes how did you figure me out,,,now I am ~~exposed~~. anyway,,agree I also am trying to be as objective as possible here. Mozart is exactly like bach,,masterpiece after masterpiece,,its all there. 
am I picky in Mozart, yes, only his mature works,,,Clarinet concerto,,,great? indeed, do I care to hear it very often? No,.,,I much prefer Uchida's PC.s , last 7 at that. The earlier ones are like all of bach, materpieces,,but I'll skip over. 
Bach's Goldberg,,heard snippets on the FM radio, = boring stuff. Sure, go ahead and fault the performance, still dullsville.


Of course you and I agree, Mahler has a huge massive fan following,,its just that you and I stand on the sidelines,,,wondering,,,,
Same for Brukner,,,its a marvel, a wonder. 
Great? Indeed he wrote great music. 

Add up all the great romantic era *smash hits*,,,towers far above the classical era. in terms of numbers... Now add up all the romantic *top 100 smash hits* it far exceeds 1000 bonifided masterpieces. ...Now,,,,NOW we come to my era, born 1870- say 1940 (NO LATER PLEASE,,,Stockhausen ,,,how duid he get in the room>?? Odd man out,,along with Ligeti anda few others who others put in their names ..)..anyway that aside..add up the strict modern era *smash hits*..Now place this list next to the romantic era...See what I am getting at. 


maturity.developments, clashes of tones, more complexities, atonal patterns, disatonic(?), chromatic, polychromatic (Schnittke),,,,,,neo romantic/neo classical,,its all there, as much as you want, , 
Its a true mother load of gold. 
Just follow the veins from what the romantic era left us. 
I am convinced the garden of Eden at one time existed,,and man destroyed it ,,was in Iraq ,,,Hussein finished that area off with oil pollution and the residents , along with Israel cut down all the forests. …) at one existed,,,now where did it go?
Eden has to exist on some level.
Now where did it go?

The High Arts. This is The Garden of Eden..Yet once again man is kicked out,,and only a few rare can find the paths back in. 
I'm in, and I ain;t leaving. 
You can have your modern life,,I grew up in the 60's, I tasted a hint,,and I know what modern life can destroy,,,The High arts is my island of Eden in a big garbage dump called this life. 
Yet oddly enough, our great composers had to know, live in, suffer the consequences of modern life, in order that we may escape this life...Kinda like all our fav modern composers were busy designing, building a Art which we few can enter in.
So not only did we few HighArts fans rediscovered The Garden of Eden,,,,,,,GETS BETTER,,, we enter into The New Ark to carry us over the River of stix to get to The New Eden.
far out eh?
We found Eden and The Ark (Reference to Noah's art for any who did not know what a Ark is)


----------



## paulbest

Mozart's chamber is OK, the votes are masterpieces, 
Yet I am seeking the thrills of modern chamber


----------



## Rubens

Partita said:


> I'm sorry to hear that.
> 
> Rather than me making further guesses at what you meant, perhaps you could clarify exactly how you see Beethoven fitting into the overall scheme of things in terms of the transition from the "classical" era to the "romantic" era. Specifically, do you regard Beethoven as fitting wholly in one or other of these eras, or was he a transitional figure? What about Schubert?
> 
> Picking up your comment in post #1 : "_Again, thank God for Beethoven. After him, the music was free to evolve again ...".
> 
> _Could you possibly explain in what ways you think that music "was free to evolve again"? Which composers do you consider took the greatest advantage of the new-found freedom won by Beethoven's efforts? Can you provide some specific examples of the music these composers produced which you think would not have been possible if Beethoven had not done what he did?
> 
> It would be most useful if you could attempt to provide answers to these questions, in the interests of clarifying your purpose in opening his thread, and possibly ending any further totally irrelevant comments and speculation, great fun though they are.


To answer some of your questions:
I do see Beethoven as a transitional figure.
After him, composers were much freer to express themselves in their own language, because the public's taste became more open to new styles. This is what I mean by freedom to evolve.
Do I give full credit to Beethoven? Not really, but there is no doubt he was a major contributor.


----------



## janxharris

Rubens said:


> ...Why did all the harmonic richness get dumbed down to the most basic formulas...


It's a fair criticism and for me it remains the elephant in the room: how can works that are full of such formulas be considered masterpieces? Maybe they are well composed in part but if you are re-using stale patterns that are found in abundance elsewhere then you are edging towards banality. If you do so harmonically then your melody needs strong definition imo.


----------



## janxharris

An example from Mozart: Quintet for Piano and Winds (K. 452) and Symphony No. 41.

Mozart's harmony and melody are identical (though in different keys (F and D respectively)). If this was the only occurrence then it wouldn't be an issue (for me at least) but, of course, it's not.


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> It's a fair criticism and for me it remains the elephant in the room: how can works that are full of such formulas be considered masterpieces? Maybe they are well composed in part but if you are re-using stale patterns that are found in abundance elsewhere then you are edging towards banality. If you do so harmonically then your melody needs strong definition imo.


I think your view on this is not fully informed. I do get the criticism, because initially on the surface much of the music seemed too simplistic to me as well, it is an illusion. Your continued reference to certain well used patterns, is like criticizing the form of a poem, while ignoring the actual content.

Slightly related to this - Another idea you have brought up in the past as a criticism towards certain music is that it annoys you that so many pieces by composers in general sound similar. I thought about this and realized it is also an unfair criticism. This is what gives composers their own distinctive voice, which is one of the attributes of a great composer. If all pieces by composers sounded completely different, it would be very difficult to differentiate one composer from another, and no composers would have distinctive voices of their own.

As far as your Mozart clips I think they are just examples of a composer interested in putting similar thematic material in different contexts. It is common for many composers to recycle ideas at times, this still happens in music today.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> I think your view on this is not fully informed. I do get the criticism, because initially on the surface much of the music seemed too simplistic to me as well, it is an illusion. Your continued reference to certain well used patterns, is like criticizing the form of a poem, while ignoring the actual content.


Not sure you demonstrated that my position is not fully informed. The equivalent would be a poem that has short phrases either identical (or nearly so) to others works.



> Slightly related to this - Another idea you have brought up in the past as a criticism towards certain music is that it annoys you that so many pieces by composers in general sound similar. I thought about this and realized it is also an unfair criticism. This is what gives composers their own distinctive voice, which is one of the attributes of a great composer. If all pieces by composers sounded completely different, it would be very difficult to differentiate one composer from another, and no composers would have distinctive voices of their own.


It's a matter of degree - I'm not suggesting a composer need forsake his distinctive 'voice' in the interests of total originality.



> As far as your Mozart clips I think they are just examples of a composer interested in putting similar thematic material in different contexts. It is common for many composers to recycle ideas at times, this still happens in music today.


Well, plenty here criticize pop for it's formulaic approach - but if it's not an issue for you then that's fine.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> As far as your Mozart clips I think they are just examples of a composer interested in putting similar thematic material in different contexts. It is common for many composers to recycle ideas at times, this still happens in music today.


In moderation, I'd agree it isn't an issue - but the scale to which it occurs in the classical era (and elsewhere) doesn't work for me.


----------



## Bulldog

I suppose it's in the nature of discussion boards, but it saddens me to read negative comments about various classical music eras from pre-baroque to contemporary. There's great music and composers in every era.


----------



## Roger Knox

Portamento said:


> The decline started with Pérotin. Everything after him is garbage, not worth listening to, yadda yadda yadda.


Pérotin you wildly overestimate! His tedious works are far worse than the "music of the spheres" from eons ago. And really, there's been nothing much of value since the planets tuned up, maybe the odd ocean grinding on a rock, or particularly choice babbling brook -- but no, even those are mostly kitsch.


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> Not sure you demonstrated that my position is not fully informed. The equivalent would be a poem that has short phrases either identical (or nearly so) to others works.


You will find the technique of repeating short phrases in a lot of poetry, try Homer's _Odyssey_, or _The Raven_ by Edgar Allen Poe. A lot of poems will use similar forms in terms of structure and number of syllables.

For your position to be fully informed regarding the over simplicity and repetitiveness of Mozart and Haydn, I think you would have to demonstrate some knowledge of concepts like their use of chromaticism, the interplay of different voices, modulation and key changes over long range structure and how this relates to their choices of themes and chords. Simply pointing out surface elements of the music that sound repetitive or similar to you doesn't demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the style.


----------



## Woodduck

Of all the criticisms that might be leveled at Classical period music, the claim that it tends to be formulaic is a rather poor one even though there's a lot of truth to it. The same can be said of vast quantities of music from earlier periods as well, and probably of the larger percentage by far of music from around the world throughout history. The modern West has placed a premium on novelty only since the Romantics decided that expressing one's unique self was essential to the purpose of music. In most cultures artists are pleased to communicate in a shared language, and in listening to Classical era music we listen for and appreciate the inventive ways composers inflect that language.

I do think it's fair to observe that when there is such a clearly defined common vocabulary of rhythmic figurations, harmonic sequences and melodic turns such as we find in the late 18th-century, a composer can set out to write a new piece with a substantial part of the work already done for him; he has a good range of devices to choose from, and much of the time he needs only to give them a slightly different twist to build a whole new work. Realizing this helps us understand, at least in part, how Haydn and Mozart could turn out so many symphonies so quickly, and why Beethoven, when he started to move outside the Classical mold, took much longer to write each one. That isn't meant to minimize the extraordinary inventiveness of Haydn or the melodic inspiration of Mozart, but only to describe the context of stylistic expectations in which they worked. Great music is great music, and there will never be many people producing it in any style or at any speed.


----------



## Larkenfield

I blame listeners, almost totally. I hear beautiful music in the Classical style, full of invention and refined creativity of a very high standard, not repetitious if the spirit of the whole is understood, and not superficial, but music beautifully proportioned with beautifully controlled dissonances that are always skillfully resolved, fine craftsmanship, logic, intelligence, beautiful vocal writing, and on and on with other virtues … and all some can do is complain and doubt and nitpick and never find anything worthy of wholehearted praise. You never question your own ears that you might actually be missing out on something quite magnificent, including by a number of composers within the Classical era... and the listeners who know the least and understand the least are often the most vocal in their continual complaints. Treasures can be found in every era and yet some can't find anything and they blame the problem on the geniuses who wrote some of the most enduring, finely crafted music of all.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Of all the criticisms that might be leveled at Classical period music, the claim that it tends to be formulaic is a rather poor one even though there's a lot of truth to it. The same can be said of vast quantities of music from earlier periods as well, and probably of the larger percentage by far of music from around the world throughout history. The modern West has placed a premium on novelty only since the Romantics decided that expressing one's unique self was essential to the purpose of music. In most cultures artists are pleased to communicate in a shared language, and in listening to Classical era music we listen for and appreciate the inventive ways composers inflect that language.
> 
> *I do think it's fair to observe that when there is such a clearly defined common vocabulary of rhythmic figurations, harmonic sequences and melodic turns such as we find in the late 18th-century, a composer can set out to write a new piece with a substantial part of the work already done for him; he has a good range of devices to choose from, and much of the time he needs only to give them a slightly different twist to build a whole new work.* Realizing this helps us understand, at least in part, how Haydn and Mozart could turn out so many symphonies so quickly, and why Beethoven, when he started to move outside the Classical mold, took much longer to write each one. That isn't meant to minimize the extraordinary inventiveness of Haydn or the melodic inspiration of Mozart, but only to describe the context of stylistic expectations in which they worked. Great music is great music, and there will never be many people producing it in any style or at any speed.


The part in bold might describe the work of lesser composers composing miniatures perhaps, but I don't think it fairly applies to Haydn and Mozart (or at the very least it is exaggerated). We need to remember that the way Haydn and Mozart used cadences and sequences in their era was the new way, it was not a formula, it was created largely by them. The way they used cadences in fact was completely different from the Baroque and was in part what allowed them to expand form.

It is true there were certain conventions they used at times that were there for strictly structural purposes much like repetition is used in verse and song. Rosen has pointed out Sonata form, is not even a form really, the Romantics attempted to codify it, but anyone writing a piece sticking strictly to those rules would inevitably create poor music. The Sonata form used by Haydn and Mozart (and Beethoven) was a fluid and flexible thing that depended on the thematic material used and finding logical ways to organize it based on its unique attributes. Beethoven used many similar conventions in his music, and also created longer works, and when we take length of work into account we see he produced a very large body of work himself, and much of it to those who aren't listening to it closely, can indeed sound quite similar.

I do agree that there was more of an emphasis placed on uniqueness of each work in the Romantic era, which like all innovations has its advantages and its drawbacks. The uniqueness of each work may indeed have increased, but often at the sacrifice of structural tightness/clarity.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am a huge Baroque aficionado, but I honestly cannot see the Classical Era as a decline in any sense. There are many more great composers beyond Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven. True, few are of their equal... but few composers of any era are equals to Haydn, Beethoven, or Mozart. Among other classical composers of real merit, I would include Pergolesi... if only for his _Stabat Mater_, Boccherini... for his _Stabat Mater_ as well... along with other works, Gluck, Hummel, Wilhelm Friedemann and C.P.E. Bach, Franz Anton Hoffmeister, Muzio Clementi, Luigi Cherubini, Anton Reicha, etc...


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Of all the criticisms that might be leveled at Classical period music, the claim that it tends to be formulaic is a rather poor one even though there's a lot of truth to it. The same can be said of vast quantities of music from earlier periods as well, and probably of the larger percentage by far of music from around the world throughout history. The modern West has placed a premium on novelty only since the Romantics decided that expressing one's unique self was essential to the purpose of music. In most cultures artists are pleased to communicate in a shared language, and in listening to Classical era music we listen for and appreciate the inventive ways composers inflect that language.
> 
> I do think it's fair to observe that when there is such a clearly defined common vocabulary of rhythmic figurations, harmonic sequences and melodic turns such as we find in the late 18th-century, a composer can set out to write a new piece with a substantial part of the work already done for him; he has a good range of devices to choose from, and much of the time he needs only to give them a slightly different twist to build a whole new work. Realizing this helps us understand, at least in part, how Haydn and Mozart could turn out so many symphonies so quickly, and why Beethoven, when he started to move outside the Classical mold, took much longer to write each one. That isn't meant to minimize the extraordinary inventiveness of Haydn or the melodic inspiration of Mozart, but only to describe the context of stylistic expectations in which they worked. Great music is great music, and there will never be many people producing it in any style or at any speed.


 OK, take Brahms finest sym, The Great 2nd.

(someone here on TC, adamantly stated,,*the 4th, neither the 1st are his finest, it is The Great 2nd sym*
)

Now lets go to the 2 middle movements...
IMHO,, sincerely, there is really not a whole lot going on. 
Now you could make a case for his 4th, his 1st, as the finest,,,but then you still have to go to the middle 2 movements,,,
I might dig the outer 2 movements,,,but it is always the middle 2 which I struggle with.

I mean one has to have a *romantic soul* to dig those bars.

Just sayin
2 cent rant....
From 15:25 to the opening of the 4th movement,,,,I mean like....


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> An example from Mozart: Quintet for Piano and Winds (K. 452) and Symphony No. 41.
> 
> Mozart's harmony and melody are identical (though in different keys (F and D respectively)). If this was the only occurrence then it wouldn't be an issue (for me at least) but, of course, it's not.


It's funny to hear this from you after all your praise of Beethoven symphonies. You do know how many times Beethoven reuses his famous four-note motif (and Beethoven wasn't the first to do it) and his Eroica theme, right?



janxharris said:


> Not sure you demonstrated that my position is not fully informed. The equivalent would be a poem that has short phrases either identical (or nearly so) to others works.
> It's a matter of degree - I'm not suggesting a composer need forsake his distinctive 'voice' in the interests of total originality.
> Well, plenty here criticize pop for it's formulaic approach - but if it's not an issue for you then that's fine.


I say this again. I criticize modern pop music because it takes no musical talent or skill to write. 



 Zero. Beatles and Michael Jackson couldn't even read notation. 'Musical illiterates' Yet, they are considered the gods of pop, and it just shows the level of talent, skills required to become one. No, they didn't need to learn any music theory, because fame is all that mattered. Because extra-musical traits such as sexy voice and good looks matter more for a pop artist in gaining fame.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Is originality important in classical music? I'd say 'yes' and 'no'. Originality is important in just about any art. 
But here's the thing, what is really 'original' in classical music? If you examine carefully, every artist borrowed from their contemporaries and predecessors and continuously created their works by altering and improving on previous works. For example, Bach borrowed and learned heavily from Vivaldi, Buxtehude, Palchelbel and many others. He probably studied like hundreds of his predecessors. Learning from hundreds of other composers to and combining their elements to create new art is also a valuable skill. Having skills and sense to cleverly create variants on the existing works is also a valuable skill. 
In this sense, is Bach really original? You could say 'yes' cause he created indispensable masterpieces, but at the same time you could say 'no', cause or he was only able to acquire his craft by learning heavily from a huge bunch of his predecessors, and it's the immense skill and knowledge to 'reproduce' existing art that we admire, not necessarily about how 'original' it is.

For example, Bach Magnificat BWV243, Mozart Maurerische Trauermusik K477 use Gregorian psalm tone "tonus peregrinus" originating from 9, 10 centuries. How did they know this stuff? By putting enormous hard work into their own research and study.








Just their sheer level of knowledge and sense to incorporate intricate skills and tricks and such as these, is also one of the reasons why we admire the so-called 'greats'. If you look at the things Haydn, Rossini said in praising other greats, they often expressed admiration for levels of knowledge the others had.

Some Romantic music enthusiasts like to believe Romantic composers never wrote any formulaic stuff, but how do you explain Waltzes or Mazurkas by some composers having the same 3/4 accompaniment from start to finish. Or lieders and sonatas by some composer having the same vamping and padding from start to finish? Some composer wrote similarly overblown symphonies all his life. I agree with Larkenfield: there are advantages and disadvantages to every era. I'm baffled as to why there are still people who just can't accept this.


----------



## KenOC

hammeredklavier said:


> Is originality important in classical music? I'd say 'yes' and 'no'. Originality is important in just about any art.


But is it enough? On reviewing an unsolicited manuscript, Samuel Johnson wrote: "Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good."


----------



## Couchie

Haydn's Baryton trios were almost the death of music completely.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> It's funny to hear this from you after all your praise of Beethoven symphonies. You do know how many times Beethoven reuses his famous four-note motif (and Beethoven wasn't the first to do it) and his Eroica theme, right?


I'm aware of the similarities to his ninth - it could pass as a movement for his fifth symphony.

Are you referring to Bastien und Bastienne?








> I say this again. I criticize modern pop music because it takes no musical talent or skill to write.
> 
> 
> 
> Zero. Beatles and Michael Jackson couldn't even read notation. 'Musical illiterates' Yet, they are considered the gods of pop, and it just shows the level of talent, skills required to become one. No, they didn't need to learn any music theory, because fame is all that mattered. Because extra-musical traits such as sexy voice and good looks matter more for a pop artist in gaining fame.


Your assertion regarding 'no musical talent' would not apply across the board. The are plenty of popular songs that are the equivalent - all be it in miniature - of classical pieces. Analyse almost any Beatles song and you will find that there is great craft and subtlety - harmonically and melodically.






(Their music isn't a personal favourite of mine btw).


----------



## Guest

Rubens said:


> To answer some of your questions:
> I do see Beethoven as a transitional figure.
> After him, composers were much freer to express themselves in their own language, because the public's taste became more open to new styles. This is what I mean by freedom to evolve.
> Do I give full credit to Beethoven? Not really, but there is no doubt he was a major contributor.


 As I understand it, your argument is: 


Music in the baroque era allowed a great deal of freedom of expression; 
By contrast, music in the "classical" era involved excessive compliance with rigid stylistic rules which made the basic model intrinsically boring;  
 "Classical" era music would have been even more boring had it not been for the ingenuity of Mozart and Haydn who found ways to make it interesting; 
 Beethoven was a major contributor in leading the way out of this unsatisfactory situation because his (unspecified) innovations enabled later composers to exercise greater freedom of expression in whatever styles they saw fit to use to meet the public's new demands. 
 I see the following main counter-arguments to the above:


Baroque music had been the norm for a very long period of time and had reached a point of complexity where the public demanded a change to lighter forms, hence the evolution of music through galante/early classical/mid classical/late classical;  
Oddly, you criticise the "classical" era model as being boring but accept that Haydn and Mozart were the exceptions who made it interesting, and yet it was Haydn principally who created many of the rules for "classical" music ("Father of the Symphony" and all that); 
 Beethoven, according to one strand of academic opinion, remained largely faithful to the "classical" model, and elaborated it to such an extent that it could hardly be taken much further; if this is correct he made the situation even worse, according to your logic;  
 Whilst Beethoven may have written the occasional piece with romantic features, it was his contemporary, Schubert, and possibly Berlioz who made the bigger strides towards developing the early forms of "romanticism"; 
 Whatever the influence of Beethoven as a transitional composer, it wasn't until the likes of Chopin, Schumann, and Liszt came along some 10-15 years later that romanticism proper got more fully into its stride;  
This development would have happened anyway as a result of variety of social and other influences of wider scope and importance than the mere predilections or abilities of any individual earlier composer.


----------



## Sid James

Rubens said:


> Yes, there were Haydn and Mozart, but they were the exceptions, for they managed to write interesting music within the the most restrictive stylistic shackles ever imposed on composers...


Don't know why but Joe Cocker's Unchain My Heart sprang to mind as I read that. :lol:



> Voila, that was my rant. If you don't agree, kindly buzz off.


No worries. Buzz...


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Some Romantic music enthusiasts like to believe Romantic composers never wrote any formulaic stuff, but how do you explain Waltzes or Mazurkas by some composers having the same 3/4 accompaniment from start to finish. Or lieders and sonatas by some composer having the same vamping and padding from start to finish? Some composer wrote similarly overblown symphonies all his life. I agree with Larkenfield: there are advantages and disadvantages to every era. I'm baffled as to why there are still people who just can't accept this.


The word "formulaic" is used too loosely around here. You seem to be using it to mean simply certain traits of musical styles or genres you find uninteresting or don't care for. That's no different from others calling Bach's or Mozart's music formulaic because they don't like those composer's characteristic "earmarks."

A waltz or a mazurka tends to have the same rhythm from start to finish because - ta-daaa!- its a waltz or a mazurka. It's a dance; dances, from estampies to tangos, exist in all musical eras, and that's how dances are normally written. The same could be said of songs and arias, innumerable of which are written with simple rhythmic accompaniments because the focus is on the vocal melody and the singer, and there is often no artistic necessity of making the accompaniment more complex. That kind of writing is not, in itself, formulaic. Nor is writing "overblown" symphonies - or underblown ones - formulaic, but the symphonies could be if the composer is very unoriginal or constantly falls back on the same devices in work after work. If you want to cite "formulaic" music from the Romantic era, those won't do as examples.

I would call music formulaic when it relies on structures - phrase shapes, accompaniment figures, harmonic progressions, cadential formulas, etc. - which are very common in the style of a school of period, but fails to overcome the commonplace and predictable effect of these structures with fresh or distinctive inspiration. It's really this last which is key: plenty of music relies on common, well-worn compositional devices, but that isn't a weakness if there's enough fresh, interesting, affecting material in the mix. Variations movements, for example, often fall into obvious melodic devices that don't save the music from monotony, and composers need to be especially clever to keep the variations fresh and interesting. A sonata movement might sound formulaic if its key relationships and transitions are achieved in an obvious, predictable way, but sonata form is not in itself a formula.

In certain periods there appears to have been a simple acceptance of certain devices which were used constantly, apparently without objection. The harmonic progressions and melodic patterns typical of secco recitative in Classical opera are an example of formulaic writing which everyone seems to have found acceptable (maybe the continuo player was expected to relieve the monotony with some well-timed flourishes). And in some music of the early Baroque we hear identical cadences sounded with relentless regularity and frequency. This early work of Monteverdi, for example, seems a virtual exercise in cadencing: 



 Obviously, Monteverdi matured out of such simplistic writing, which to my ears doesn't escape the formulaic.


----------



## millionrainbows

People who listen to a lot of blues players, or any kind of music based on standard forms, already knew all this.

It's refreshing to hear criticism of the Classical period. I didn't know that the forum "at large" was capable of doing this. I thought that they had iconified all the composers, so that they were beyond criticism, but apparently I was wrong!


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> I'm aware of the similarities to his ninth - it could pass as a movement for his fifth symphony.
> Are you referring to Bastien und Bastienne?


I mean the theme from the finale of Eroica symphony, which shows up in Beethoven's other works:
finale of ballet music Creatures of Prometheus 
seventh of 12 Contredanses, WoO 14
Eroica Variations for piano in E flat Op.35

also ninth symphony is not the only time Beethoven's 4-note motif reappears



janxharris said:


> The are plenty of popular songs that are the equivalent - all be it in miniature - of classical pieces.


None of them compares to Jon Lajoie's songs in my view.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean the theme from the finale of Eroica symphony, which shows up in Beethoven's other works:
> finale of ballet music Creatures of Prometheus
> seventh of 12 Contredanses, WoO 14
> Eroica Variations for piano in E flat Op.35


I never really liked the fourth movement anyway.



> also ninth symphony is not the only time Beethoven's 4-note motif reappears


Ok.



> None of them compares to Jon Lajoie's songs in my view.


You seem to think that boy bands constitute the sum total of popular music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> A waltz or a mazurka tends to have the same rhythm from start to finish because - ta-daaa!- its a waltz or a mazurka. It's a dance; dances, from estampies to tangos, exist in all musical eras, and that's how dances are normally written.


But seriously, even dances and minuets 



 / 



 written by classical era composers don't use the same bass constantly from start to finish. To a limited degree, they reflect the Viennese school concept of "Themastische Arbeit", (all voices working together to produce the total effect) . 
Whereas early Romantic era waltzes like Chopin's for example, keep going on and on with the same bass figures. I believe Schumann, Mendelssohn, Wagner all commented on this aspect of Chopin's waltzes.




I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but if you're going to claim they are masterpieces, you should apply the same criteria to Johann Strauss II as well. For example


----------



## Swosh

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't find Shostakovich particularly interesting compared to the classical and romantic composers mentioned above. For example, I find stuff like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kind of disappointing for
> 
> -using dissonant ostinatos to create funny 'sound effects' (which I find shallow)
> -sometimes using lower strings just as waltz accompaniment
> -having like 50% of the music in sustained tones that go on and on for pages at a time.
> -weak use of strettos, canonic devices
> -weak part-writing compared to string quartets of the First Viennese.
> 
> Later orchestral stuff like Glazunov sounds a bit like film music and piano music by Debussy sounds like new age to me, with some exceptions. I think music didn't get particularly interesting during and after Romantic era, aside from some greats such as Bruckner, Dvorak, Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Schoenberg etc.


Well those Romantic composers you listed make up the romantic era. I don't see your point when you say you don't like romantic music except for those romantic composers.


----------



## Swosh

I can't help but see how that since we live in a different time, we view the past as undesirable. This same phenomenon will occur in 50 years for our era, and then another 50 after that. What is the problem with appreciating ALL music, no matter when it was written?


----------



## janxharris

Swosh said:


> I can't help but see how that since we live in a different time, we view the past as undesirable. This same phenomenon will occur in 50 years for our era, and then another 50 after that. *What is the problem with appreciating ALL music, no matter when it was written?*


There isn't a problem doing so.


----------



## paulbest

Swosh said:


> I can't help but see how that since we live in a different time, we view the past as undesirable. This same phenomenon will occur in 50 years for our era, and then another 50 after that. What is the problem with appreciating ALL music, no matter when it was written?


Speaking for myself alone, (my views are not representative as a voice for The Modernist Movement), music pre Wagner is *dated*. Sure I can hear some great things going on in some of Brahm's syms, 1,4, maybe the 3rd (don't know it, most likely never listened to it in my 35 yrs of High Arts experience), The Great 2nd I found middle moves a bit *dullish*...but I intentionally, willfully avoid Brahms, , I mean his VC, with Oistrakh, hold power and majesty. There is no question on that issue. 
But consciously I make it a point to avoid almost everything pre Wagner,

Listening to music pre Wagner interfers with my experiences of post Wagner music.

With me its sort of a alchemic experience. I feel in rejecting most of the classical/romantic era,,i am holding true to my values, my beliefs.

Its a ideological thing with me,,but also a creative musical experience. I live not so much how much music I can cram in between my 2 ears, more how I can isolate my modern musical experiences from interference from *outside influences*. Alchemical

In my beginnings, sure some Brahms, VC with Oistrakh, Chopin his PC 1, , Mozart, forever,,,but the rest, never ,,oh and some Grieg,,,I still like some Puccini, but that era just interfers with me musical experiences of the modern period,,,Same holds for the post modern era, , I can be entertained at a concert,,,but as far as buying cd, I can not,,,post modern will interfere with my modern High Arts experiences. 
As I say, its a alchemical thing with me. 
So your idea of *appreciating all musical eras*,,,I can not abide by. 
Look at the great Vienna Hall, note all the names craved in Gold around the circumference , mid balcony. Its all classical/romantic composers.

It is THAT world which is The Establishment, Iconic and smacks of resistance if not closed mindedness.

They labeled me The iconoclast back at GMG. Never knew who/what I was until donned with that christening.

I feel a need to carry out this quest to challenge the powers-that-be.
Disclaimer is in order:
its my personal agenda, and does not represent The Modernist Movement.


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> There isn't a problem doing so.


hummm, I think you posted a few minutes too soon,,,,,,there is a ,,,*problem*
why should we *brush issues under the carpet* just to make a appearance that all is rosie and in order....


----------



## Larkenfield

Swosh said:


> I can't help but see how that since we live in a different time, we view the past as undesirable. This same phenomenon will occur in 50 years for our era, and then another 50 after that. What is the problem with appreciating ALL music, no matter when it was written?


Good question. I see no problem or barriers because each era is a reflection of the human condition in some way or it would have no value, and there's not one generation that's not going to be involved in human pursuits - matters of love, longings, peace, tragedy, loss, pain, suffering, mortality, challenge, creativity, joy and so on - no matter in what musical language or style, and these elements are somehow going to be reflected in the music of the great composers, regardless of its era, whether Shostakovich or Mozart or anyone in-between, and the depth of it is more than about the transitory material circumstances of our outer lives, what one might call modern or ancient, but is an expression of something far deeper and more universal.

Some as mavericks of the arts find at least a thousand years of magic everywhere to explore and see its great expression of power and beauty in every era, and those are the inspired ones who are truly free to appreciate everything that today was built on, like honoring our ancestors for the contributions and sacrifices they made on our behalf, called gratitude. :cheers:


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> hummm, I think you posted a few minutes too soon,,,,,,there is a ,,,*problem*
> why should we *brush issues under the carpet* just to make a appearance that all is rosie and in order....


Though I have criticised the harmonic formulas of the classical era - and given a specific example - that doesn't somehow 'prove' such music was inferior.

In any case - have you not been waxing lyrical about certain Mozart works?


----------



## samm

Blame? Why blame anyone for something good?


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> The modern West has placed a premium on novelty only since the Romantics decided that expressing one's unique self was essential to the purpose of music.


I don't disagree - but not explicitly affirming originality (in any 'era') doesn't therefore imply that such wasn't valued. It goes without saying that the closer a particular piece sounds to another work the less value it has.


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> Though I have criticised the harmonic formulas of the classical era - and given a specific example - that doesn't somehow 'prove' such music was inferior.
> 
> In any case - have you not been waxing lyrical about certain Mozart works?


 I could not completely follow your thesis..OK so now I am clear about your expositions and standing here. Agree,,,so you are on my side, glad to know another supporter of our cause.

Inferiority is not the issue, who could knock Brahms VC as having *issues* in compositional form?
Its a masterpiece and perfect,,,ask david Oistrakh, he'd tell you. (He owns the work).

Yet the middle 2 movements , make it sound *dated*, might I just come out and say it? Old Fashioned. Maybe not *stale* like yesterdays white bread, but definitely has lost some of its ~~~charms~~, its glimmers which spell bound crowds throughout germany and Austria past hundreds of years. Epochal? Yep, Timeless? No.

Shostakovich's VC op7, is IMHO, Timeless, still retains its vitality and splendor, for the ages.

Mozart,,ever since I read the liner notes in Walter's/Columbia box LP set,,,I knew then, Mozart was something *different*. 
His last 6 syms, + final 7 PC's, are extremely challenging to any artist. = Mozart conquers. 
Only Uchida has successfully conquered Mozart. Which really surprised me. As I was running out of options and thought maybe I;'ll never live to hear Mozart PC's in all their splendor. 
Her Beethoven I am sure is less successful, and I really don't care..,,you can find a dozen or more very successful Beethoven PC sets available. = a bit too programtic, ..ie your *formulaic*

Anything smacks of *formulaic*,,,not sure why,,,I get antsy,,,for something exciting to happen. I just don;'t have the patience to sit through the 2 middle movements ,,even as *lush, gorgeous,,* etc as they might seem to the romantic crowds,,,With Mozart, those 2 movements are different, he offers much greater embellishments. And well worth the wait for the usual explosive fireworks 4th movement, recapitulating the 1st move , unloading his fireworks box , til its emptied.

maybe I hear Mozart, and its like a bright star, which outshines all the other romantic stars in the heavens.

Mozart's music goes into timelessness. So in a 1000 years, how will that epoch hear Mozart?


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> I don't disagree - but not explicitly affirming originality (in any 'era') doesn't therefore imply that such wasn't valued. It goes without saying that the closer a particular piece sounds to another work the less value it has.


Excellent post. 
take the great Grieg, the great Schumann, and the great Chopin 1st pc. You don't hear at least a similar sound?
Not saying one could replace another.....
Now in Rachmaninov's 1st PC and Prokofiev's 1st PC, though joined in someway,,both stand alone.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> Speaking for myself alone, (my views are not representative as a voice for The Modernist Movement), music pre Wagner is *dated*.... Listening to music pre Wagner interfers with my experiences of post Wagner music... With me its sort of a alchemic experience. I feel in rejecting most of the classical/romantic era,,i am holding true to my values, my beliefs.
> 
> Its a ideological thing with me,,but also a creative musical experience. I live not so much how much music I can cram in between my 2 ears, more how I can isolate my modern musical experiences from interference from *outside influences*...So your idea of *appreciating all musical eras*...I can not abide by.


This seems to contradict your love of Mozart.



> ...its my personal agenda, and does not represent The Modernist Movement.


It sure doesn't, especially your rejection of Stockhausen. Admit it, Paul Best, you're a musical omnivore...you like a 'musical gumbo" just like the rest of us.


----------



## hammeredklavier

paulbest said:


> Mozart,,ever since I read the liner notes in Walter's/Columbia box LP set,,,I knew then, Mozart was something *different*.
> His last 6 syms, + final 7 PC's, are extremely challenging to any artist. = Mozart conquers.


with Mozart, as is the case with many others, it's the orchestral works, particularly the symphonies that get primary attention, but howabout we turn our attention to other works:
in my view, Vesperae Solennes de Dominica K321 seems more important than 33th symphony K319,
Missa Solemnis K337 and Vesperae Solennes de Confessore K339 more important than 34th symphony K338,
Grossemesse K427 more important than 36th symphony K425.
The fugues: Laudate Pueri of K339 (1:46), Laudate Pueri of K321 (35:05), Benedictus of K337 (32:59), for example, sound very different and individual.





Since Michael Haydn's Requiem is mentioned in the thread, it would be a good idea to mention Christian Bach's as well.


----------



## paulbest

Oh yes, how COULD I forget Mozart's masses?? I have the 10 Philiops set, sits highly prized on my shelf along with many other mass recordings.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> This seems to contradict your love of Mozart.
> 
> It sure doesn't, especially your rejection of Stockhausen. Admit it, Paul Best, you're a musical omnivore...you like a 'musical gumbo" just like the rest of us.


Tell you what,,I'm going to makea fair honest listen to his 3 orch work,,,,just one more time,,,,,but I feel while I am listening to Stockhausen,,I could be listening to Carter's Work for 3 Orchestras. 
Also Henze and Stockhausen, though both german and exact contemporaries,,,their music are nearly opposites.

If we place the romantics on too high a value,,, this takes away time promoting the modern composers. 
Resources are not limitless. 
This is my agenda. 
This past year has been my most open, fair, honest listens for new composers. 
YT is a incredible tool in digging for Gold. 
No fools gold please.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> I could not completely follow your thesis..OK so now I am clear about your expositions and standing here. Agree,,,so you are on my side, glad to know another supporter of our cause.
> 
> Inferiority is not the issue, who could knock Brahms VC as having *issues* in compositional form?
> *Its a masterpiece and perfect*,,,ask david Oistrakh, he'd tell you. (He owns the work).
> 
> Yet the middle 2 movements , make it sound *dated*, might I just come out and say it? Old Fashioned. Maybe not *stale* like yesterdays white bread, but definitely has lost some of its ~~~charms~~, its glimmers which spell bound crowds throughout germany and Austria past hundreds of years. Epochal? Yep, Timeless? No.
> 
> Shostakovich's VC op7, is IMHO, Timeless, still retains its vitality and splendor, for the ages.
> 
> Mozart,,ever since I read the liner notes in Walter's/Columbia box LP set,,,I knew then, Mozart was something *different*.
> His last 6 syms, + final 7 PC's, are extremely challenging to any artist. = Mozart conquers.
> Only Uchida has successfully conquered Mozart. Which really surprised me. As I was running out of options and thought maybe I;'ll never live to hear Mozart PC's in all their splendor.
> Her Beethoven I am sure is less successful, and I really don't care..,,you can find a dozen or more very successful Beethoven PC sets available. = a bit too programtic, ..ie your *formulaic*
> 
> Anything smacks of *formulaic*,,,not sure why,,,I get antsy,,,for something exciting to happen. I just don;'t have the patience to sit through the 2 middle movements ,,even as *lush, gorgeous,,* etc as they might seem to the romantic crowds,,,With Mozart, those 2 movements are different, he offers much greater embellishments. And well worth the wait for the usual explosive fireworks 4th movement, recapitulating the 1st move , unloading his fireworks box , til its emptied.
> 
> maybe I hear Mozart, and its like a bright star, which outshines all the other romantic stars in the heavens.
> 
> Mozart's music goes into timelessness. So in a 1000 years, how will that epoch hear Mozart?


I wish it was. Sadly the last two movements let the work down.

Now Sibelius VC - there's a well balanced great 19thC VC.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> I wish it was. Sadly the last two movements let the work down.
> 
> Now Sibelius VC - there's a well balanced great 19thC VC.


The Brahms VC is the finest transition piece twix the classical and romantic
sadly,,,along with you, I have to agree, Here is perhaps the only exitment in the entire concerto. 
Not enough to hold my interest, not with other modern masterworks waiting to be heard.

and if NOT for Oistrakh,,I'd probably skip this highlight section as well.


----------



## paulbest

The Sibelius, once a long time fav, has sadly disappreaded from my listening time. Vengerov owns that work. Even his fireworks can not grab my attention enough to fork out $10 for a cd. 
Hillary Hahn has been enchanting the crowds world over past 5 years with her very frequent programming the Sibelius, She draws bigger crowds than does Vengerov. 
Go figure,,,,its her sweet tones and feminine tenderness, which cause the crowds to fall in love with her playing.


----------



## paulbest

During the course of the next 100 years, the classical and romantic eras will have to take and accept at least some criticisms. 
Its bound to arrive,,,its just a matter of time. My expressions are only a opportunity to have others THINK for themselves , and not feel OBLIGATED to pay homage to either epoch. 
That is to say, you can skip over that era, quite quickly and move into the Modern Era. 


I hung around far too long in that epoch.
btw I consider Sibelius VC, romantic, more than modern. 
The 1st modern VC, not sure which it is, perhaps, yes, my best guess are Bartok, Prokofiev,,Szymanowski,,,there area few others, just can't recall. Not Stravinsky which also is *neo classical*. 
Schoenberg, Berg, both major modern, POST romantic VC.s.

The romantic era was majestic, glorious, huge,,,but as we know, time rolls on, things change, people change. 
Its life, 
Where should I leave a bouquet of flowers , In Memoriam ?


----------



## paulbest

and no, we will never forget the classical/romantic composers, never ina million years, We hold dearly their memory, the debt our modern composers owe them. 
I mean what would modern composers be, w/o their progenitors? Their models, their guides, and their teachers in compositional forms?

Eternally beholden


----------



## paulbest

Yet like Stravinsky's Firebird, which has to perish in the flames in order to reborn anew, in more glorious colors ,,so too the classic, gave way to romantic, gave way to the inheritors of both trads, The Modern Composers. 

Death is only a new beginning.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> and no, we will never forget the classical/romantic composers, never ina million years, We hold dearly their memory, the debt our modern composers owe them.
> I mean what would modern composers be, w/o their progenitors? Their models, their guides, and their teachers in compositional forms?
> 
> Eternally beholden


It might be worth considering the following, I think exhaustive, list of various types of classical music listeners in terms of experience and attitude towards exploring music more widely than hitherto:

1. Those who haven't yet progressed very far along the classical music learning curve, i.e. have only acquired a patchy knowledge of all there is to offer across all the main genres and time periods.

2. The more seasoned veterans who, for one reason or other, have got themselves "stuck in a rut" and refuse to listen to music from the modern era perhaps because they heard some of it along ago and decided it wasn't for them, and ever since have had a prejudice against it.

3. The listening veterans who have decided that they wish to remain focused mainly or entirely on music from pre-modern times times because that's what they like the most having heard the rest and given it all a fair chance.

4. Those listening veterans who are happy to listen to a mix of music from most or all time periods including the modern era, perhaps weighted somewhat towards those periods/genres that meet their particular preferences best of all. ​
I can see why you might consider it worthwhile to prod those in category (2) to give modern music another chance.

However, I think it is counter-productive and unreasonable to do likewise for those in (1).

For those in category (3) it seems a waste of time trying to do the same, as it most likely won't work.

For those in (4) it's unnecessary to do anything since you would be preaching to the converted in respect of taking an interest in modern music, and to suggest that they drop their interest in all pre-modern music is unlikely to elicit a favourable response.


----------



## paulbest

Yes, great breakdown, 
I have nothing against Group 1
Group 2 and 3 seem almost the same, Could you elaborate more on how they differ.

Its is specifically Group #2 which I stand opposed against. 
They can't stand my posts , as it has some exposure of their lack of openness (I don't wish to say honesty) about the whole matter.
they can tend to be rigid and defensive. 



The whole classical music spectrum, needs to be overhauled.
Which is why I made the topic, what influences us to like what we like. 
No one joined in to discuss. 
The 2nd group likes to dominate the scenes. 


I am like Christopher Columbus,,i like to explore the open seas, who knows what islands of trasures are waiting to be discovered. 
And I have, made such discoveries. 
But to stay *stuck in a rut*,,is just petty and makes The High Arts as a hobby in which to spend time. 
How often can one listen to the romantics and make a *new* discovery?
I can speed hum any one of those works, after a few listens. 
I want that stuff as far from my mind as possible,,make room for The Modern High art.


----------



## tdc

When composers have a distinct and beautiful way with melody I don't mind a fair bit of conventional structure, for this reason the use of cadences in Monteverdi and Vivaldi's music doesn't bother me. 

Sometimes 'uniqueness' itself can also be used as something to mask certain weaknesses in a composers abilities.

Generally a good approach is to try to strike a balance between uniqueness and convention.


----------



## paulbest

I once belonged to Group 1, for some ,,,ohh, about 15 yrs,,,until I decided to explore outside The Box. 


Now some 10 years or more, later, I have no interest in many of those which once held my interest. 
I call that my pre-awakening years. 
I was always a bit neurotic to accept/embrace new ideas/changes / The New Music. 
So being a part of Group 1 for many years, I skipped over Groups 2,3,4. 
I went from Rachmaninov, then discovered Shostakovich, Schoenberg, then a few other Moderns, added more, rejected others, rejected more Mods, finally arrived at other Moderns, rejected others, now I am settled in. 
Not much gonna change til my end. 
Its a done deal. 
I went from Group 1, straight into Group 5. . 

Group 5 only accepts what we feel is for us, music which we believe represents who we are. 
Popularity , propaganda has no part in our decisions. 
La Crème De La Crème. 
That's triple cream for you brits. Thick like butter. . 

Post mod fans consider us *old school*. The romantics consider us *Rebels*. 
The romantic composers just don't offer anything we can hang our hats on,,,the Ultra Mod school, Stockhausen, Cage, Berio, all broke too many rules, , we don't completely reject trads, forms which the Ultra Mod composers quite often do. 
Elliott Carter would be considered Ultra Mod,,, Boulez's piano music as well, Ultra Mod, yet there is substance, alluring forms, solid content offered on the plate. 
We just don't jump into anything, w/o having testing it against The Traditional Forms. 


The music of late 20th C has to pass criteria and aesthetic judgements,,,,music listened to with a background of all the great composers from previous eras. 

We have standards , yet we are flexible and embrace new ideas as long as they can fulfill certain requirements. 


Muisc has to hold real true value. Or whats the point in listening to something which grates the nerves? Or after 4 trys, its just ain;t worth the trouble. 
We can dump and add as we mature and develop. 
our valuations are changing,,yet stable. 
Life alters us, we adjust our musical hierarchy of valuations. 

Thus we transcend all groups. The Pinnacle of Everest is now within our reach.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> Inferiority is not the issue, who could knock Brahms VC as having *issues* in compositional form?
> Its a masterpiece and perfect,,,ask david Oistrakh, he'd tell you. (He owns the work).
> 
> Yet the middle 2 movements , make it sound *dated*, might I just come out and say it? Old Fashioned. Maybe not *stale* like yesterdays white bread, but definitely has lost some of its ~~~charms~~, its glimmers which spell bound crowds throughout germany and Austria past hundreds of years. Epochal? Yep, Timeless? No.


Have you ever noticed how often you have two statements in the same post, sometimes one after the other, that completely contradict each other?


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> Have you ever noticed how often you have two statements in the same post, sometimes one after the other, that completely contradict each other?


Occasionally we have a member who runs up the post count quite quickly but whose knowledge and experience seems thin and who tends to post his/her opinions as if they're absolute truths. The word "half-baked" comes to mind. It's kind of embarrassing, but hey...


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> Have you ever noticed how often you have two statements in the same post, sometimes one after the other, that completely contradict each other?


OK, hopefully in my latest new topic I am 
Clear
Concise
Explicit
Explanative
fair
An open invation for everyones free minded opinions.

I really hate dogmatics, doctrinaires
Do you and others feel I am somehow , over domineering, contradictory,,,or just have too many thoughts going on all at once and have trouble make a fluid, eloquent exposition of these ideas?
Hopefully, as I say, my new post suffers none of these debilities and ,,,makes plain common language a priority.


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> Occasionally we have a member who runs up the post count quite quickly but whose knowledge and experience seems thin and who tends to post his/her opinions as if they're absolute truths. The word "half-baked" comes to mind. It's kind of embarrassing, but hey...


so you are saying,,,i might have all the correct ingredients,,i just have to ~~finish baking IT in the oven abit longer~~ ,,a half baked loaf of bread is ,,,just aweful. ,,,garbage for the pig pen.....


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> I could not completely follow your thesis..OK so now I am clear about your expositions and standing here. Agree,,,so you are on my side, glad to know another supporter of our cause.


I'm not sure what your position is paulbest.



> Inferiority is not the issue, who could knock Brahms VC as having *issues* in compositional form?
> Its a masterpiece and perfect,,,ask david Oistrakh, he'd tell you. (He owns the work).
> 
> Yet the middle 2 movements , make it sound *dated*, might I just come out and say it? Old Fashioned. Maybe not *stale* like yesterdays white bread, but definitely has lost some of its ~~~charms~~, its glimmers which spell bound crowds throughout germany and Austria past hundreds of years. Epochal? Yep, Timeless? No.
> 
> Shostakovich's VC op7, is IMHO, Timeless, still retains its vitality and splendor, for the ages.
> 
> Mozart,,ever since I read the liner notes in Walter's/Columbia box LP set,,,I knew then, Mozart was something *different*.
> His last 6 syms, + final 7 PC's, are extremely challenging to any artist. = Mozart conquers.
> Only Uchida has successfully conquered Mozart. Which really surprised me. As I was running out of options and thought maybe I;'ll never live to hear Mozart PC's in all their splendor.
> Her Beethoven I am sure is less successful, and I really don't care..,,you can find a dozen or more very successful Beethoven PC sets available. = a bit too programtic, ..ie your *formulaic*
> 
> Anything smacks of *formulaic*,,,not sure why,,,I get antsy,,,for something exciting to happen. I just don;'t have the patience to sit through the 2 middle movements ,,even as *lush, gorgeous,,* etc as they might seem to the romantic crowds,,,With Mozart, those 2 movements are different, he offers much greater embellishments. And well worth the wait for the usual explosive fireworks 4th movement, recapitulating the 1st move , unloading his fireworks box , til its emptied.
> 
> maybe I hear Mozart, and its like a bright star, which outshines all the other romantic stars in the heavens.
> 
> Mozart's music goes into timelessness. So in a 1000 years, how will that epoch hear Mozart?


I don't have any issues with the Brahms Violin Concerto. You do know there are only three movements?


----------



## KenOC

paulbest said:


> and no, we will never forget the classical/romantic composers, never ina million years, We hold dearly their memory, the debt our modern composers owe them.


A million years? A million years ago we were homo erectus, quite a different animal from what we are today. I fear all of homo erectus's music is quite forgotten, and we should probably not hope for better the same period hence.


----------



## mikeh375

He has Beethoven's hair.....I thought tints where a 20thC phenomenon


----------



## paulbest

mikeh375 said:


> He has Beethoven's hair.....I thought tints where a 20thC phenomenon


lol
he sure looks more happy than modern man today,,,thats for sure

just look at Trumps face,,

...and no, was not aware Brahms VC had 3 and not 4 movements....


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> lol
> he sure looks more happy than modern man today,,,thats for sure
> 
> just look at Trumps face,,
> 
> ...and no, was not aware Brahms VC had 3 and not 4 movements....


I am not aware that there ever was a fourth movement, though Brahms did discard a planned scherzo.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes

I agree on some and disagree on others-while there is no period I can't enjoy/refuse to listen, I actually think the Classical period does fine; as for Mozart and Haydn, I like both, that's more than enough for me.
What about Scarlatti? He was a Baroque-Classical transition, any opinion(s) on that?
(My favorite period is the Romantic like Tchaikovsky, but IMO the period is of lesser importance than the composer him/herself)


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> A million years? A million years ago we were homo erectus, quite a different animal from what we are today. I fear all of homo erectus's music is quite forgotten, and we should probably not hope for better the same period hence.


I sent you my picture in strict confidence. Please, no further sharing.


----------



## Roger Knox

DaveM said:


> I sent you my picture in strict confidence. Please, no further sharing.


You must have a good make-up team! Hollywood?


----------



## Guest

Rubens said:


> After the splendors of the baroque era, with its ever-expanding richness of expression and complexity of craft, the evolution of the music was suddenly hijacked by the most restrictive dumbing-down known as the classical era.
> No era has produced fewer big names than the classical era. Yes, there were Haydn and Mozart, but they were the exceptions, for they managed to write interesting music within the the most restrictive stylistic shackles ever imposed on composers; this is akin to swimming with their hands tied behind their backs - an admirable feat for sure, but not the best conditions for the production of masterpieces. It took a revolutionary , slightly insane man (LvB) to free humanity from this most boring of all eras, and I have no doubt that his deafness was a blessing in disguise, for he had to be deaf to the terrible music of his time to be able to bring music back to its freedom!
> 
> So who is to blame for this monstrosity called the classical era?? Is it the taste of the aristocracy of that time? But what could have led them to such bad taste? Why did all the harmonic richness get dumbed down to the most basic formulas? And who decided that most the music would be written in major keys? Was it the Mannheim school? More precisely Stamitz?? Could one man really have caused all this damage??
> Again, thank God for Beethoven. After him, the music was free to evolve again. Sure, some people may object to the 2nd viennese school, but even that era was less restrictive than the classical era.
> Voila, that was my rant. If you don't agree, kindly buzz off.


All art is a struggle between the artists desire to express and stylistic restrictions of an art form. The restrictions of the classical era produced a new kind of music. Later the restrictions were relaxed. We are fortunate to live in an age when we can sample music from many different eras and find the epochs that are to our liking.


----------



## hammeredklavier

paulbest said:


> Muisc has to hold real true value. Or whats the point in listening to something which grates the nerves? Or after 4 trys, its just ain;t worth the trouble.


Watching analysis videos also helps with music appreciation


----------



## DTut

Couldn't agree more. I've thought this many times.


----------



## janxharris

DTut said:


> Couldn't agree more. I've thought this many times.


You agree with what DTut?


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> how do you explain Waltzes or Mazurkas by some composers having the same 3/4 accompaniment from start to finish. Or lieders and sonatas by some composer having the same vamping and padding from start to finish? Some composer wrote similarly overblown symphonies all his life.


Everytime Chopin makes a 'final statement', he writes passages to be played with both hands in unison:

scales:
Op.25 No.11 



Op.53 




chromatic scales:
Op.20 




arpeggios:
Op.10 No.12 



Op.35 




arpeggios and scales: 
Op. 11 




scales and octaves:
Op.23 



Op.54 




Beethoven on the other hand has this habit of using the choir to 'yell' in sforzando, and then forte, and then fortissimo - which I don't find very intricate or subtle.

Op.80: 



Op.123: 











Op.125: 




I would say if you accuse Haydn, Mozart of being formulaic at the same time think that Chopin and Beethoven repeating these techniques are not a fault, you're biased.


----------



## poconoron

This thread SHOULD be entitled "Who do we thank for the classical era".


----------



## Couchie

CPE Bach (LIGHT SCHIZOPHRENIC INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC) and Gluck (OPERA SHOULDN'T BE SO SHOWY)


----------



## Guest

I'd like to ask the OP (Rubens) what he makes of the discussion so far. He's hardly said anything apart from provide a very limited and brief reply to an earlier post I made seeking further information.

Given his lack of further contributions, one might be forgiven for believing that he created this thread mainly for a laugh, as a kind of foil to the other very silly thread on _"How Beethoven Ruined Classical Music", _which is still going apace.

I'd especially like to know Rubens latest view, in the light of all the comments made so far, on:

- whether he still dislikes the "classical" era generally, apart from Haydn and Mozart;​
- to what extent he believes that Haydn and Mozart saved the day and made it palatable, or whether he thinks that, even with their contributions thrown in, this entire era of music is still poor overall;

- whether he still believes that Beethoven was responsible for creating the beginnings of the "romantic" era, or whether the credit for this is more evenly spread among other composers of roughly the same time;

- does he think that the onset of the "romantic" era in music was mainly composer-driven or was it mainly audience-driven, with composers simply meeting the evolving requirements of audiences. If the latter, where does this leave his argument that it was Beethoven who got things out of a bad rut?​


----------



## Larkenfield

I suppose Joseph Haydn is one of the composers who should be "blamed" for ruining the Baroque era with his glorious Classical era Piano Trios full of such refinement, class and elegance:


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> I suppose Joseph Haydn ruined the classical era with his outstanding Piano Trios:


The OP is not denying that Haydn and Mozart wrote good music. His point is that the "classical" era in general, apart from these two exceptions, was abysmal because of the stylistic requirements connected with it. He's asking who was responsible for this development. In that Haydn was partly responsible, the OP has shot himself in the foot. l'm trying to get the OP to speak again, in order to see whether he has any further clarifications to make, but he seems reluctant to come out of hiding. Sadly this sort of thing is not uncommon with dubious threads of this nature.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Everytime Chopin makes a 'final statement', he writes passages to be played with both hands in unison:
> 
> scales:
> Op.25 No.11
> 
> 
> 
> Op.53
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chromatic scales:
> Op.20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arpeggios:
> Op.10 No.12
> 
> 
> 
> Op.35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arpeggios and scales:
> Op. 11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> scales and octaves:
> Op.23
> 
> 
> 
> Op.54
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven on the other hand has this habit of using the choir to 'yell' in sforzando, and then forte, and then fortissimo - which I don't find very intricate or subtle.
> 
> Op.80:
> 
> 
> 
> Op.123:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Op.125:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say if you accuse Haydn, Mozart of being formulaic at the same time think that Chopin and Beethoven repeating these techniques are not a fault, you're biased.


Still ranting at no one in particular?

But hey, thanks for all those marvelous examples, showing that Chopin and Beethoven knew how to compose exciting climaxes. Octave doubling does work marvelously, doesn't it?


----------



## Woodduck

Have been listening to some Boccherini quintets and some cello concertos of Carl Stamitz. Beautiful stuff that Rubens might want to check out. Those two are obviously not to blame for anything.


----------



## paulbest

The height of the Classical era, is represented by one composer, Beethoven. The transition into and flowering of the romantic era, is represented by which composers? Brahms for sure , Chopin in piano development, can;'t leave out Schumann (Schubert I can leave out) ,,,then there's Tchaikovsky's powerful voice,,, Dvorak has great significance here.. a few others, in opera, Puccini is breaking new powerful chords and textures. far superior to old Verdi. Everyone could add another 1 or 2 of their favs, from this era, making a list of the most important at about ,,no more than,,,say 10 composers, OK, 15 tops, as defining, powerful influential, within the broad romantic sweep.

. Classical era, Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, add a 4th or 5 th if you care to. I know of no 4th,5th in that era, as ,,,significant. ( I just now see a Boccherini mention,,,,,rolls eyes smiley)


Now lets move to the early modern, mid modern, late modern era of classical music. 


How would a list look for *most influential, most significant* of this era, which has now passed in our lifetime in terms of historical records. Not in terms of living, life giving musical creations. The modern era genius, will live forever. Never seeing death. .
The list is unmakeable, everyones list will look quite different from each others


The Modern period is what I call, 
Kaleidoscopic. 

Likea exploding star BORN OUT OF of the classical era,, maturing in the romantic era,, splintering into bright sparks in the romantic era,,and now has resulted in 
New Star Formations.
Lighting the heavens of classical music, which we all now can sit under at night and behold the glory of this 30 year tradition.... 

We should not forget another style, which wishes to barge in on this faithful, creative , authentic tradition. and that is ….Post modernISM
Post mod is only a fireworks show,,, light it, up it goes, bice sparkles,,,falls back to earth as ashes,,,show over....


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Occasionally we have a member who runs up the post count quite quickly but whose knowledge and experience seems thin and who tends to post his/her opinions as if they're absolute truths. The word "half-baked" comes to mind. It's kind of embarrassing, but hey...


I call it "a breath of fresh air." That "humorous" post you did about a knife was disturbing, so you lose points on that.


----------



## millionrainbows

Roger Knox said:


> You must have a good make-up team! Hollywood?


Nahh, he works for GEICO.

Once again, kudos to the entire forum for allowing a thread such as this to even exist. It's good for CM enthusiasts to be critical of the things they love.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> I call it "a breath of fresh air." That "humorous" post you did about a knife was disturbing, so you lose points on that.


I ain;t no powder puff, if that's what you are implying..
I like to think of myself as a whirl wind for change and new UNDERSTANDINGS, new evaluations,,long over due,,,,,;;;Is this the place I can plug my latest new discovery? 
good then,,,, Szymanowski would represent a excellent representation of how well the Classical Period has matured and developed into even further perfection of the high musical art. 
Beethoven would become ab huge fan of Szymanwoski, I know it, Genius sees genius.


----------



## Larkenfield

To all the Classicists past and future 

Well, they'll stone you when you're trying to be so good
They'll stone you just like they said they would
They'll stone you when you're trying to go home
And they'll stone you when you're there all alone
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned...

Well, they’ll stone you when you walk all alone
They’ll stone you when you are walking home
They’ll stone you and then say you are brave
They’ll stone you when you are set down in your grave
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned

:cheers:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> But hey, thanks for all those marvelous examples, showing that Chopin and Beethoven knew how to compose exciting climaxes. Octave doubling does work marvelously, doesn't it?


Sorry, my ears bleed every time Beethoven does this.
6:40
14:20
17:20
23:40
27:50





I was listening to CPE Bach Magnificat Wq215 the other day, I was again reminded of Beethoven. There's a lot of great things he accomplished by moving away from the ways of his predecessors. But in some areas like vocal music, I think it would have been better for him to just imitate them.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> *The height of the Classical era, is represented by one composer, Beethoven.* The transition into and flowering of the romantic era, is represented by which composers? Brahms for sure , Chopin in piano development, can;'t leave out Schumann (Schubert I can leave out) ,,,then there's Tchaikovsky's powerful voice,,, Dvorak has great significance here.. a few others, in opera, Puccini is breaking new powerful chords and textures. far superior to old Verdi. Everyone could add another 1 or 2 of their favs, from this era, making a list of the most important at about ,,no more than,,,say 10 composers, OK, 15 tops, as defining, powerful influential, within the broad romantic sweep.
> 
> . Classical era, Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, add a 4th or 5 th if you care to. I know of no 4th,5th in that era, as ,,,significant. ( I just now see a Boccherini mention,,,,,rolls eyes smiley)
> 
> Now lets move to the early modern, mid modern, late modern era of classical music.
> 
> How would a list look for *most influential, most significant* of this era, which has now passed in our lifetime in terms of historical records. Not in terms of living, life giving musical creations. The modern era genius, will live forever. Never seeing death. .
> The list is unmakeable, everyones list will look quite different from each others
> 
> The Modern period is what I call,
> Kaleidoscopic.
> 
> Likea exploding star BORN OUT OF of the classical era,, maturing in the romantic era,, splintering into bright sparks in the romantic era,,and now has resulted in
> New Star Formations.
> Lighting the heavens of classical music, which we all now can sit under at night and behold the glory of this 30 year tradition....
> 
> We should not forget another style, which wishes to barge in on this faithful, creative , authentic tradition. and that is ….Post modernISM
> Post mod is only a fireworks show,,, light it, up it goes, bice sparkles,,,falls back to earth as ashes,,,show over....


No its not. The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith.

you have absolutely no sound opinions - a loose cannon!


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, my ears bleed every time Beethoven does this.
> 6:40
> 14:20
> 17:20
> 23:40
> 27:50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was listening to CPE Bach Magnificat Wq215 the other day, I was again reminded of Beethoven. There's a lot of great things he accomplished by moving away from the ways of his predecessors. But in some areas like vocal music, I think it would have been better for him to just imitate them.


Well, extracting moments like that doesn't show much; there's a lot more to that mass than a few forceful climactic effects. But we all have our likes and dislikes. Personally, I dislike most Classical era sacred choral works to some extent, at least compared with the greatest manifestations of the Baroque and Renaissance. I think Haydn and Mozart themselves were aware that the music of their time had sacrificed the capacity to express certain things - specifically transcendental (religious) feeling - which is why Classical composers (and Romantic ones too) studied Bach, Handel and even older composers, and tried to incorporate some of their thinking. I find in the sacred choral works of Haydn and Mozart a less than felicitous blending, or merely a juxtaposition, of neo-Baroque sublimity and relatively shallow, even frivolous, Classical sentiment, which makes these works unappealing except in certain sections (generally the ones that sound most Baroque). I'm not a big fan of Beethoven's efforts in the genre either, but he does seem to be aiming at a more integrated style, and achieves it in the _Missa Solemnis._


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> No its not. The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because *Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith*.
> 
> you have absolutely no sound opinions - a loose cannon!


I agree with you.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Well, extracting moments like that doesn't show much; there's a lot more to that mass than a few forceful climactic effects. But we all have our likes and dislikes. Personally, I dislike most Classical era sacred choral works to some extent, at least compared with the greatest manifestations of the Baroque and Renaissance. I think Haydn and Mozart themselves were aware that the music of their time had sacrificed the capacity to express certain things - specifically transcendental (religious) feeling - which is why Classical composers (and Romantic ones too) studied Bach, Handel and even older composers, and tried to incorporate some of their thinking. I find in the sacred choral works of Haydn and Mozart a less than felicitous blending, or merely a juxtaposition, of neo-Baroque sublimity and relatively shallow, even frivolous, Classical sentiment, which makes these works unappealing except in certain sections (generally the ones that sound most Baroque). I'm not a big fan of Beethoven's efforts in the genre either, but he does seem to be aiming at a more integrated style, and achieves it in the _Missa Solemnis._


Op.80: 



Op.123: 











Op.125: 




Again, he does this kind of thing again even in Missa Solemnis. It's no wonder why Hummel laughed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_C_major_(Beethoven)#Reception 
Verdi: "...it will be an easy task to write as badly for voices as in the last movement. And supported by the authority of Beethoven, they will all shout: "That's the way to do it..."

And no. Bach, Haydn, Mozart didn't write theirs like Choral Fantasia. The way Beethoven does things just reminds me of Dervish Chorus from his own _Ruins of Athens_.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I remember Woodduck saying to me once: "I regard masses in general as medieval relics like papal bulls, confession booths, rosary beads and thuribles, and am thus amused as well as bored by their persistence in the modern world and by composers' fondness for setting their statements of dogma to music." I guess it explains why he hates 'em all.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## Gallus

stomanek said:


> No its not. The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith.


I don't agree with this at all, in fact I think it's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Mozart's development as an artist was accelerating rapidly up to his death and there's no reason why he couldn't have extended the classical idiom further had he lived, or Beethoven couldn't have done either _if he had wanted to_.

I also think it's slightly insulting to Beethoven to say that he only went the way he did because Mozart had done the classical style better. Beethoven went past classicism not because it was objectively 'completed', but because subjectively he felt that he couldn't express what he wanted to within its confines, which we can assume would have been the case Mozart or no Mozart.


----------



## Guest

Gallus said:


> I don't agree with this at all, in fact I think it's a pretty ridiculous thing to say. Mozart's development as an artist was accelerating rapidly up to his death and there's no reason why he couldn't have extended the classical idiom further had he lived, or Beethoven couldn't have done either _if he had wanted to_.
> 
> I also think it's slightly insulting to Beethoven to say that he only went the way he did because Mozart had done the classical style better. Beethoven went past classicism not because it was objectively 'completed', but because subjectively he felt that he couldn't express what he wanted to within its confines, which we can assume would have been the case Mozart or no Mozart.


Could you clarify the following issues arising from your post above:

(1) What exactly were the constraints imposed by the classical model that you consider Beethoven found that made it impossible to express what he wanted to achieve?

(2) In what ways do you consider that Beethoven "went past classicism"? Can you provide some case examples?

(3) Where did Beethoven finish up?

(4) If you think it was full-on Romanticism, what do you make of Charles Rosen's opinion that Beethoven remained a classicist?


----------



## janxharris

Partita said:


> Could you clarify the following issues arising from your post above:
> 
> (1) What exactly were the constraints imposed by the classical model that you consider Beethoven found that made it impossible to express what he wanted to achieve?


It's not a constraint, but the harmony of classical era composers is generally pretty limited and often follows predictable patterns.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> No its not. The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith.


That's a very bold statement.

Do you not agree that if Mozart hadn't died so young he might have taken "classicism" beyond the point it had reached at his death?

My view is that he might have well done so, depending on how much longer it is assumed he had lived. It seems extreme to assume that the classical style would have remained completely static as of 1791.

If we assume that Mozart had lived, say, another 10 years, I'm not sure that he would have ventured into "romantic" territory, for the simple reason that by 1800/1 it hadn't yet become all that fashionable in the music area.

I would suggest that Beethoven's moves into "romantic" territory were more exploratory and preliminary. Rossini was a major influence, as too was Schubert who both made bigger strides, but things didn't get moving rapidly until Chopin, Schumann, Liszt came along.

The impetus for "romantic music" was more that it was "demand-led", i.e. audiences wanted music more in that style. The composers whose names are most famous in this area responded to that demand using a variety of new forms, and were not the fundamental causes of it.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, my ears bleed every time Beethoven does this.
> 6:40
> 14:20
> 17:20
> 23:40
> 27:50


I can't hear anything about odd about the sections you refer to. They are just "climaxes" that one expects to hear in masses of this era.

A few weeks ago you were knocking the hell out Schubert's Mass 6, trying to say that you thought Schubert didn't know what he doing, and because of his lack of skill he stuffed the work with a load "vamping", as you called it.

Interesting comments but I'm not convinced, not by a long way.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Partita said:


> I can't hear anything about odd about the sections you refer to. They are just "climaxes" that one expects to hear in masses of this era.
> 
> A few weeks ago you were knocking the hell out Schubert's Mass 6, trying to say that you thought Schubert didn't know what he doing, and because of his lack of skill he stuffed the work with a load "vamping", as you called it.
> 
> Interesting comments but I'm not convinced, not by a long way.


Actually, it's one of the things you said to me at the time: "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."

I still think Beethoven is not Schubertian minimalism at least. It's just Beethoven's techniques to create drama in terms of melody, harmony, counterpoint, contrast in these works that I have issues with. It's fine if you find them appealing, but I think they're less varied than his predecessors'. Woodduck often tries to put down Haydn, Mozart by comparing them with their predecessors in attempt to make Beethoven look better in comparison, but that won't convince me.
I'm also intrigued by people who go around preaching about 'silliness' in Haydn, Mozart, and at the same time have absolutely no problem with Beethoven Choral Fantasia and Ninth Symphony finale which contain sections like these, 



 which give me good laughs everytime. But that's another story.


----------



## EdwardBast

Partita said:


> Could you clarify the following issues arising from your post above:
> 
> (1) What exactly were the constraints imposed by the classical model that you consider Beethoven found that made it impossible to express what he wanted to achieve?
> 
> (2) In what ways do you consider that Beethoven "went past classicism"? Can you provide some case examples?
> 
> (3) Where did Beethoven finish up?
> 
> (4) If you think it was full-on Romanticism, what do you make of Charles Rosen's opinion that Beethoven remained a classicist?


I don't wish to get in the middle of your disagreement with Gallus, and you are right to challenge his post and ask for clarification. But these questions are easy ones.

(1) 8:1 ratio of works in the major mode, the use of dance movements in sonatas and symphonies, having the dramatic center of gravity in the first movement of multimovement works, development sections that are generally shorter than expositions; no emphasis on thematic unity among movements - it's a long, long list.

(2) By changing every one of the things listed in (1) and others.

(3) In the Ultima Thule of his own style which is neither classical nor romantic.

(4) Rosen was writing a book called _The Classical Style_, so he emphasized the elements shared among major composers.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Actually, it's one of the things you said to me at the time: "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."
> 
> I still think Beethoven is not Schubertian minimalism at least. It's just Beethoven's techniques to create drama in terms of melody, harmony, counterpoint, contrast in these works that I have issues with. It's fine if you find them appealing, but I think they're less varied than his predecessors'. Woodduck often tries to put down Haydn, Mozart by comparing them with their predecessors in attempt to make Beethoven look better in comparison, but that won't convince me.
> I'm also intrigued by people who go around preaching about 'silliness' in Haydn, Mozart, and at the same time have absolutely no problem with Beethoven Choral Fantasia and Ninth Symphony finale which contain sections like these,
> 
> 
> 
> which give me good laughs everytime. But that's another story.


I don't know where all this about alleged "Schubertian minimalism" comes from.

In our discussion a few weeks ago in the other thread to which you refer we were discussing Schubert's Mass 6 and Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. The focus of that discussion was Schubert's alleged excessive repetition, and lack of polyphony, in the Gloria section in comparison with Beethoven's. I responded that the last 25% of Schubert's Gloria was a fugue that seems perfectly adequate, and that there was repetition in Beethoven's. I also said that I see no need for over-elaborate polyphony in works of this nature, as it can obscure the text.

That's another matter from the issue you have raised recently here in this thread where you picked on Beetheven's Op 86 Mass in C to highlight several areas that contain climaxes which you say you don't like. My comment was that this kind of thing is not uncommon in works of this nature. Are you saying that there are no "climaxes" in Mozart's and Haydn's masses, or just that those which occur are not so offensive to your ears? Whatever, I have always just accepted these things the way they are, and try not to fuss about details like that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> *That's a very bold statement.*
> 
> Do you not agree that if Mozart hadn't died so young he might have taken "classicism" beyond the point it had reached at his death?
> 
> My view is that he might have well done so, depending on how much longer it is assumed he had lived. It seems extreme to assume that the classical style would have remained completely static as of 1791.
> 
> If we assume that Mozart had lived, say, another 10 years, I'm not sure that he would have ventured into "romantic" territory, for the simple reason that by 1800/1 it hadn't yet become all that fashionable in the music area.
> 
> I would suggest that Beethoven's moves into "romantic" territory were more exploratory and preliminary. Rossini was a major influence, as too was Schubert who both made bigger strides, but things didn't get moving rapidly until Chopin, Schumann, Liszt came along.
> 
> The impetus for "romantic music" was more that it was "demand-led", i.e. audiences wanted music more in that style. The composers whose names are most famous in this area responded to that demand using a variety of new forms, and were not the fundamental causes of it.


why?

I dont know what Mozart would have done - nobody can know.

So that is pretty much irrelevant.

For some time Beethoven was looking back to Mozart and Haydn early in his career - then he went in a new direction. I don't think we can say that direction is wholly classicism - that belongs to Mozart, and Haydn I suppose - both of whom took the music of the classical era to the highest points. Beethoven himself more or less acknowledged this - particularly in relation to K491 when he said it could not be bettered. And Beethoven tried to better it - but failed - in his own c minor pc.


----------



## Gallus

Partita said:


> Could you clarify the following issues arising from your post above:
> 
> (1) What exactly were the constraints imposed by the classical model that you consider Beethoven found that made it impossible to express what he wanted to achieve?
> 
> (2) In what ways do you consider that Beethoven "went past classicism"? Can you provide some case examples?
> 
> (3) Where did Beethoven finish up?
> 
> (4) If you think it was full-on Romanticism, what do you make of Charles Rosen's opinion that Beethoven remained a classicist?


I don't think this line of questioning is relevant. If you want to take Beethoven as a classical composer -- and whether he was or not was not the point of my post -- then my objection to stomanek's statement that "Mozart was the zenith of the classical style and made it unimprovable" is if anything strengthened. Classicism wasn't abandoned because it was teleologically worn out and objectively had nothing more to say, but because certain composers (whoever you think they may be) made a free aesthetic decision to based on individual and social factors.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> *I don't wish to get in the middle of your disagreement* with Gallus, and you are right to challenge his post and ask for clarification. But these questions are easy ones.
> 
> (1) 8:1 ratio of works in the major mode, the use of dance movements in sonatas and symphonies, having the dramatic center of gravity in the first movement of multimovement works, development sections that are generally shorter than expositions; no emphasis on thematic unity among movements - it's a long, long list.
> 
> (2) By changing every one of the things listed in (1) and others.
> 
> (3) In the Ultima Thule of his own style which is neither classical nor romantic.
> 
> (4) Rosen was writing a book called _The Classical Style_, so he emphasized the elements shared among major composers.


 With regard to the bold text, surely you have done exactly that!

Actually, it is not a "disagreement" at all. I was merely asking Gallus to clarify several issues that were not explained. You have now provided suggested answers I was hoping to tease out of Gallus, so I have no idea what might otherwise have resulted. I suspect he may simply rest his case on your comments.

My responses to your comments are:

I was not aware that the "classical" style was as rigidly defined, as you seem to imply. It evolved during its entire history from simple material to a much more complex form with late Mozart and Haydn. You seem to be saying that it was fully exhausted by the time Beethoven was getting into his stride. That sounds to me like a strong assumption to make.

It implies that you believe that the changes Beethoven brought about were bigger than what occurred in the previous history of the "classical" model, so big that he finished up neither as a Classicist nor a Romantic but in some place else all of his own. I might accept that this was true for some of his later works, but a lot of the earlier material was, according to Rosen (see below) still within the broad scope of "Classicism", if this is interpreted on a wide basis. This kind of "neither fish-nor-foul" conclusion does not strike me as being persuasive. It is more like backing all the horses in the same race.

It seems perfectly clear that Beethoven was strongly grounded in the "classical" tradition. That was the tradition he learned at Bonn, as well as during his early days in Vienna under further tutoring with Haydn and one or two others. As his career developed and became ever more famous and popular, I do not see that he had any great incentive to switch to Romanticism. I would guess that if he had been asked he would have expressed a strong dislike of the new Romantic ideas that were beginning to gain ground, especially in opera circles.

True early Romantics, like Schumann, who came quite a bit later, saw music in a different way than Beethoven. As you are aware, they used a variety of new forms different forms to those used by Beethoven. In addition, they placed a greater emphasis on the "poetic" element, or use of literature in a more general sense, which you will recall we discussed once before in another recent thread.

I think that Charles Rosen did more than just list the features Beethoven's music shared with Classicism. My recollection was that he finished up saying that in his opinion Beethoven remained largely true to the basic forms of that style, even though he stretched them to their limits and may on occasion have gone into new territory.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> why?


You stated that: _"The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith."_

I said that I thought that this was a very bold statement.

You ask "why".

I have already stated that Beethoven came along and developed the classical model further. Whether or not his efforts in this respect exceeded the previous "zenith" reached by Mozart is debatable, but it can't be taken for granted that he did not do so, as implied by your statement.


----------



## Guest

Gallus said:


> I don't think this line of questioning is relevant. If you want to take Beethoven as a classical composer -- and whether he was or not was not the point of my post -- then my objection to stomanek's statement that "Mozart was the zenith of the classical style and made it unimprovable" is if anything strengthened. Classicism wasn't abandoned because it was teleologically worn out and objectively had nothing more to say, but because certain composers (whoever you think they may be) made a free aesthetic decision to based on individual and social factors.


I'm pleased to say that I fully agree with you that stomanek's statement that Mozart was the zenith of the classical style is not a valid conclusion. It's his guess that this is the case, but it's not a fact unless we assume that Beethoven's efforts moved things in a negative direction in regard to developing the classical model. I do not believe that is provable either way, since quality issues are not measurable.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> The period of time between the last works of Bach and the startling innovations of Beethoven's "middle period" was barely more than half a century, but the aesthetic change was amazing, and a single composer such as C.P.E. Bach can take us on a dizzying ride through the gamut of styles from Baroque to Classical to indescribable.


This is a good point, and it wasn't just aesthetics that were going through profound changes during this period. It also marked the the earliest signs of the eventual collapse of political, economic, social and cultural control over Europe of a royal and aristocratic class that had held power for centuries.
In a period of such instability and flux, artists in many areas, poetry, painting, and sculpture as well as music, sought refuge in perceived classical order and rationality.
It isn't easy for us to see that era in the same light today.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I remember Woodduck saying to me once: "I regard masses in general as medieval relics like papal bulls, confession booths, rosary beads and thuribles, and am thus amused as well as bored by their persistence in the modern world and by composers' fondness for setting their statements of dogma to music." I guess it explains why he hates 'em all.


Good God! A photographic memory! Funny...I don't remember anything _you've_ said.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> No reason, really, except my own amusement. I regard masses in general as medieval relics like papal bulls, confession booths, rosary beads and thuribles, and am thus amused as well as bored by their persistence in the modern world and by composers' fondness for setting their statements of dogma to music. I tend to roll my eyes at the obligatory gestures toward traditional forms such as fugues, even if they're well written.


Anyway, sorry if I sounded offensive. But I still wonder, since people claim all the time that

_"Beethoven could have easily churned out works like Haydn and Mozart, he didn't cause he wanted to be different."
"Beethoven mastered and went beyond the level of Haydn and Mozart to change everything in music."_

And these are accepted as truths by so many, we don't question Beethoven's power of 'innovation'. 
And because he is 'innovative', and creditted for 'ending' the 'darkest period of music', it is automatically accepted as fact that his music would be superior to whatever **** that came just before him. 
At least this is what I make of the general argument.

But here's what I think: according to various sources, Beethoven felt he was like a student in vocal writing all his life and considered Haydn *inimitable* in this department. 
Considering this, isn't it a bit strange to think that just before death, as if he was "finally touched by God" in his deafness, wrote his second and final mass and surpassed his predecessors in all aspects of sacred choral composition?

_"May I just say that I will hand the mass over to you with great trepidation, as Your Serene Highness is accustomed to having the inimitable masterworks of the great Haydn performed." _
(Beethoven's letter to Prince Nikolaus II Esterhazy, 1807)

_"Beethoven felt that he was a student in the vocal writing all his life."_
(Beethoven as a Choral Composer by Elliot Forbes)










Or did he just write the way he did cause he couldn't write like them? I don't want to be a pretentious elitist or anything, I won't presume to discuss what constitutes 'depth' for everyone. I'm trying to establish some sense of objectivity based on historical facts of what Beethoven and his contemporaries thought regarding this.
Aren't the classical era masters becoming victims of constant propaganda: propaganda to brand Beethoven an image he doesn't fully deserve?


----------



## KenOC

"The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith."

My impression is that Beethoven never felt threatened by Mozart because it wasn’t a competition. He studied Mozart’s music and took inspiration from it, but he was a smart guy and probably realized that he could never out-Mozart Mozart. 

Haydn was a different matter. For Beethoven’s first years in Vienna, Haydn was alive and productive and there was doubtless an element of competition in both men’s minds (music in Vienna was a fiercely competitive environment). Aristocratic patrons may have contributed, purposely or otherwise, in promoting rivalry. For instance, Prince Lobkowitz commissioned sets of six string quartets from both composers in 1798-99, and it was doubtless obvious that there would be public comparisons of the results.

So IMO it was Haydn that Beethoven was determined to out-do, at least early on, not Mozart.

As for “going another direction,” I don’t think that had much to do with either Mozart or Haydn.


----------



## Pastoral

A few weeks ago, I attended a pre-concert talk given by a member of my local orchestra. He said there are pretty much three sections in a university course for the history of classical music, before Beethoven, Beethoven, and after Beethoven. I guess this comment will offend a lot of people here.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> So IMO it was Haydn that Beethoven was determined to out-do, at least early on, not Mozart.
> 
> As for "going another direction," I don't think that had much to do with either Mozart or Haydn.


I'm not in any way disagreeing with you, but for clarification could you explain further what you mean when you say that you believe it was most likely Haydn rather than Mozart that Beethoven saw as his target for out-doing.

Do you mean that you think Beethoven tried to out-do Haydn by either:

1. moving gradually away from the Classical model and developing something entirely new, or

2. that he thought he could still out-do Haydn by remaining within the same ball-park in terms of adherence to the existing Classical model, but producing better quality work?

If you believe (1) is the more likely, how would you describe the model he finished up? Would you call it "Romantic" or something completely unique?

If you believe (2) is the more likely, do you think that Beethoven should be regarded as the last of the great Classicists?


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> I'm not in any way disagreeing with you, but for clarification could you explain further what you mean when you say that you believe it was most likely Haydn rather than Mozart that Beethoven saw as his target for out-doing.
> 
> Do you mean that you think Beethoven tried to out-do Haydn by either:
> 
> 1. moving gradually away from the Classical model and developing something entirely new, or
> 
> 2. that he thought he could still out-do Haydn by remaining within the same ball-park in terms of adherence to the existing Classical model, but producing better quality work?
> 
> If you believe (1) is the more likely, how would you describe the model he finished up? Would you call it "Romantic" or something completely unique?
> 
> If you believe (2) is the more likely, do you think that Beethoven should be regarded as the last of the great Classicists?


I believe Beethoven was competing with Haydn for public favor in the market for music of the time. He did that by writing music much (but not entirely) in Haydn's manner and of excellent quality and strong imagination. He also wrote some _very _popular pieces in the newer "romantic" manner that was gaining currency at the time -- something Haydn never did.

Bear in mind that the period described was only six or seven years, as Haydn was forced to retire from the field about 1802. That was about the same time that Beethoven's "entirely new manner" began to become apparent. His significant works after that time I would describe neither as classical nor romantic.


----------



## tdc

Partita said:


> I'm pleased to say that I fully agree with you that stomanek's statement that Mozart was the zenith of the classical style is not a valid conclusion.


I think it is a valid conclusion, in so far as many people consider Mozart the greatest composer of all time (including as far as I can tell Charles Rosen). If we take that to be the case than logically Mozart would be considered the zenith of the Classical era. I think one could make arguments for other composers such as Beethoven as being equal or greater, however Stomanek's claim is not really that controversial, even if partially subjective.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Anyway, sorry if I sounded offensive. But I still wonder, since people claim all the time that
> 
> _"Beethoven could have easily churned out works like Haydn and Mozart, he didn't cause he wanted to be different."
> "Beethoven mastered and went beyond the level of Haydn and Mozart to change everything in music."_
> 
> And these are accepted as truths by so many, we don't question Beethoven's power of 'innovation'.
> And because he is 'innovative', and creditted for 'ending' the 'darkest period of music', it is automatically accepted as fact that his music would be superior to whatever **** that came just before him.
> At least this is what I make of the general argument.
> 
> But here's what I think: according to various sources, Beethoven felt he was like a student in vocal writing all his life and considered Haydn *inimitable* in this department.
> Considering this, isn't it a bit strange to think that just before death, as if he was "finally touched by God" in his deafness, wrote his second and final mass and surpassed his predecessors in all aspects of sacred choral composition?
> 
> Aren't the classical era masters becoming victims of constant propaganda: propaganda to brand Beethoven an image he doesn't fully deserve?


Why did you quote my semi-satirical thoughts on composing masses in the modern era, and then set about refuting assertions that have nothing to do with what I said and are, in fact, exaggerated assertions few people would make? It's all just incoherent. I'd call it a multiple straw-man argument.

For the record, I don't consider Beethoven a superior composer to Mozart. Most likely no one is a superior composer to Mozart. I just don't care as much for the Classical style as for numerous other styles, including some of Beethoven's (he developed so constantly that he can hardly be said to have "a" style).

As far as masses and other religious genres are concerned, I think every style of music has things it expresses well and not so well. I don't care for the way most Classical (and many Baroque and Romantic) sacred works approach feelings I'd loosely call "spiritual." The musical language is all just too worldly, rational and "humanistic." If I'm going to be sung to about such mythical, magical phenomena as creation, incarnation, apocalypse, heaven and hell, I prefer the polyphony of Desprez that takes me to an impersonal (or suprapersonal) place beyond the reality I know, or the intricate counterpoint of Bach that builds higher and higher until it seems to burst and scatter stars across the firmament, or the wild or strange visions of, say, Berlioz or Faure, which also take me to worlds I've never imagined. I want to _transcend,_ and most of the time Classical sacred music is just too bloody sane, sensible, neat, balanced, and, frankly, pretty, a condition only partly offset by its use of techniques learned from studying Bach and Handel. When Haydn heard part of Bach's Mass in b-minor, he was overwhelmed and said that no one would ever equal it. I don't believe he meant only its technical qualities.

Classicism seems to me best when it just embraces its secular essence and engages uninhibitedly in the dialectical dramatic-narrative procedures it perfected in sonata-form movements. Haydn's quartets and symphonies, Mozart's piano concertos and quintets - they're what Classicism is really about. Spiritual experience of the most soul-searching and soul-transforming sort calls for other kinds of music, which is why the works of the Renaissance and Baroque were studied by Classical, Romantic and Modern composers whose normal styles in secular works were completely different.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Why did you quote my semi-satirical thoughts on composing masses in the modern era, and then set about refuting assertions that have nothing to do with what I said and are, in fact, exaggerated assertions few people would make? It's all just incoherent. I'd call it a multiple straw-man argument.
> 
> For the record, I don't consider Beethoven a superior composer to Mozart. Most likely no one is a superior composer to Mozart. I just don't care as much for the Classical style as for numerous other styles, including some of Beethoven's (he developed so constantly that he can hardly be said to have "a" style).
> 
> As far as masses and other religious genres are concerned, I think every style of music has things it expresses well and not so well. I don't care for the way most Classical (and many Baroque and Romantic) sacred works approach feelings I'd loosely call "spiritual." The musical language is all just too worldly, rational and "humanistic." If I'm going to be sung to about such mythical, magical phenomena as creation, incarnation, apocalypse, heaven and hell, I prefer the polyphony of Desprez that takes me to an impersonal (or suprapersonal) place beyond the reality I know, or the intricate counterpoint of Bach that builds higher and higher until it seems to burst and scatter stars across the firmament, or the wild or strange visions of, say, Berlioz or Faure, which also take me to worlds I've never imagined. I want to _transcend,_ and most of the time Classical sacred music is just too bloody sane, sensible, neat, balanced, and, frankly, pretty, a condition only partly offset by its use of techniques learned from studying Bach and Handel. When Haydn heard part of Bach's Mass in b-minor, he was overwhelmed and said that no one would ever equal it. I don't believe he meant only its technical qualities.
> 
> Classicism seems to me best when it just embraces its secular essence and engages uninhibitedly in the dialectical dramatic-narrative procedures it perfected in sonata-form movements. Haydn's quartets and symphonies, Mozart's piano concertos and quintets - they're what Classicism is really about. Spiritual experience of the most soul-searching and soul-transforming sort calls for other kinds of music, which is why the works of the Renaissance and Baroque were studied by Classical, Romantic and Modern composers whose normal styles in secular works were completely different.


This is a excellent, well expressed post.
I am in agreement with many of your ideas.

Mozart had such expressive genius, places him in a 
category all by himself. 
Not to say everything he wrote was great, take his 5 VC's, I mean for musicologists, they are great works. But to me, they sound rather, too simple and bland.

It is in his last pC's where Mozart shines. 
His sacred works are seemingly worldly, as he wrote for a worldly carnal , non spiritual church. Catholicism was not true spirit.
anyway, for real spirituality, it is in Ravel, Szymanowski, , Henze, Pettersson, some Shostakovich, and mainly in Schnittke's highly spiritual sacred works.

To me spirit is heard in terms of genius. How is the soul moved and affected deep within.
Mozart's, Bach's sacred works, may appear to be spiritual, but in fact are only highly polished , creative art. 
The true spirit is in modernism, music which moves the soul. 
Sure I can hear Mozart, Bach as beautiful and lovely, but for true spirit in todays times,,,that expression belongs mostly to Schnittke. Schnittke is the highest spiritual expression for modern man. Not Bach, nor Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> When Haydn heard part of Bach's Mass in b-minor, he was overwhelmed and said that no one would ever equal it. I don't believe he meant only its technical qualities.


Do you have the source for this? I wouldn't say Tchaikovsky was right, but he thought that Bach's cantatas are real classical bores and he's only good for some fugues. 
http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach 
Others including Wagner, Brahms etc would have disagreed. But what I'm saying is, you see this trend among 'greats' through history, the average consensus was that Haydn, Mozart did not lack in depth or technicality compared to their predecessors. Even in the 20th century, Schoenberg thought their achievements still relevant. 




But in the case of Beethoven - did he, his finest contemporaries, or his successors in general think that he lacked in no aspect compared to his predecessors? Did they regard him in the same way they would Haydn and Mozart? (in comparison with Bach and Handel) 
If Hummel had respect, he wouldn't have laughed at Beethoven about Mass Op.86. Wagner admired Beethoven but even he found the fourth movement of Hammerklavier sonata lacking in succinctness. 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=QafEkYAEX8QC&pg=PA97

There are all sorts of arguments today that Beethoven pushed through all boundaries in music, he was innovative in a scale unimaginable by his predecessors. 
But in fact, he wasn't even tolerant about his contemporaries doing 'new stuff'. Beethoven himself even said he disliked Spohr, saying his music is pleasure in his music is marred by chromatic melody and dissonance. 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=2MPXSVcdzPUC&pg=PA99

And MAYBE some of what Beethoven wrote was actually student-level by his predecessors' standards. They're now regarded as supreme works of depth and technicality, totally equalling his predecessors' (even though nobody during and after Beethoven's time, including Beethoven himself, thought that they were.) simply because in our modern era, practically anything can be considered 'art' and 'measure of art' is subjective. Like how anything incoherent or incomprehensible can be passed off as art of supreme depth today.

Really the only argument supporting the notion Beethoven totally mastered Haydn and Mozart's art and surpassed and moved beyond them etc, is:
1. Because today's Beethoven fandom thinks Beethoven did.
2. Because 'art' is subjective, anything can be passed off as 'art' today, we all have differing opinions, which are all equally valid.


----------



## KenOC

hammeredklavier said:


> Really the only argument supporting the notion Beethoven totally mastered Haydn and Mozart's art and surpassed and moved beyond them etc, is:
> 1. Because today's Beethoven fandom thinks Beethoven did.
> 2. Because 'art' is subjective, anything can be passed off as 'art' today, we all have differing opinions, which are all equally valid.


Actually Beethoven's work was well recognized in his own time. Regarding his 3rd Piano Concerto, written in 1800: "In none of his latest works does the reviewer find so many beautiful and noble ideas, such a thorough execution that does not tend to the bombastic or contrived, such a firm character without excesses, or such unity. Wherever it can be performed well, it will have the greatest and most beautiful effect. Even in Leipzig, where one is used to hearing the greater Mozart concertos performed well and where one views them with justifiable preference, this will be and has already been the case."

Regarding his more controversial Eroica Symphony: "This symphony is one of the most original, sublime, and profound products that music has to show for itself."

Anyway, not all opinions are equally valid! See more early Beethoven reviews here.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Do you have the source for this? I wouldn't say Tchaikovsky was right, but he thought that Bach's cantatas are real classical bores and he's only good for some fugues.
> http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johann_Sebastian_Bach
> Others including Wagner, Brahms etc would have disagreed. But what I'm saying is, you see this trend among 'greats' through history, the average consensus was that Haydn, Mozart did not lack in depth or technicality compared to their predecessors. Even in the 20th century, Schoenberg thought their achievements still relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in the case of Beethoven - did he, his finest contemporaries, or his successors in general think that he lacked in no aspect compared to his predecessors? Did they regard him in the same way they would Haydn and Mozart? (in comparison with Bach and Handel)
> If Hummel had respect, he wouldn't have laughed at Beethoven about Mass Op.86. Wagner admired Beethoven but even he found the fourth movement of Hammerklavier sonata lacking in succinctness.
> 
> _"This three-part fugue, on an attractive subject, follows all the rules, but Wagner presumably realized that it was more successful as the working out of an academic exercise than as a movement of a piano sonata."_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=HeM9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA282
> 
> There are all sorts of arguments today that Beethoven pushed through all boundaries in music, he was innovative in a scale unimaginable by his predecessors.
> But in fact, he wasn't even tolerant about his contemporaries doing 'new stuff'. Beethoven himself even said he disliked Spohr, saying his music is pleasure in his music is marred by chromatic melody and dissonance.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=2MPXSVcdzPUC&pg=PA99
> 
> And MAYBE some of what Beethoven wrote was actually student-level by his predecessors' standards. They're now regarded as supreme works of depth and technicality, totally equalling his predecessors' (even though nobody during and after Beethoven's time, including Beethoven himself, thought that they were.) simply because in our modern era, practically anything can be considered 'art' and 'measure of art' is subjective. Like how anything incoherent or incomprehensible can be passed off as art of supreme depth today.
> 
> Really the only argument supporting the notion Beethoven totally mastered Haydn and Mozart's art and surpassed and moved beyond them etc, is:
> 1. Because today's Beethoven fandom thinks Beethoven did.
> 2. Because 'art' is subjective, anything can be passed off as 'art' today, we all have differing opinions, which are all equally valid.


Why do you keep fighting me on points I haven't made? Do you actually read people's posts before responding to them?

Your defenses of Mozart against imaginary armies of Beethoven fanatics are superfluous and are unlikely to convince anyone of anything. People hear what they hear in music for reasons that have nothing to do with who wrote more elegant-sounding fugues or more gracefully for the voice. Technique in art is a means to an end, and the merits of ends are not so neatly judged.

If you must carry on with these endless rants against Beethoven's fanatical advocates - or the ones you say exist even when no one is currently talking about him - please stop putting quotes from my posts at the head of yours. I have never argued that Beethoven is a greater composer than Mozart. I think the entire debate is stupid, and that your attempts to keep it going it by setting up straw men and torching them with "logic" are embarrassing and unfair to people who don't hold the positions you accuse them of holding.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> I am in agreement with many of your ideas.


Hmmm... Let's see.



> ...for real spirituality, it is in Ravel, Szymanowski, , Henze, Pettersson, some Shostakovich, and mainly in Schnittke's highly spiritual sacred works.


That's quite a diverse collection for an attribution of "real spirituality," especially in the absence of any definition of that term.



> To me spirit is heard in terms of genius. How is the soul moved and affected deep within.


The geniuses that move your soul are not necessarily the geniuses that move other people's.



> Mozart's, Bach's sacred works, may appear to be spiritual, but in fact are only highly polished , creative art.


Bach's B-minor Mass and St. Matthew Passion are not "spiritual"? Just "highly polished"?



> The true spirit is in modernism, music which moves the soul.


So "spiritual," "soul-moving" music is a 20th-century invention?



> Schnittke is the highest spiritual expression for modern man.


Who made you spokesman for "modern man"?

Looks like we have few points of agreement after all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> (1) 8:1 ratio of works in the major mode,


Yes, most of the pieces they have their home keys in major, but lots of them have minor key movements, minor key sections within their structures. 19th century was when certain composers got lazy with forms: started mass-producing miniatures that don't develop.



EdwardBast said:


> the use of dance movements in sonatas and symphonies,


but as Haydn, Mozart matured, they incorporated 'Thematische Arbeit' (classical combination of homophony and polyphony) into those 'minuets', which are better than 3/4 time 19th century salon music, in my view.



EdwardBast said:


> having the dramatic center of gravity in the first movement of multimovement works,


fugal finales of Michael Haydn symphonies?



EdwardBast said:


> development sections that are generally shorter than expositions;


But stuff like first movement Beethoven 6th symphony is just long, without much variation.
Other examples include his Piano Sonatas Nos. 19, 20. Moving beyond piano sonatas' stuff like Fantasia in G minor/B flat Op.77 isn't really impressive by the standards of Haydn, Mozart.



EdwardBast said:


> no emphasis on thematic unity among movements - it's a long, long list.


Are you sure Beethoven introduced this concept to the classical era? 
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/984_sub_moral_appen_PDFs/chapter-5.PDF
Whatabout the Lutheran hymn motif "when my final hour comes" D-C#-D-E-F that permeates Mozart Requiem?


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Actually Beethoven's work was well recognized in his own time. Regarding his 3rd Piano Concerto, written in 1800: "In none of his latest works does the reviewer find so many beautiful and noble ideas, such a thorough execution that does not tend to the bombastic or contrived, such a firm character without excesses, or such unity. Wherever it can be performed well, it will have the greatest and most beautiful effect. Even in Leipzig, where one is used to hearing the greater Mozart concertos performed well and where one views them with justifiable preference, this will be and has already been the case."
> 
> Regarding his more controversial Eroica Symphony: "This symphony is one of the most original, sublime, and profound products that music has to show for itself."
> 
> Anyway, not all opinions are equally valid! See more early Beethoven reviews here.


All that review reveals is that from his point of view Beethoven was now on Mozart's level in the piano concerto.

It does usefully confirm though that serious music critics, at least this one - considered Mozart to be the undisputed master of the piano concerto as early as 1800. And he remains so.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> Actually Beethoven's work was well recognized in his own time. Regarding his 3rd Piano Concerto, written in 1800: "In none of his latest works does the reviewer find so many beautiful and noble ideas, such a thorough execution that does not tend to the bombastic or contrived, such a firm character without excesses, or such unity. Wherever it can be performed well, it will have the greatest and most beautiful effect. Even in Leipzig, where one is used to hearing the greater Mozart concertos performed well and where one views them with justifiable preference, this will be and has already been the case."


You're absolutely right. There's no doubt Beethoven was highly regarded by many through history. my point is none of the first-rate composers thought "Classical era was crap, but Beethoven came along and changed everything".

Brahms, who once took part in the War of the Romantics, did not believe Beethoven surpassed Bach, Haydn, Mozart.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135


----------



## janxharris

Nobody is the 'undisputed master of the piano concerto' - but, certainly, Mozart remains popular.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> I think it is a valid conclusion, in so far as many people consider Mozart the greatest composer of all time (including as far as I can tell Charles Rosen). If we take that to be the case than logically Mozart would be considered the zenith of the Classical era. I think one could make arguments for other composers such as Beethoven as being equal or greater, however Stomanek's claim is not really that controversial, even if partially subjective.


 I have to disagree with all this. I think you must be living on a cloud of pure fantasy and wishful thinking, possibly because you happen to like Mozart above all others.

If your point is that no one exceeded the quality achieved by Mozart then you are making a value judgement that clearly has no objective validity. Many others may share your view, but it still doesn't make it true beyond all doubt.

Some might argue that Haydn outshone him in some respects. Haydn certainly lived Mozart by a big margin and in that respect alone Mozart was not the "zenith" of the classical era.

There is obviously Beethoven, for whom there is a respectable body of opinion that he remained a "classical" composer for at least a part of his life. If you are saying that none of his works (or his works generally) exceeded the quality of Mozart, I suspect there would be quite a few dissenters from that opinion, in fact a majority of people from various recent polls I've seen.

There is also Schubert who was also a part classical/part romantic composer. Personally, I rate him just as highly, if not higher, as anything that Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven wrote in comparable areas. In making comparisons here, I sometimes find Mozart just a bit too "twee" and Beethoven too heavy going and over-worked. I generally prefer Schubert's chamber works to Mozart's, and I would rather opt for Schubert's piano sonatas over Beethoven's if my choice was restricted.

I still rate Mozart and Beethoven highly, and my only point is that opinions will differ among people as to who among these were the very best.

As well, there are many people who don't rate highly the "classical" era or parts of the "romantic" era, preferring instead, or liking almost exclusively, baroque or modern or renaissance or medieval, or something else.

It all goes to show that no definitive judgements can me made about the relative quality levels amongst composers, especially concerning saying that any one of them was the "zenith" of his era, let alone the greatest ever over all periods.


----------



## Larkenfield

:angel: Mozart's classically elegant and sublime Church Sonatas (some with organ)... The dismissive attitude toward his religious works that skeptics have because they're obviously and skeptically not inclined that way makes about as much sense as discounting Beethoven's Missa Solemnis as being representative of him... Mozart's religious works have the same genius and consummate mastery as a composer as so many of his other countless masterpieces-inspired, beautifully proportioned, faultless in execution, and spiritually uplifting. It's no wonder that Beethoven revered him throughout his life. Beethoven knew much of Mozart's work. Some of his music recalls Mozart's, he composed several variations on Mozart's themes and he modeled a number of his compositions on those of the older composer:

"On a sketch leaf from about October 1790 Beethoven wrote down a brief C-minor passage in 6/8 meter, in two-staff piano score, and then wrote down these words, between the staves, about the little phrase: 'This entire passage has been stolen from the Mozart Symphony in C, where the Andante in six-eight from the ...' (he breaks off here). Then Beethoven writes the passage again just below and a little differently, on the same sketch page, and signs it 'Beethoven himself'."

It was Mozart who was the supreme master of the Classical era, not Beethoven, because he died before so many of the social and political upheavals that Beethoven was changed by, such as the turbulence, the upheaval of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon:

*Igor Stravinsky*: "Beethoven is the friend and contemporary of the French Revolution, and he remained faithful to it even when, during the Jacobin dictatorship, humanitarians with weak nerves of the Schiller type turned from it, preferring to destroy tyrants on the theatrical stage with the help of cardboard swords. Beethoven, that plebeian genius, who proudly turned his back on emperors, princes and magnates - that is the Beethoven we love for his unassailable optimism, his virile sadness, for the inspired pathos of his struggle, and for his iron will which enabled him to seize destiny by the throat."

Does that sound like Beethoven carried on the era of Classicism? I don't think so and that he was more at the beginning of the Romantic age than representative of the culmination of Classicism. It was Mozart who was the supreme master of the Classicism when viewed within the political context of the time that didn't include the French Revolution and Napoleon. But had he lived I believe that he would have responded to such social upheaves and it would have changed him... His Church Sonatas are sublime and so are his other religiously inspired works, whether anyone is skeptical as a believer or not.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> I have to disagree with all this. I think you must be living on a cloud of pure fantasy and wishful thinking, possibly because you happen to like Mozart above all others.
> 
> If your point is that no one exceeded the quality achieved by Mozart then you are making a value judgement that clearly has no objective validity. Many others may share your view, but it still doesn't make it true beyond all doubt.
> 
> Some might argue that Haydn outshone him in some respects. Haydn certainly lived Mozart by a big margin and in that respect alone Mozart was not the "zenith" of the classical era.
> 
> There is obviously Beethoven, for whom there is a respectable body of opinion that he remained a "classical" composer for at least a part of his life. If you are saying that none of his works (or his works generally) exceeded the quality of Mozart, I suspect there would be quite a few dissenters from that opinion, in fact a majority of people from various recent polls I've seen.
> 
> There is also Schubert who was also a part classical/part romantic composer. Personally, I rate him just as highly, if not higher, as anything that Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven wrote in comparable areas. In making comparisons here, I sometimes find Mozart just a bit too "twee" and Beethoven too heavy going and over-worked. I generally prefer Schubert's chamber works to Mozart's, and I would rather opt for Schubert's piano sonatas over Beethoven's if my choice was restricted.
> 
> I still rate Mozart and Beethoven highly, and my only point is that opinions will differ among people as to who among these were the very best.
> 
> As well, there are many people who don't rate highly the "classical" era or parts of the "romantic" era, preferring instead, or liking almost exclusively, baroque or modern or renaissance or medieval, or something else.
> 
> It all goes to show that no definitive judgements can me made about the relative quality levels amongst composers, especially concerning saying that any one of them was the "zenith" of his era, let alone the greatest ever over all periods.


Ok I so gather from your argument that we are being purely subjective so that the statement

"Beethoven was the zenith of the classical era"

is also invalid.

what then - is valid?

all composers were equal?

or arguments ad populum : *"I suspect there would be quite a few dissenters from that opinion, in fact a majority of people from various recent polls I've seen."*

Wooduck has previously said he is no fan of high classical style. Wooduck is a huge fan of Beethoven. So clearly - Beethoven does not belong in the high classical tradition and it is this tradition I am talking about when I say Mozart was the greatest master.

Which of Beethoven's works - composed purely in the classical era tradition - are equal or better to Mozart's finest? Or are all works equal?

Study your own posts - full of subjectivisms - Mozart is twee - Beethoven is too heavy etc etc

I recall attending a recital - in which a well known pianist about to play a program said

"Mozart and Haydn's piano sonatas are the best examples of the form in the classical era"

what to say - stand up and demand justification for this statement? what about Beethoven's early sonatas!!!


----------



## tdc

Partita said:


> If your point is that no one exceeded the quality achieved by Mozart then you are making a value judgement that clearly has no objective validity. Many others may share your view, but it still doesn't make it true beyond all doubt.


It looks like you didn't understand my point, this certainly wasn't it. Are you capable of seeing things in shades of grey, or only black or white?

Most of your post argues for the same thing I already said, the only difference is it appears you seem to think it is not possible to gauge the quality of music in any objective way whatsoever. I think that is false. Why do you think there is so much consensus on the top three composers? Just coincidence?

One can make stronger arguments for certain composers over others. That is a fact. This is why Gluck or Graupner never appear at the very top of any greatest composers lists - ever. Here is my point again so maybe you will grasp it - Beethoven and Mozart are _both_ considered amongst the greatest composers, therefore an opinion that either of them represent the zenith of the era can be looked at as a valid opinion, and it is possible to then debate this further by arguing one's reasoning. On the other hand suggesting Boccherini represents the zenith of the Classical era, is not valid, because there is no strong argument to be made there aside from personal preference.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> :angel: Mozart's classically elegant and sublime Church Sonatas (some with organ)... The dismissive attitude toward his religious works that skeptics have because they're obviously and skeptically not inclined that way makes about as much sense as discounting Beethoven's Missa Solemnis as being representative of him... Mozart's religious works have the same genius and consummate mastery as a composer as so many of his other countless masterpieces-inspired, beautifully proportioned, faultless in execution, and spiritually uplifting. It's no wonder that Beethoven revered him throughout his life. Beethoven knew much of Mozart's work. Some of his music recalls Mozart's, he composed several variations on Mozart's themes and he modeled a number of his compositions on those of the older composer:
> 
> "On a sketch leaf from about October 1790 Beethoven wrote down a brief C-minor passage in 6/8 meter, in two-staff piano score, and then wrote down these words, between the staves, about the little phrase: 'This entire passage has been stolen from the Mozart Symphony in C, where the Andante in six-eight from the ...' (he breaks off here). Then Beethoven writes the passage again just below and a little differently, on the same sketch page, and signs it 'Beethoven himself'."
> 
> *It was Mozart who was the supreme master of the Classical era, not Beethoven,* because he died before so many of the social and political upheavals that Beethoven was changed by, such as the turbulence, the upheaval of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon:
> 
> *Igor Stravinsky*: "Beethoven is the friend and contemporary of the French Revolution, and he remained faithful to it even when, during the Jacobin dictatorship, humanitarians with weak nerves of the Schiller type turned from it, preferring to destroy tyrants on the theatrical stage with the help of cardboard swords. Beethoven, that plebeian genius, who proudly turned his back on emperors, princes and magnates - that is the Beethoven we love for his unassailable optimism, his virile sadness, for the inspired pathos of his struggle, and for his iron will which enabled him to seize destiny by the throat."
> 
> Does that sound like Beethoven carried on the era of Classicism? I don't think so and that he was more at the beginning of the Romantic age than representative of the culmination of Classicism. It was Mozart who was the supreme master of the age when viewed within the political context of the time that didn't include the French Revolution and Napoleon. But had he lived I believe that he would have responded to such social upheaves and it would have changed him... His Church Sonatas are sublime.


OK - thank you - correct


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I believe Beethoven was competing with Haydn for public favor in the market for music of the time. He did that by writing music much (but not entirely) in Haydn's manner and of excellent quality and strong imagination. He also wrote some _very _popular pieces in the newer "romantic" manner that was gaining currency at the time -- something Haydn never did.
> 
> Bear in mind that the period described was only six or seven years, as Haydn was forced to retire from the field about 1802. That was about the same time that Beethoven's "entirely new manner" began to become apparent. His significant works after that time I would describe neither as classical nor romantic.


Let's see what we have here then. All gloriously vague, much as I expected. Probing your thoughts further:

Can you be more precise in saying which of Beethoven's main works you believe are "classical", which are "romantic", and those you believe are "neither classical nor romantic".

Do you think that Beethoven wrote a sufficient number of works that may be called "classical" to justify a suggestion that he, rather than Mozart, was the "zenith" of the classical style? If not, would you accept that Mozart was the zenith of the classical style. Where does Haydn fit in?

In what ways do you believe that Beethoven's "romantic" works fulfil the normal definition of this style of work? Can you provide any evidence based on form, or in terms of any programmatic content. I would accept that Sym 6 'Pastoral' symphony has a programmatic air about it, but it doesn't seem all that close in general form to the kind of work that later romantics were producing, e.g. Liszt's symphonic poems. Nor does it seem to be based on any particular literary work that may have inspired it.

Can you also clarify more precisely what you mean by "neither classical romantic". Do you think that Beethoven was the only composer to have written significant works (let's say popular works down the ages among classical fans) of this description? If you are able to offer such a clarification, does it mean that you consider Beethoven was the "best" composer because he faced no competition, as he was unique?

I'm not looking for any complex musicological mumbo-jumbo that some members are often prone to throwing in like spanners in the works that do not little but confuse most people.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> It was Mozart who was the supreme master of the Classical era, not Beethoven, because he died before so many of the social and political upheavals that Beethoven was changed by, such as the turbulence, the upheaval of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon.]


Why do you think that the rise of "romanticism" in music had anything to do with Napolean?

Composers didn't begin writing music, using different forms and sometimes with programmatic content, simply because Napolean was running amok around Europe.

The rise of romanticism in music was primarily to enable a greater freedom of expression by use of a wider range of forms, a more flexible use of older forms, and to give scope for literary works of various kinds to be used as the programmatic background.

The idea that "romanticism" was brought about by the activities of certain composers acting in isolation is incorrect. The composers were responding to the new demands required by audiences in growing numbers. It was mainly a demand-led phenomenon, not purely composer-inspired.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> As far as masses and other religious genres are concerned, I think every style of music has things it expresses well and not so well. I don't care for the way most Classical (and many Baroque and Romantic) sacred works approach feelings I'd loosely call "spiritual." The musical language is all just too worldly, rational and "humanistic." If I'm going to be sung to about such mythical, magical phenomena as creation, incarnation, apocalypse, heaven and hell, I prefer the polyphony of Desprez that takes me to an impersonal (or suprapersonal) place beyond the reality I know, or the intricate counterpoint of Bach that builds higher and higher until it seems to burst and scatter stars across the firmament, or the wild or strange visions of, say, Berlioz or Faure, which also take me to worlds I've never imagined. I want to _transcend,_ and most of the time Classical sacred music is just too bloody sane, sensible, neat, balanced, and, frankly, pretty, a condition only partly offset by its use of techniques learned from studying Bach and Handel.


And in what category do you think Beethoven's belongs? 
You often describe his choral movement of ninth symphony as "not belonging in either category, Romantic, or Classical, (because it was written by the great Beethoven himself) it's a class on its own." 
If I ask you how this fares against Bach's B minor Mass, I know you'll go on great lengths to describe how transcendental it is, like Bach's B minor Mass. Your usual favoritism for Beethoven will again show. You're free to think whatever way you like. But I still sense some kind of prejudice and bias from you when discussing this stuff. Some people just criticize for the sake of criticism, driven by malicious motives, (to brand certain composers negative images) but I'm certain you're not one of those people.

At one time you said you hated religious music because of 'religious dogma'.
Other times, you talk about how 'transcendental' Bach Mass in B minor is. But B minor Mass is an ideal example of the 'religious dogma' you once said you disliked. In writing the piece, what do you think Bach wanted to transcend people like you to? To God. 
Sorry, I sense certain double standards in some of the things you say. Of certain composers, you wouldn't judge them in the nitpicky criteria you would do with some others.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart's classically elegant and sublime Church Sonatas (some with organ)... The dismissive attitude toward his religious works that skeptics have because they're obviously and skeptically not inclined that way makes about as much sense as discounting Beethoven's Missa Solemnis as being representative of him... Mozart's religious works have the same genius and consummate mastery as a composer as so many of his other countless masterpieces-inspired, beautifully proportioned, faultless in execution, and spiritually uplifting.


I'm not sure why you would especially choose to quote church sonatas, out of his all other religious works. Aren't they like among his least important works. I even sense some sarcastic, mocking tone in your comment, especially after all your rant on TC you can't tell the difference between Mozart, Haydn and other classical era composers. This is like using Beethoven's trio sonata 



 to represent his music, or using Chopin's Bourrees 



 to represent Chopin.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> It looks like you didn't understand my point, this certainly wasn't it. Are you capable of seeing things in shades of grey, or only black or white?
> 
> Most of your post argues for the same thing I already said, the only difference is it appears you seem to think it is not possible to gauge the quality of music in any objective way whatsoever. I think that is false. Why do you think there is so much consensus on the top three composers? Just coincidence?
> 
> One can make stronger arguments for certain composers over others. That is a fact. This is why Gluck or Graupner never appear at the very top of any greatest composers lists - ever. *Here is my point again so maybe you will grasp it - Beethoven and Mozart are both considered amongst the greatest composers, therefore an opinion that either of them represent the zenith of the era can be looked at as a valid opinion, and it is possible to then debate this further by arguing one's reasoning.* On the other hand suggesting Boccherini represents the zenith of the Classical era, is not valid, because there is no strong argument to be made there aside from personal preference.


 You have argued yourself into a very awkward hole here.

The highlighted sentence above demonstrates that it is not valid to assert, as stomanek did in his post 142, that: _"The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith"._

There is a respectable body of opinion that Beethoven remained mainly as a Classicist. I fully accept that others consider him to be mainly a Romantic, and some cannot make up their so they say he is a kind of hybrid across the two.

Taking Beethoven as a Classicist, I would not like to say who was the "greater" of these two composers in terms of their ability. I do not even think it is possible to say who is the more popular of the two as I recall seeing results either way depending on the particular poll.

Another key point, which Gallus made earlier, is that even if we assume that Beethoven moved off into new territory, that doesn't mean that he could not have surpassed Mozart in some way had he wanted to, again subject to the difficulties of measuring quality in this area. I agree with Gallus on that point.

Given this uncertainty, I do not see how anyone can confidently state that "_The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith". _

If the matter only rested solely with me, I would say that it was Beethoven who was the last great Classicist. He represented a watershed. After Beethoven, no one followed the same model, until Brahms came along much later, but he was an oddball who was out of sync with the rest of the music creating industry of his time.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Hmmm... Let's see.
> 
> That's quite a diverse collection for an attribution of "real spirituality," especially in the absence of any definition of that term.
> 
> The geniuses that move your soul are not necessarily the geniuses that move other people's.
> 
> Bach's B-minor Mass and St. Matthew Passion are not "spiritual"? Just "highly polished"?
> 
> So "spiritual," "soul-moving" music is a 20th-century invention?
> 
> Who made you spokesman for "modern man"?
> 
> Looks like we have few points of agreement after all.


you forgot the bit where he said "Mozarts expressive genius puts him in a category all by himself" as if he was agreeing with something you said.

In fact - what you said on this points relates to Beethoven, not Mozart

*he (Beethoven) developed so constantly that he can hardly be said to have "a" style*


----------



## Larkenfield

Beethoven was a classicist in that he continued to write in classical forms: symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas, and so on, but in spirit in many of his later works he was not conforming to the classical ideals related to Greece or what some considered the Enlightenment; he was responding to the social and political events going on around him, such as his Eroica initially being inspired on the subject of heroism by Napoleon, only Beethoven to reject that later after Napoleon crowned himself. And his symphony was criticized for being too long. The forms were classically inspired but the spirit behind them very often was not. One could say that his 8th Symphony is very classical in style, but even here, one knew it was Beethoven expressing himself personally on how he saw the world, his own personal wit and sense of humor, and not something more objectively related to a more impersonal classical ideal. Do people really think that Beethoven had such an influence on the 19th century because he represented the culmination of the past and the Classical ideal? His music pointed to the future and inspired it. It was his freedom of spirit, his humanitarian ideals, and his own personal convictions about the world that inspire the 19th century, and composers were placed in the position of either competing with him, where they were more than likely inclined to fail, or going in an entirely new direction. But it was his ideals, his bold personal freedom in his relationship with himself that was far more related to the future of Romanticism that led into the Romantic era and not the continuation of Classicism as the ideal. Brahms did exactly the same thing. He infused the classical forms with his own personal content during the Romantic era. I wonder where he got that idea?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> You have argued yourself into a very awkward hole here.
> 
> The highlighted sentence above demonstrates that it is not valid to assert, as stomanek did in his post 142, that: _"The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith"._
> 
> There is a respectable body of opinion that Beethoven remained mainly as a Classicist. I fully accept that others consider him to be mainly a Romantic, and some cannot make up their so they say he is a kind of hybrid across the two.
> 
> Taking Beethoven as a Classicist, I would not like to say who was the "greater" of these two composers in terms of their ability. I do not even think it is possible to say who is the more popular of the two as I recall seeing results either way depending on the particular poll.
> 
> Another key point, which Gallus made earlier, is that even if we assume that Beethoven moved off into new territory, that doesn't mean that he could not have surpassed Mozart in some way had he wanted to, again subject to the difficulties of measuring quality in this area. I agree with Gallus on that point.
> 
> Given this uncertainty, I do not see how anyone can confidently state that "_The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith". _
> 
> If the matter only rested solely with me, I would say that it was Beethoven who was the last great Classicist. He represented a watershed. After Beethoven, no one followed the same model, until Brahms came along much later, but he was an oddball who was out of sync with the rest of the music creating industry of his time.


It looks like the main reason for disagreement is that you are designating Beethoven's output as a classicist.

Now Wooduck has already written well on why she should not accept that this is so. You cannot seriously say that the eroica is a classical symphony. However - if you want to say that Beethoven's output is wholly classical - then I would take back my statement or at least amend it to include Beethoven. It seems quite weird to put Beethoven's expansive and deeply expressive middle to later period works into the classical era - but if that is how you hear them - let it be so.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> It looks like the main reason for disagreement is that you are designating Beethoven's output as a classicist.
> 
> Now Wooduck has already written well on why she should not accept that this is so. You cannot seriously say that the eroica is a classical symphony. However - if you want to say that Beethoven's output is wholly classical - then I would take back my statement or at least amend it to include Beethoven. It seems quite weird to put Beethoven's expansive and deeply expressive middle to later period works into the classical era - but if that is how you hear them - let it be so.


 You have completely overlooked the fact that what sparked off this entire recent discussion was your statement in response to paulb that:

"_The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith". 
_
How can you possibly know that's the reason that motivated Beethoven to do what he did? Do you have access to some kind of psycho-analysis of Beethoven's thoughts? Your comment looks very much you're simply talking up your man.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> *Sorry, my ears bleed every time Beethoven does this.*
> 6:40
> 14:20
> 17:20
> 23:40
> 27:50
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was listening to CPE Bach Magnificat Wq215 the other day, I was again reminded of Beethoven. There's a lot of great things he accomplished by moving away from the ways of his predecessors. *But in some areas like vocal music, I think it would have been better for him to just imitate them.*





hammeredklavier said:


> Again, he does this kind of thing again even in Missa Solemnis. *It's no wonder why Hummel laughed.*





hammeredklavier said:


> I still think Beethoven is not Schubertian minimalism at least. It's just Beethoven's techniques to create drama in terms of melody, harmony, counterpoint, contrast in these works that I have issues with. It's fine if you find them appealing, but I think they're less varied than his predecessors'. Woodduck often tries to put down Haydn, Mozart by comparing them with their predecessors in attempt to make Beethoven look better in comparison, but that won't convince me.
> I'm also intrigued by people who go around preaching about 'silliness' in Haydn, Mozart, and at the same time have absolutely no problem with Beethoven Choral Fantasia and *Ninth Symphony finale which contain sections like these,
> 
> 
> 
> which give me good laughs everytime.* But that's another story.





hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, most of the pieces they have their home keys in major, but lots of them have minor key movements, minor key sections within their structures. *19th century was when certain composers got lazy with forms: started mass-producing miniatures that don't develop.* (...)
> 
> *But stuff like first movement Beethoven 6th symphony is just long, without much variation.* Other examples include his Piano Sonatas Nos. 19, 20. Moving beyond piano sonatas' stuff like Fantasia in G minor/B flat Op.77 isn't really impressive by the standards of Haydn, Mozart.


Excuse me for saying this in a conversation in which I'm not participating actively, but I find it quite intriguing that you accuse others of putting down Mozart but at the same time keep bashing great composers such as Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Chopin, Shostakovich and others. Perhaps you may want to make a case in the future that all music died after 1791?

"I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death." - Beethoven, in 1826.

Beethoven would be the first to defend Mozart against anyone trying to put him down.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> You have completely overlooked the fact that what sparked off this entire recent discussion was your statement in response to paulb that:
> 
> "_The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith".
> _
> How can you possibly know that's the reason that motivated Beethoven to do what he did? Do you have access to some kind of psycho-analysis of Beethoven's thoughts? Your comment looks very much you're simply talking up your man.


Very well - I take that back. I cant justify it.

What I can say is

Mozart took classical forms to their zenith

and

Beethoven went in another direction.

ok?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> You have argued yourself into a very awkward hole here.
> 
> The highlighted sentence above demonstrates that it is not valid to assert, as stomanek did in his post 142, that: _"The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith"._
> 
> There is a respectable body of opinion that Beethoven remained mainly as a Classicist. I fully accept that others consider him to be mainly a Romantic, and some cannot make up their so they say he is a kind of hybrid across the two.
> 
> Taking Beethoven as a Classicist, I would not like to say who was the "greater" of these two composers in terms of their ability. I do not even think it is possible to say who is the more popular of the two as I recall seeing results either way depending on the particular poll.
> 
> Another key point, which Gallus made earlier, is that even if we assume that Beethoven moved off into new territory, that doesn't mean that he could not have surpassed Mozart in some way had he wanted to, again subject to the difficulties of measuring quality in this area. I agree with Gallus on that point.
> 
> Given this uncertainty, I do not see how anyone can confidently state that "_The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith". _
> 
> If the matter only rested solely with me, I would say that it was Beethoven who was the last great Classicist. He represented a watershed. After Beethoven, *no one followed the same model,* until Brahms came along much later, but he was an oddball who was out of sync with the rest of the music creating industry of his time.


no one until Brahms? what model are you talking about? please expand.

there were other composers between Beet and Brahms who composed 4 mvt symphonies, 3 mvt concertos, 4mvt quartets and so on - cant wait for your answer.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> :angel: Mozart's classically elegant and sublime Church Sonatas (some with organ)... The dismissive attitude toward his religious works that skeptics have because they're obviously and skeptically not inclined that way makes about as much sense as discounting Beethoven's Missa Solemnis as being representative of him... Mozart's religious works have the same genius and consummate mastery as a composer as so many of his other countless masterpieces-inspired, beautifully proportioned, faultless in execution, and spiritually uplifting.
> 
> His Church Sonatas are sublime and so are his other religiously inspired works, whether anyone is skeptical as a believer or not.


What makes Mozart's church sonatas different from serenades, divertimenti, cassations, dances, or any other works written for secular occasions? To my ears the musical idiom is identical. Nothing about these pieces would cause me to suspect that they were inspired by religious sentiment or intended for use by the church.


----------



## tdc

Partita said:


> You have argued yourself into a very awkward hole here.


Not at all, to a large extent we agree, but you don't see it because you are overly scientific in your approach to reasoning about music, which is partially objective and partially subjective.



Partita said:


> If the matter only rested solely with me, I would say that it was Beethoven who was the last great Classicist. He represented a watershed. After Beethoven, no one followed the same model, until Brahms came along much later, but he was an oddball who was out of sync with the rest of the music creating industry of his time.


A valid perspective, good for you. But it doesn't contradict anything I've said. You do realize it is possible for Mozart to be the zenith of the Classical era and Beethoven to be the last great Classicist?

I think Larkenfield makes valid points in post #191, that is why I agree with Stomanek. Beethoven's music no longer really represented the Classical ideal, even if he used similar forms. I also think it is very possible by just listening to the music to realize that Beethoven could not achieve what Mozart did even had he wanted to. There is no evidence of it, Beethoven followed closer to Haydn, not Mozart.


----------



## paulbest

tdc said:


> Not at all, to a large extent we agree, but you don't see it because you are overly scientific in your approach to reasoning about music, which is partially objective and partially subjective.
> 
> A valid perspective, good for you. But it doesn't contradict anything I've said. You do realize it is possible for Mozart to be the zenith of the Classical era and Beethoven to be the last great Classicist?
> 
> I think Larkenfield makes valid points in post #191, that is why I agree with Stomanek. Beethoven's music no longer really represented the Classical ideal, even if he used similar forms. I also think it is very possible by just listening to the music to realize that Beethoven could not achieve what Mozart did even had he wanted to. There is no evidence of it, Beethoven followed closer to Haydn, not Mozart.


I would agree with this. 
Hayden is not so much as *watered down* Mozart, it is more a case of Mozart imaginations and creativity making new music in his own way apart from previous composers. Quite a feat, yet very successful once he got the hang of it in his last syms, last PC;s.

Beethoven also went off in his own direction. The way he used brass instruments was both stunning and UNIQUELY original, no other composer would follow him in his individual sounds in the winds /brass sections. Beethoven in his 3rd sym, found his trademark and carried this throughout all his syms.

I think the classical period,,,no lets rephrase,,
Mozart was the classical period, with Hayden as a footnote. 
Beethoven is not the classical sound. Schubert was more truly classical than was Beethoven. , Schumann was departing from the classical style and bringing birth to the romantic era sounds.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> I would agree with this.
> Hayden is not so much as *watered down* Mozart, it is more a case of Mozart imaginations and creativity making new music in his own way apart from previous composers. Quite a feat, yet very successful once he got the hang of it in his last syms, last PC;s.
> 
> Beethoven also went off in his own direction. The way he used brass instruments was both stunning and UNIQUELY original, no other composer would follow him in his individual sounds in the winds /brass sections. Beethoven in his 3rd sym, found his trademark and carried this throughout all his syms.
> 
> I think the classical period,,,no lets rephrase,,
> Mozart was the classical period, with Hayden as a footnote.
> Beethoven is not the classical sound. Schubert was more truly classical than was Beethoven. , Schumann was departing from the classical style and bringing birth to the romantic era sounds.


 What you say above about Beethoven contradicts your opening statement in your post #136: _"The height of the Classical era, is represented by one composer, Beethoven. The transition into and flowering of the romantic era, is represented by which composers? Brahms for sure , Chopin in piano development,....""_

That comment produced the response at post #142: _"No its not. The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith. you have absolutely no sound opinions - a loose cannon!" _

What you now say in the latest post undermines my and Gallus' efforts to defend you against the comment in post #142. 

The next time somebody takes a swipe along the lines of post #142, I won't be coming along to help you out. I think you need to sort out your ideas and try to stick to a consistent story because the inconsistencies are quite obvious.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> Very well - I take that back. I cant justify it.
> 
> What I can say is
> 
> Mozart took classical forms to their zenith
> 
> and
> 
> Beethoven went in another direction.
> 
> ok?


Hardly. It only corrects an obvious mistake you made about what you perceived was going on in Beethoven's mind.

You still insist that Beethoven went off "in another direction", which is a doubtful assertion. It has been argued by musicologists that he remained largely within the Classical style. In certain respects, for some works, he developed it beyond the stage reached by Mozart and Haydn in various clever ways. See, for example, Charles Rosen's book _"The Classical Style"._


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> no one until Brahms? what model are you talking about? please expand.
> 
> there were other composers between Beet and Brahms who composed 4 mvt symphonies, 3 mvt concertos, 4mvt quartets and so on - cant wait for your answer.


Good Lord, I can hardly believe this.

I thought it was almost common knowledge that it was Brahms who was seen as the "successor" to Beethoven. I'm sure that if you "google" the subject of Brahms you'll find many references to this very issue. You'll learn, for example, that Brahms was so concerned about living up to the high expectations of him in this regard from parts of the musical establishment that he delayed a long time before finalising any major work, lest it be seen as inadequate.

As for composers who followed in the immediate aftermath of Beethoven, it may be better for you to do a bit of reading up on their biographies and musical influences. I'm not here to provide free lessons on basic stuff like that. However, to set you off in the right direction, I'll just give you a few hints on where to look further.

There was a chappie called Chopin. OK he wrote a couple of PCs early in his career, but they were exceptional pieces in terms of what he is most famous for. You'll discover that he specialised in producing all manner of piano miniatures, many with a so-called "programmatic content" that were not like the kind of stuff produced by Beethoven.

Another chappie was Robert Schuman. Yes. he too wrote several works using the basic structures of the Classical model, but no one has said that the Classical model was abandoned completely by any of these early Romantics. On the contrary, it was continued with in varying degrees, but was often adapted and modified in a much more liberal way than was envisaged by Beethoven. There were also new forms. In the case of Schumann there was much greater emphasis on song cycles, and the incorporation of literary inspiration from poetic sources. Indeed, Schumann was the "_herald of a new poetic ag_e", according to one well known biography.

Yet another was Liszt who made extensive changes to the structure of the classical forms he inherited from Beethoven's time. Rather than me explain it all, you might look up _"Symphonic Poem - Liszt._ You'll soon find that it's all nicely explained. These works sound nothing like Beethoven.

Once you've done all this, maybe then you could come back and we can possibly look forward to a more sensible discusion.


----------



## Oscardude

I never thought about it that way! You're right for sure. Glad for Beethoven


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Not at all, to a large extent we agree, but you don't see it because you are overly scientific in your approach to reasoning about music, which is partially objective and partially subjective.
> 
> A valid perspective, good for you. But it doesn't contradict anything I've said. You do realize it is possible for Mozart to be the zenith of the Classical era and Beethoven to be the last great Classicist?
> 
> I think Larkenfield makes valid points in post #191, that is why I agree with Stomanek. Beethoven's music no longer really represented the Classical ideal, even if he used similar forms. I also think it is very possible by just listening to the music to realize that Beethoven could not achieve what Mozart did even had he wanted to. There is no evidence of it, Beethoven followed closer to Haydn, not Mozart.


Haven't you twigged yet that you've been supporting an assertion made by stomanek that he has now accepted was incorrect and without foundation, and which he has withdrawn. That assertion was that Beethoven went off in another direction because he recognised that Mozart was the "zenith" of the Classical era. You quickly jumped in and said that you agreed with that comment. Isn't it about time that you stopped repeating all this nonsense and recognised that you have made an error.


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> What you say above about Beethoven contradicts your opening statement in your post #136: _"The height of the Classical era, is represented by one composer, Beethoven. The transition into and flowering of the romantic era, is represented by which composers? Brahms for sure , Chopin in piano development,....""_
> 
> That comment produced the response at post #142: _"No its not. The reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith. you have absolutely no sound opinions - a loose cannon!" _
> 
> What you now say in the latest post undermines my and Gallus' efforts to defend you against the comment in post #142.
> 
> The next time somebody takes a swipe along the lines of post #142, I won't be coming along to help you out. I think you need to sort out your ideas and try to stick to a consistent story because the inconsistencies are quite obvious.


My bad, 
Really, I had no idea anyone was following anything I said in this topic, or taking me seriously

After reading some recent posts, it led me to post #199.

I really don't know what I said in the previous posts,

What happened is that I was surfing YT, and up popped Beethoven's 3rd,,so I cked out a few bits.
WOW, his writing for brass, nothing like it previous, and not for a long time forward,,,Then that unmistakable winds., in the,,,just got back from listening to a few more sound bites,,,the 1st, and 3rd movements, 3rd SYm, 
premiereed only 15 yrs after Mozart's passing!!!!!
UNREAL.
Just cked outa few bits of the 2nd, 4th movements,,(as memory since last hearing , over 30 yrs ago, has failed me,,), Yep now I remember, 2nd/4th movements, 
*duds* dull, boring. Nothing really great, But the 1st and 3rd, it is these 2 movemenst that let Vienna know, there is a new kid on the block and he is about to blow your minds. 
And he did. 
But agin , I could pick apart his 5,6,7,8 syms , those are more bullet proof, but still if I ck them out, I'd mosr likelt find weakness. 
Whereas Mozart's last syms, last PC,s dig all you wish, those are perfect masterpieces, Bullet proof.

This is the whole point of all my arguments against Beethoven , and in support of Mozart, as the inheritor of Bach/Vivaldi.
Beethoven was not the inheritor of Mozart.

Beethoven's 4th is the tightest intregral sym he has, its a classical masterpiece,,that is if you like Beethoven, which as you know, nota fan.

My bad to throw a wrench in your hard work in putting together ideas which have supported one of my previous posts.

You know more about what I wrote previous than I do.
Ok, So I take back the idea *Beethoven , height of classical era...*. No I was wrong after reading amny excellent posts past few days.

Mozart in fact was the classical era. 
Baroque Corelli, Telemann, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel 
Classical, Mozart,,add in Hayden if you acre to.
Now along comes Beethoven, his 3rd sym, With that opening 1st movement, its almost *modern classical*, sounds, brass/winds making textures never heard of, never dreamed of before.

Yet if you consider Mozart's late syms, all 4 movements are cohesive and never boring..., Beethoven's do not rise up to that level of perfection.

anyway, 
My 2 cents worth.


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> You still insist that Beethoven went off "in another direction", which is a doubtful assertion. It has been argued by musicologists that he remained largely within the Classical style. In certain respects, for some works, he developed it beyond the stage reached by Mozart and Haydn in various clever ways. See, for example, Charles Rosen's book _"The Classical Style"._


According to Carl Czerny, Beethoven announced around 1802 "I am not satisfied with the work I have done so far. From now on I intend to take a new way." And he did. He most definitely went off in another direction.

True, although he pushed and pulled at their boundaries and enlarged them, he remained wedded to traditional classical forms. But if you put gasoline in a wine bottle, you no longer have wine -- you have a Molotov cocktail.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> Very well - I take that back. I cant justify it.
> 
> What I can say is
> 
> Mozart took classical forms to their zenith
> 
> and
> 
> Beethoven went in another direction.
> 
> ok?


This is exactly how I hear the 2 composers, differences,

Read my post above. 
Beethoven in his 3rd, opening movement, must have stunned the Viennese audiences. 
But come to the 2nd movement,,,17 minutes worth of ,,,who knows what,,,it just wanders, meanders, and,,i don't know, you call it,. Brahms in any of how slow movements has more going on than this 3rd sym, 2nd move by Beethoven.

Mozart would never have taken 17 minutes in a slow movement and the slow movements in Mozart's late syms, are always intimately connected with before and after,,,how is Beethoven's 2nd move connected with the 1st, 3 rd movements.,?


----------



## tdc

Partita said:


> Haven't you twigged yet that you've been supporting an assertion made by stomanek that he has now accepted was incorrect and without foundation, and which he has withdrawn. That assertion was that Beethoven went off in another direction because he recognised that Mozart was the "zenith" of the Classical era. You quickly jumped in and said that you agreed with that comment. Isn't it about time that you stopped repeating all this nonsense and recognised that you have made an error.


He didn't withdraw his comment, he just slightly rephrased it. If you think the Classical style is best exemplified by Beethoven I don't have a problem with that. I think it was essentially perfected by Mozart, and once a style is essentially perfected there is nothing following composers can effectively do but go in another direction. Beethoven did that and did an excellent job of it. I would define his music (and the music of Schubert) as _transitional_, not purely Classical the latter a style I believe had it's zenith in the music of Mozart.

We have reached the point where you are not addressing my points but rather choosing obfuscation. So I've said all I care to say on the topic.


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> I believe Beethoven announced around 1802 that he was henceforth going to write "in an entirely new way" (can't find the quote right now). And he did. He most definitely went off in another direction.
> 
> Yes, although he pushed and pulled at its boundaries and enlarged them, he remained wedded to traditional classical forms. But if you put gasoline in a wine bottle, you no longer have wine -- you have a Molotov cocktail.


yes, he did, with his 3rd sym, But can you honestly tell me the 3 rd movement has connections with the 1,2,4 movements?

His 4th sym, is a tight intregral whole,,all 4 movements are in communication.
This is connectiveness, is in all Mozart's late syms, late pc;s. 
Mozart was more organic, Beethoven seemed more concerned with new voicings for brass and winds. Which he was very successful with. 
Yet his 5 pc,s , do not impress me, not like Mozart's last 7, 
20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,,,thats 8 , my bad.
Every movement leads up to the next and has harkings back of the previous.


----------



## Larkenfield

To suggest that Brahms followed the Beethoven model is not the same as saying that there were no others besides him. Brahms had the freedom of expression of the Romantics composed within the Classical model. Can't more of you think outside the box? or does every composer have to be jammed into one strict category or another? It doesn't conveniently work that way. Also, what Brahms did is only a side issue to Beethoven's own evolutionary development into being a revolutionary. There is the letter of the form and then there's the spirit of the form and they aren't always exactly the same, are they?


----------



## paulbest

tdc said:


> He didn't withdraw his comment, he just slightly rephrased it. If you think the Classical style is best exemplified by Beethoven I don't have a problem with that. I think it was essentially perfected by Mozart, and once a style is essentially perfected there is nothing following composers can effectively do but go in another direction. Beethoven did that and did an excellent job of it. I would define his music (and the music of Schubert) as _transitional_, not purely Classical the latter a style I believe had it's zenith in the music of Mozart.
> 
> We have reached the point where you are not addressing my points but rather choosing obfuscation. So I've said all I care to say on the topic.


This post puts clarity in the entire discussion, We have finally with tdc's post #208, 
along with many others as well, 
have made some excellent insights into that nebulous category, called the *classical era*, and subsequent composers.

If Mozart's ; perfection (this is what all the musicologists have been saying past 50 yrs) seems to exemplify what we imagine as *The Classical Era*.
And from reading the many excellent posts from all TC members here, its almost uniamous


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> Beethoven was a classicist in that he continued to write in classical forms: symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas, and so on, but in spirit in many of his later works he was not conforming to the classical ideals related to Greece or what some considered the Enlightenment; he was responding to the social and political events going on around him, such as his Eroica initially being inspired on the subject of heroism by Napoleon, only Beethoven to reject that later after Napoleon crowned himself. And his symphony was criticized for being too long. The forms were classically inspired but the spirit behind them very often was not. One could say that his 8th Symphony is very classical in style, but even here, one knew it was Beethoven expressing himself personally on how he saw the world, his own personal wit and sense of humor, and not something more objectively related to a more impersonal classical ideal. Do people really think that Beethoven had such an influence on the 19th century because he represented the culmination of the past and the Classical ideal? His music pointed to the future and inspired it. It was his freedom of spirit, his humanitarian ideals, and his own personal convictions about the world that inspire the 19th century, and composers were placed in the position of either competing with him, where they were more than likely inclined to fail, or going in an entirely new direction. But it was his ideals, his bold personal freedom in his relationship with himself that was far more related to the future of Romanticism that led into the Romantic era and not the continuation of Classicism as the ideal. Brahms did exactly the same thing. He infused the classical forms with his own personal content during the Romantic era. I wonder where he got that idea?


I wouldn't disagree with your opening comments here. You say that Beethoven was a "classicist" in that he continued to use the same forms as those developed by his predecessors. That's fine but would add that he made several adjustments of various kinds, about which we are often reminded by one or two members.

I would also agree that because Beethoven lived in a later time period than Mozart and Haydn he was exposed to different social pressures arising partly from the changed political environment in parts of Europe. This probably had effect on the nature of some of the material he wrote. The problem with Beethoven was that it was never quite possible to work out in advance what he may do next in terms of style/content. You mention the 8th Symphony. This is a good example of him reverting back to something that could equally well have been written by the likes of Mozart or possibly Haydn in terms of its broad nature.

However, I still don't see any clear connection between any of this and the way classical music developed after Beethoven's death. The scene for "romanticism" was already under way with the likes of Weber, Rossini, Schubert, and maybe a few others of an even earlier vintage. Regardless of Beethoven, it's very likely that "romanticm" would still have occurred. That's because it was not the result of any individual composer's efforts, or group of composers's efforts, but rather the other way round, namely that certain forward-looking composers responded to the changing requirements of the time as perceived from audience preferences. For several decades, the kind of music they generally produced can hardly be said to echo the sound or style of Beethoven.

All in all, I remain of the view that Beethoven, not Mozart, was the last great "Classicist". Here I'm not suggesting that either of them was superior to the other, just that Beethoven was the end of the line historically, after whose death the general style of music changed quite fundamentally for quite a long time, until Brahms came along.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> ...There is the letter of the form and then there's the spirit of the form and they aren't exactly the same, are they?


My thought exactly!


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> All in all, I remain of the view that Beethoven, not Mozart, was the last great "Classicist". Here I'm not suggesting that either of them was superior to the other, just that Beethoven was the end of the line historically, after whose death the general style of music changed quite fundamentally for quite a long time, until Brahms came along.


I disagree. The general tenor of Beethoven's "middle period" and of his late period as well was not a logical extension of the classicism of Haydn and Mozart, nor even suggested by it. The content of Beethoven's music was neither classical nor romantic, but simply - Beethoven.

That is why I have difficulty with calling him a "transitional" composer. Transitional to what? Stylewise, Beethoven had no progeny.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> What makes Mozart's church sonatas different from serenades, divertimenti, cassations, dances, or any other works written for secular occasions? To my ears the musical idiom is identical.


Other composers also wrote their masterpieces for secular occasions. Of Mozart's divertimentos, serenades, the earlier ones may not be very sophisticated. But starting with K287, the later ones do show individuality and quality.

Divertimento in B flat K287: I find the melody of Adagio expressive 




Divertimento in D K334 contains inspired Andante movement Theme and Variations in D minor. 




harmonic part-writing in the development of Allegro




and use of contrast in Adagio, Menuetto movements 








are also noteworthy. The sheer mercurial quality matches that of Sinfonia Concertante K364 in my view.

Divertimento for string trio in E flat K563: named "Divertimento", but actually belongs in the same category as his string quartets. 





Serenade in D K320: has gorgeous Andantino movement in D minor. 




Like his other Serenade pieces, there are movements with fully worked out variations. The finale contains small amount of fugal sections.

Serenade for winds in C minor K388. Mozart later transcribed this piece for string quintet: String Quintet No.2 in C minor K406. The minuet containing canon, double canon, inversion canon demonstrates Mozart's contrapuntal prowess 





German Dance K600 No.2: This is one I found most interesting of the bunch. Overall they are indeed boring, but they still reflect the Viennese concept of "Themastiche Arbeit" to limited extent. (all elements in the ensemble combining to produce total effect: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/) 
Chopin and Johann Strauss II Waltzes have like endless ta-da-da bass from start to finish and don't seem very interesting in this regard. But people still call them masterpieces.


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> I disagree. The general tenor of Beethoven's "middle period" and of his late period as well was not a logical extension of the classicism of Haydn and Mozart, nor even suggested by it. The content of Beethoven's music was neither classical nor romantic, but simply - Beethoven.
> 
> That is why I have difficulty with calling him a "transitional" composer. Transitional to what? Stylewise, Beethoven had no progeny.


Is there at least a semblance of sounds/structures to Beethoven?

When I hear Dvorak, I can but help thinking ,,,Beethoven.


----------



## paulbest

I had no idea there was such complexity in Mozart's opening 35 seconds to the sym 35,,which Bohm's Viennese orch are havinga time with, and his Berlin orch is just basrely making it all work out, 
I thought the Bohm/Berlin, Walter /Columbia were on the same level. Semms not so.
I only am bringing the opening to the sym 35 up, as it represents a level of writing, which has never existed in Mzoart, previously, and this same complexity will be heard throughout all his later works.

Bruno Walter is the only one I know who has met the challenge of the opening and furthermore, the entire last 6 syms,with *flying colors*. 
Klemperer's Philharmonia , good as it is, not on the same level as the Columbia. Plus the recording is typical british class c acoustics.

Perhaps the most complex passage in all Mozart's works is the ending of PC 25, which there are many who have traversed it with great success.


----------



## paulbest

I think if we watch Uchida in Performance of the finale of Mozart's K503 (PC 25), its clear what Mozart scored for piano , along with the orchestral sections, might put things in perspective.
Post Mozart, who continued on the great classical era,,which other than Hayden, no others rise up to Mozart's level of writing. 
Mozart was the classical era.

The Baroque had 5 major players, the romantic era had maybe 10 majors. 
The classical era, was ozart.
The cameraman in this live concert did excellent all the way up the final notes,,,notes which I've never been able to hear clearly on my cds, due to the fff of the orchestra,,,at that critical moment, the camera goes off completely and we never get to see how the final notes actually come off. 
I can not read a score, so I have no idea whats there in the music.

anyway, I think we can say Beethoven had clearly established himself as a independent and unique artist, setting ,,well actually breaking new,....,actually destroying old boundaries. His bold dynamic brass wroying, his wind sections with a sound unheard of before, nor afterwards.

I thought we'd never get to the bottom of the OP Q',,and seems we 've all had some excellent insights and new definings.

Perhaps this topuc will birth forth new Q's which will lead us to higher ideas on a past, on a foundation, which our beloved modern music rests.

From 26:47 onwards, just unreal. 200 yrs old, and still UNREAL, never faded, nor rusted, or tarnished.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Excuse me for saying this in a conversation in which I'm not participating actively, but I find it quite intriguing that you accuse others of putting down Mozart but at the same time keep bashing great composers such as Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Chopin, Shostakovich and others. Perhaps you may want to make a case in the future that all music died after 1791?
> 
> "I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death." - Beethoven, in 1826.
> 
> Beethoven would be the first to defend Mozart against anyone trying to put him down.


I apologize. But usually when I criticize certain composers, I do it as means of defending others. Say, someone starts criticizing A and I'm on defense of A. I learned from discussing with these people, only discussing what's good about A isn't enough to convince them. I have to make comparisons with B and C. I think people on old threads on TC didn't do this properly and the conversations often dragged on and on rather fruitlessly. But I do feel bad about saying these negative things about Beethoven etc.


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> I apologize. But usually when I criticize certain composers, I do it as means of defending others.


That's a bad habit you might want to reconsider.


----------



## paulbest

Here we can hear Mozart's 503 with the champion of Mozart's music, The Vienna, They never sounded better than here with Buchbinder as conductor/soloist,,,a partnership, I've never as yet cared for,,,,yet here seems to be exception to the rule, as the Vienna players are not having any trouble following the score quite well on their own.

Just stunning , truly *philharmonic* orch in this video.

The crafting of orchestration and the solo parts, leaves no doubt, this was a level of writing which was not going to be easy to reproduce, copy, emulate. 
Thus closed the Classical era*,, 
I have read somewhere , the last 2 pc;s, 26,27 were not Mozart at his height, but rather later , and shows some signs that his health was deteriorating. 
I've not heard 26, 27 in quite some time, perhaps this 25th is his finest accomplishment in the piano concertos.

What I love about Mozart's late works, is ,,,no fluff, no fillers, And the codas in the finale have such a powerful buildup,,,with explosive fireworks at the finale.






have not yet seen the very ending,,I am sure, NOW finally we all get to see the fingering of the final piano notes in this K503....this Vienna cameraman has to be smart enough to keep his eye focused on the keys...,,Ok, just cked,,,all orchestra at the finale, no piano. 
I always wondered , if there were/were not piano notes at that finale. 
Now I know.


----------



## paulbest

Sems Mortimer Franck/Fanfare is in agreement with me on Klemperer/Philharmonia record, 1960,,,*nota bad performance, it simply seems ,,cumulatively lifeless*
Man I wish to possess this razor sharp critical skill. 

*cumulatively, lifeless*. 
If one is not in touch with Mozart,,,the Klemperere/Philharmonia seems , sparkles, glimmerings, full of zest,,,here's the problem reviewing Mozart, are you hearing his music, or are you in task at hand, reviewing the performance. 


When you do, you might hear what I hear on Walter's/Columbia. 

Sure if you 
A/B/C Walter/Bohm/Klemperer , its doubtful anyone will make a passing grade. 
They are that close. 

Yet in critical passages, the tiny nuances makes the world of differences. 

Oh Mozart challenges, and defeats,


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Other composers also wrote their masterpieces for secular occasions. Of Mozart's divertimentos, serenades, the earlier ones may not be very sophisticated. But starting with K287, the later ones do show individuality and quality.
> 
> Divertimento in B flat K287: I find the melody of Adagio expressive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divertimento in D K334 contains inspired Andante movement Theme and Variations in D minor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonic part-writing in the development of Allegro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and use of contrast in Adagio, Menuetto movements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are also noteworthy. The sheer mercurial quality matches that of Sinfonia Concertante K364 in my view.
> 
> Divertimento for string trio in E flat K563: named "Divertimento", but actually belongs in the same category as his string quartets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serenade in D K320: has gorgeous Andantino movement in D minor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like his other Serenade pieces, there are movements with fully worked out variations. The finale contains small amount of fugal sections.
> 
> Serenade for winds in C minor K388. Mozart later transcribed this piece for string quintet: String Quintet No.2 in C minor K406. The minuet containing canon, double canon, inversion canon demonstrates Mozart's contrapuntal prowess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German Dance K600 No.2: This is one I found most interesting of the bunch. Overall they are indeed boring, but they still reflect the Viennese concept of "Themastiche Arbeit" to limited extent. (all elements in the ensemble combining to produce total effect: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/)
> Chopin and Johann Strauss II Waltzes have like endless ta-da-da bass from start to finish and don't seem very interesting in this regard. But people still call them masterpieces.


Once more you quote me and then don't answer the point I make but instead go off on something else.

I made some observations about the nature of religion-related music in the Classical era, and said of Mozart's church sonatas (which Larkenfield thinks are "sublime" and "spiritually uplifting"): _"Nothing about these pieces would cause me to suspect that they were inspired by religious sentiment or intended for use by the church."_

Instead of considering the import of this statement, you haul out a bunch of Mozart pieces unrelated to the topic and end up dissing Chopin and Johann Strauss! None of it has anything to do with my remarks, or with anything else in this thread.

Do us all a favor and DO NOT QUOTE MY POSTS if you're just going to argue with straw men. It creates false perceptions of the people you quote and it only wastes everyone's time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Once more you quote me and then don't answer the point I make but instead go off on something else.


Ok, but I sometimes fail to grasp what you say sometimes. "What makes church sonatas different from divertimentos and serenades?" I'm curious why you would mention Mozart's divertimentos, serenades, dances, especially? Why not symphonies or concertos in this case? As you know, they were all written for secular use. You sounded as if 'his church sonatas are in league with something so minor as his divertimentos and serenades in quality', so tried my best to address this question with 'quality' in mind.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> I disagree. The general tenor of Beethoven's "middle period" and of his late period as well was not a logical extension of the classicism of Haydn and Mozart, nor even suggested by it. The content of Beethoven's music was neither classical nor romantic, but simply - Beethoven.
> 
> That is why I have difficulty with calling him a "transitional" composer. Transitional to what? Stylewise, Beethoven had no progeny.


Except Schubert and Brahms were heavily influenced by Beethoven and could easily be cited as 'offspring':

Finale of Schubert's third symphony

1st movement of Brahms first symphony (extract)


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> Haven't you twigged yet that you've been supporting an assertion made by stomanek that he has now accepted was incorrect and without foundation, and which he has withdrawn. That assertion was that Beethoven went off in another direction because he recognised that Mozart was the "zenith" of the Classical era. You quickly jumped in and said that you agreed with that comment. Isn't it about time that you stopped repeating all this nonsense and recognised that you have made an error.


The only part of it I withdrew was the connection between Mozart having perfected classical forms and the stylistic path taken by Beethoven. I stand by my comment that Mozart was responsible for taking classical form to its zenith unmatched.


----------



## Woodduck

Beethoven inherited Classical formal ideas, but form isn't all there is to Classicism.

Is it really helpful to our understanding to say that, for example, Beethoven's 5th and 9th symphonies, his incredibly varied piano sonatas, or his late quartets are merely "developments" of the very recognizable stylistic framework and general sensibility shared by Mozart and Haydn? Surely "Classicism," like any major stylistic category, embraces both formal and expressive content, and in Beethoven we find major developments - not just clever adaptations - in both.

The Classical temper values clarity, comprehensibility, balance, proportion, moderation, ideal beauty, good taste, and the resolution and relaxation of disturbances and tensions, no matter what specific feelings a work conveys, or what drama is presented, along the way. It is not Classical for a composer to keep us for too long in states of discontent, ambiguity, anxiety, turbulence, grief, pain, shock, or any extreme state, and to regard such states as self-justifying, much less to leave us in them when a work or a movement ends. The Romantics did such things happily, and for them the pursuit of such expressive goals had a more or less determinative effect on the form a work assumed. 

EdwardBast in post #154 points out some of Beethoven's structural innovations. Here I will suggest that those innovations have often to be understood, not merely as play with form in the abstract, but as necessitated by the need to say something new - so new, in fact, that when Beethoven makes an apparent retreat to his Classical roots in his eighth symphony, we are not fooled, but delighted at his success in amalgamating his own sensibility with that of his predecessor Haydn. With his next work in the genre, we are, of course, in territory Haydn would have found startling, but the fact is that we had already been in similar territory five symphonies back. While forms typical of Classical style are recognizable in the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th symphonies, the unprecedented expressive content they are asked to carry has the effect not only of forcing those forms to undergo major expansions and modifications, but often of forcing us as listeners to be more conscious of what is being expressed than of the form it occupies. When that happens it represents a tipping of the balance away from Classicism and toward Romanticism, in which Classical forms are still often employed, but may function more as invisible armatures than as objects of perception and pleasure in their own right.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven inherited Classical formal ideas, but form isn't all there is to Classicism.
> 
> Is it really helpful to our understanding to say that, for example, Beethoven's 5th and 9th symphonies, his incredibly varied piano sonatas, or his late quartets are merely "developments" of the very recognizable stylistic framework and general sensibility shared by Mozart and Haydn? Surely "Classicism," like any major stylistic category, embraces both formal and expressive content, and in Beethoven we find major developments - not just clever adaptations - in both.
> 
> The Classical temper values clarity, comprehensibility, balance, proportion, moderation, ideal beauty, good taste, and the resolution and relaxation of disturbances and tensions, no matter what specific feelings a work conveys, or what drama is presented, along the way. It is not Classical for a composer to keep us for too long in states of discontent, ambiguity, anxiety, turbulence, grief, pain, shock, or any extreme state, and to regard such states as self-justifying, much less to leave us in them when a work or a movement ends. The Romantics did such things happily, and for them the pursuit of such expressive goals had a more or less determinative effect on the form a work assumed.
> 
> EdwardBast in post #154 points out some of Beethoven's structural innovations. Here I will suggest that those innovations have often to be understood, not merely as play with form in the abstract, but as necessitated by the need to say something new - so new, in fact, that when Beethoven makes an apparent retreat to his Classical roots in his eighth symphony, we are not fooled, but delighted at his success in amalgamating his own sensibility with that of his predecessor Haydn. With his next work in the genre, we are, of course, in territory Haydn would have found startling, but the fact is that we had already been in similar territory five symphonies back. While forms typical of Classical style are recognizable in the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th symphonies, the unprecedented expressive content they are asked to carry has the effect not only of forcing those forms to undergo major expansions and modifications, but often of forcing us as listeners to be more conscious of what is being expressed than of the form it occupies. *When that happens it represents a tipping of the balance away from Classicism and toward Romanticism,* in which Classical forms are still often employed, but may function more as invisible armatures than as objects of perception and pleasure in their own right.


and that's what I mean when I say Beethoven went off in another direction. He obviously did not follow Mozart's path - perhaps its fair to say he made his own path.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> Good Lord, I can hardly believe this.
> 
> I thought it was almost common knowledge that it was Brahms who was seen as the "successor" to Beethoven. I'm sure that if you "google" the subject of Brahms you'll find many references to this very issue. You'll learn, for example, that Brahms was so concerned about living up to the high expectations of him in this regard from parts of the musical establishment that he delayed a long time before finalising any major work, lest it be seen as inadequate.
> 
> As for composers who followed in the immediate aftermath of Beethoven, it may be better for you to do a bit of reading up on their biographies and musical influences. I'm not here to provide free lessons on basic stuff like that. However, to set you off in the right direction, I'll just give you a few hints on where to look further.
> 
> There was a chappie called Chopin. OK he wrote a couple of PCs early in his career, but they were exceptional pieces in terms of what he is most famous for. You'll discover that he specialised in producing all manner of piano miniatures, many with a so-called "programmatic content" that were not like the kind of stuff produced by Beethoven.
> 
> Another chappie was Robert Schuman. Yes. he too wrote several works using the basic structures of the Classical model, but no one has said that the Classical model was abandoned completely by any of these early Romantics. On the contrary, it was continued with in varying degrees, but was often adapted and modified in a much more liberal way than was envisaged by Beethoven. There were also new forms. In the case of Schumann there was much greater emphasis on song cycles, and the incorporation of literary inspiration from poetic sources. Indeed, Schumann was the "_herald of a new poetic ag_e", according to one well known biography.
> 
> Yet another was Liszt who made extensive changes to the structure of the classical forms he inherited from Beethoven's time. Rather than me explain it all, you might look up _"Symphonic Poem - Liszt._ You'll soon find that it's all nicely explained. These works sound nothing like Beethoven.
> 
> Once you've done all this, maybe then you could come back and we can possibly look forward to a more sensible discusion.


Nah - you're oversimplifying the matter. Classical forms did endure even if the classicism of Mozart and Haydn were left behind.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> The Classical temper values clarity, comprehensibility, balance, proportion, moderation, ideal beauty, good taste, and the resolution and relaxation of disturbances and tensions, no matter what specific feelings a work conveys, or what drama is presented, along the way. It is not Classical for a composer to keep us for too long in states of discontent, ambiguity, anxiety, turbulence, grief, pain, shock, or any extreme state, and to regard such states as self-justifying, much less to leave us in them when a work or a movement ends.


I remember the discussion we had on this



Woodduck said:


> So what do you think about the more important point of my post? Did music _really_ become dark and angsty after Beethoven? I'd say Mozart's G minor quintet is pretty angsty, but of course he was obliged by his culture to end it cheerily, as was also the case with _Don Giovanni_. There's definitely some darkness and angst in the G minor symphony, and of course the _Requiem_ (because it's a requiem). Maybe it's more accurate to say that with Beethoven's generation composers were free to write unapologetically dark and angsty works, along with all their brighter and more cheerful ones. It's also accurate to say that composers used the expanded vocabularies of harmony, orchestration and form to explore subject matter and areas of feeling that music hadn't touched before, and to which simplistic categorizations like "dark,""bright," "angsty" or "cheerful" don't begin to do justice. That strikes me as a gain, not a loss, and something _I_ would say "Amen" to (if I were inclined to use that expression).





hammeredklavier said:


> I sense that you seem to care a lot whether a piece ends tragically or cheerily. Sure, Mozart was obliged by his culture to end his pieces cheerily, but look at Adagio and Fugue in C minor K546, Fantasy in C minor K475, Sonata in C minor K457, Concerto in C minor K491. Do they end cheerily? And what of Beethoven's Symphony in C minor Op.67, Concerto in C minor Op.37, Sonata in C minor Op.111. Even though Beethoven was allowed more artistic freedom in his time, do they end tragically? I'm not even sure if it's fair to compare them this way.


There are so many exceptions to the assertion, "Mozart resolves his tragedy with happy ending. Beethoven does not". So by your logic, wouldn't Mozart be anti-classical in some ways?


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Here we can hear Mozart's 503 with the champion of Mozart's music, The Vienna, They never sounded better than here with Buchbinder as conductor/soloist,,,a partnership, I've never as yet cared for,,,,yet here seems to be exception to the rule, as the Vienna players are not having any trouble following the score quite well on their own.
> 
> Just stunning , truly *philharmonic* orch in this video.
> 
> The crafting of orchestration and the solo parts, leaves no doubt, this was a level of writing which was not going to be easy to reproduce, copy, emulate.
> Thus closed the Classical era*,,
> I have read somewhere , the last 2 pc;s, 26,27 were not Mozart at his height, but rather later , and shows some signs that his health was deteriorating.
> I've not heard 26, 27 in quite some time, perhaps this 25th is his finest accomplishment in the piano concertos.
> 
> What I love about Mozart's late works, is ,,,no fluff, no fillers, And the codas in the finale have such a powerful buildup,,,with explosive fireworks at the finale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have not yet seen the very ending,,I am sure, NOW finally we all get to see the fingering of the final piano notes in this K503....this Vienna cameraman has to be smart enough to keep his eye focused on the keys...,,Ok, just cked,,,all orchestra at the finale, no piano.
> I always wondered , if there were/were not piano notes at that finale.
> Now I know.


Glad to know that despite you being deaf to the great Mozart VCs - you at least recognise the quality in K503. Its as fine a concerto as he composed - yes 26 and 27 are a bit of a let down and I sometimes wish K503 had been his last word in the form. But 26 and 27 are not without merit.

NB 26 and 27 had nothing to do with deteriorating health - he composed some truly great works around the same time such as K563, the last quintets - and a bit later - clarinet concerto etc.

We expect from Mozart - great works every time - but some are greater than others and 26 and 27 sound ordinary compared with stellar concertos like k503 k491 k466 etc.

Re: finale - pianists sometimes play all the way to the final note - sometimes the orchestra rounds off the concerto on its own.


----------



## janxharris

Without an absolute definition of the 'classical era' then isn't this debate in vain? A good number of interesting posts have been made though.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Without a absolute definition of the 'classical era' then isn't this debate in vain?* A good number of interesting posts have been made though.*


thank you ...........................


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I remember the discussion we had on this
> 
> There are so many exceptions to the assertion, "Mozart resolves his tragedy with happy ending. Beethoven does not". So by your logic, wouldn't Mozart be anti-classical in some ways?


There are exceptions to EVERYTHING. But the organ fantasia, K608 doesn't even enter the discussion, since it's clearly imitative of the Baroque and we're discussing _Classical_ style. As for the other pieces, they're in minor keys, which is the exception, but they're not "anti-classical" in any way that I can hear. I really don't know what you think you're demonstrating. That my comments on Classical style are basically wrong because there's variety within that style, or fuzzy edges around it? That's true of any stylistic categorization. I don't mistake the map for the territory, or deny Mozart his baroquisms or his proto-romantic moments.


----------



## Guest

Rather than say that Beethoven's music was of a style unique to Beethoven, my instincts are to want to place him either in the Classical camp or in the Romantic camp, or to say that he was in the former for the first part of his career and in the latter for the rest. 

To say that he was in a category all of his own that was never again repeated by any later composer does not seem correct. I can't think of any other great composers who are viewed as being unclassifiable in regard to style, even though some of them had quite unique characteristics for much of their careers (Chopin, Wagner).

Some recent comments made by others in this thread have involved little more than speculation about Beethoven’s motivations in developing the style he did. Others have tried to create a mystique about Beethoven’s style that tries to place him and his music in a special category. I'm afraid that I see this all of this as no more more than an attempt to elevate their favoured composer by concocting pretend special qualities not possessed by lesser mortals. 

If we take Vivaldi and J S Bach, they lived at roughly the same time, each with their own quite different music styles and yet there is no argument that they were both Baroque composers. Similarly, in regard to Beethoven and the overall similarity of his style to that of earlier Classical composers, I prefer to take the simpler view that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like duck, then it probably is a duck.


----------



## Larkenfield

Partita said:


> If we take Vivaldi and J S Bach, they lived at roughly the same time, each with their own quite different music styles and yet there is no argument that they were both Baroque composers. Similarly, in regard to Beethoven and the overall similarity of his style to that of earlier Classical composers, I prefer to take the simpler view that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like duck, then it probably is a duck.


There is also no argument that Mozart was a Classical composer. But with Beethoven...? There is a chasm of divided opinion like the parting of the Red Sea and it's not without its reasons. Beethoven came after Mozart so the development of his music was built upon the foundations laid by Mozart and composers before Mozart. But Beethoven lived 36 years beyond the year that Mozart died. Thirty-six! That was longer than Mozart's lifetime. And the world had greatly changed within that great span of time with Beethoven reacting to it and not always as a Classicist who quacked like a duck. The Classical world no longer existed in its relative purity or stability, and the French Revolution and the beheading of royalty led to an entirely different view of the aristocracy that had supported Mozart. Music and the intent behind it dramatically changed even if the classical forms still existed.

"Musical style is always changing, although the pace of change is slower at times and faster at other times... Beethoven deliberately bends or breaks many of the "rules" of that style, such as opening his first symphony with a dissonance, permitting parallel fifths when it suited him, introducing new thematic material where it wasn't expected, and so on. But these "violations" are usually localized, meaning specific to a piece of music; he didn't create entire new forms, and he didn't completely do away with the current forms. He certainly tweaked them here and there, enough to demonstrate that art did not depend on strict adherence to "rules." -Dave Nitzer, BA Music History & Human Psychology, Harvard University (1980)


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> There is also no argument that Mozart was a Classical composer. But with Beethoven...? There is a chasm of divided opinion like the parting of the Red Sea, and it's not without its reasons. Beethoven lived 36 years beyond the year that Mozart died. Thirty-six! That was longer than Mozart's lifetime. And the world had greatly changed within that great span of time with Beethoven reacting to it and not always as a Classicist who quacked like a duck. The Classical world no longer existed in its relative purity or stability, and the French Revolution and the beheading of royalty led to an entirely different view of the aristocracy that had supported Mozart. Music and the intent behind it dramatically changed even if the classical forms still existed.


I accept that there are differences of opinion about how to categorise Beethoven. The fact that Beethoven lived a further 36 years after Mozart died, and that the world had changed in that time period, is not of itself conclusive proof that the Classical style in music had fully died out in that timescale, to be replaced by a style that some people cannot describe except in terms of the name of its composer, Beethoven.

Remember that from the earliest Baroque music compositions to the last (here I'm referring to ones of any note) there was a period of some 150 years from around 1600 to circa 1750. During that 150 years, there were many different sub-styles of Baroque music: English, French, Italian, German.

Over that time period, outside the world of music - in science, medicine, geographical discovery, industrial invention, economic and political systems - there were some hugely significant developments that, in total, were at least of equal significance to those that occurred in the much shorter period of 36 years from 1791-1827 to which you referred.

Over the 150 year history of Baroque music, there was such a large amount of variation that it is rather like comparing chalk and cheese for some composers, and yet we don't see people quibbling over whether the two main beginning and end composers (Monteverdi and J S Bach), or indeed any of them, were adherents to the same broad Baroque style. This seems to be a fascination mainly held in connection with the name of Beethoven, and I have guessed that it's partly inspired by a desire to elevate their favourite composer by attaching a mystique around his name.


----------



## janxharris

Beethoven unique? Schumann recognised the influence Étienne Méhul's 1st symphony had on Beethoven's fifth:






EDIT: Actually - it isn't clear who may have influenced the other - the works being contemporary.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> Glad to know that despite you being deaf to the great Mozart VCs - you at least recognise the quality in K503. Its as fine a concerto as he composed - yes 26 and 27 are a bit of a let down and I sometimes wish K503 had been his last word in the form. But 26 and 27 are not without merit.
> 
> NB 26 and 27 had nothing to do with deteriorating health - he composed some truly great works around the same time such as K563, the last quintets - and a bit later - clarinet concerto etc.
> 
> We expect from Mozart - great works every time - but some are greater than others and 26 and 27 sound ordinary compared with stellar concertos like k503 k491 k466 etc.
> 
> Re: finale - pianists sometimes play all the way to the final note - sometimes the orchestra rounds off the concerto on its own.


True, his finest PC ends with 25, yet as you tell, the 26,27 are nothing to be ignored.
I listened to his VC3/Oistrakh/live conducting in Stockholm, and the 4th VC conducting in Berlin.
Interesting, but not enough for me to jump in a purcashea CD.
As you correctly point out, Mozart was stellar in most works, but a few may not be ones *cup of tea*, Its a personal preference as you suggest.

In response to janxharris.

No, , this topic, has not been without some conclusions.

If we boil it down, can we say, 
Beethoven, as gorgeous as his music is at times,,,is more like a beautiful ,~~Vaneer~~,,whereas Mozart's masterpieces, are cut from the ~~Ancient wood~~ with deep true veins of solid real mahogany?

This may be what Ravel and Debussy, along with Bernstein was referring to when make criticism on Beethoven's music. 
At least this ~~veneerish~~ quality has been my experience of Beethoven's music.

Its engineered wood, nice, wonderful stuff, no doubt,,but when one digs deeper, its not as Mzoart's solid authentic wood from the ancient tree.

I have none of his music in my collection,,I just don't feel I am missing out on something,,,almost as if Beethoven's music did not exist, no big deal.

Just my 2 cents, mind you, ….

Or is it that Mozart's music , is so elevated, in my experience, Beethoven's sounds,,,may I say ~~antiquated~~, Yeah that's more like it.,....


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> Rather than say that Beethoven's music was of a style unique to Beethoven, my instincts are to want to place him either in the Classical camp or in the Romantic camp, or to say that he was in the former for the first part of his career and in the latter for the rest.
> 
> To say that he was in a category all of his own that was never again repeated by any later composer does not seem correct. I can't think of any other great composers who are viewed as being unclassifiable in regard to style, even though some of them had quite unique characteristics for much of their careers (Chopin, Wagner).
> 
> Some recent comments made by others in this thread have involved little more than speculation about Beethoven's motivations in developing the style he did. Others have tried to create a mystique about Beethoven's style that tries to place him and his music in a special category. I'm afraid that I see this all of this as no more more than an attempt to elevate their favoured composer by concocting pretend special qualities not possessed by lesser mortals.
> 
> If we take Vivaldi and J S Bach, they lived at roughly the same time, each with their own quite different music styles and yet there is no argument that they were both Baroque composers. Similarly, in regard to Beethoven and the overall similarity of his style to that of earlier Classical composers, I prefer to take the simpler view that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like duck, then it probably is a duck.


In his day, the 3rd sym must have sounded like mana dropped from the sky to the Viennese. 
His music was something dynamic, explosive and all totogether The New Modern Style. 
Beethoven influenced many composers, there is no doubt.

He was unique and, sure Beethoven can fit into a category, The Classical,,. yet 200 yrs later, some of us, do not feel the same unique power to ~~enthrall~~ the senses, ...Of course the general consensus, pays little attention to us few who are not at all excited by Beethoven. Crowds continue, new CM fans continue to become overwhelmed by his music,,,

Its not a case of either/or,,,but with me and perhaps 1 or 2 others,,it is, Mozart stands for me the Classical Era in total. 
The rest is superfluous.,,,heck take most of the romantic with ya....Mozart shines so bright, making most of the romantics,,,seem like a candle


----------



## paulbest

Furthermore,,maybe its high time to say some of these things....that Mozart was High Classical Era. from there,,,
it began a downhill path. ,,and if we follow this path,,we end up in this land called,,,*Post Modern*,,which is so far from what Mozart established...like light years away,,another galaxy of sounds....Sure, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg appear also to be far fromk Mozart,,but are they really?

I say not. 
Back to the subject up for discussion, Beethoven,,,to me, Beethoven was more a shooting star, a comet so to speak,,whereas Mozart is firmly established in the firmament. Beethoven arrived with his 3rd sym ina blaze of glory,,Mozart's star built up, early syms, early PC's. ,, until the light exploded on itself like a quasar,,and now we are left with this intense condensed ball of light, his late works,,as his early works were more like star gas dust,,, beginning stages of birth of his star.
Beethoven's comet circles, and circles,,,,,but one day it will circle further and further away and his name will not be placed in #1 spot in the firament….little by little his light will fade and burn itself out.
= His music will be ,,sadly, neglected. and eventually,,,forgotten.

This is what I believe the OP is getting at. and I provided my prognostication in this query.


----------



## EdwardBast

Partita said:


> Rather than say that Beethoven's music was of a style unique to Beethoven, my instincts are to want to place him either in the Classical camp or in the Romantic camp, or to say that he was in the former for the first part of his career and in the latter for the rest.


Except nothing remotely like his late quartets and piano sonatas was composed in the Romantic Era.



Partita said:


> To say that he was in a category all of his own that was never again repeated by any later composer does not seem correct. I can't think of any other great composers who are viewed as being *unclassifiable in regard to style*, even though some of them had quite unique characteristics for much of their careers (Chopin, Wagner).


To say someones style doesn't fit into one of two boxes doesn't make their style unclassifiable. It just suggests it resists two simplistic labels.



Partita said:


> Some recent comments made by others in this thread have involved little more than speculation about Beethoven's motivations in developing the style he did. Others have tried to create a mystique about Beethoven's style that tries to place him and his music in a special category. I'm afraid that I see this all of this as no more more than an attempt to elevate their favoured composer by concocting *pretend special qualities* not possessed by lesser mortals.


The qualities are concrete and objective. You haven't disputed a single one of the ones I listed.


----------



## paulbest

There are thoughts that have brewing inside me, every since my early days over at CMC/GMG, but never had the courage to stand up to the bullies over at those 2 sites. Now here, there seems to be a lot more tolerance and even support for me to get these things off my chest. 

yeah,,,its a good feeling,,,i should say I have more courage now,,that I know all you guys are sleeping in late this Saturday morning..i don;'t feel like i'll be pounced on....scrammmm


----------



## janxharris

As Stravinsky said of the Grosse fuge: "an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever."


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Except nothing remotely like his late quartets and piano sonatas was composed in the Romantic Era.


I see Wagner piano sonatas (



) and Mendelssohn string quartets (



) as successors of the late Beethovenian ideals to an extent.






Before Beethoven, examples of works that somewhat anticipate late Beethovenian ideals would be
Haydn's multi-movement string quartet "The Seven Last Words of Christ"






Also Beethoven's last piano sonata Op.111 first movement sort of reminds me of





compare Beethoven's allegro theme with Mozart's fugue subject (starting at 4:00)

Beethoven's Op.132 second movement: 



the 'aesthetics' here is similar to 



in my view.


----------



## paulbest

WOW a real musicologist here on TC. 
. ...My guess is the music of Mozart really grabbed hold of the young Beethoven, and he went full speed ahead with his inborn talents. 
It is at exactly 25:40 in the 2nd sym, where he is now just about to leave the Classical Tradition/aka Mozart,,,behind,,, just after this short Mozartian passage, its all forward with The New Philharmonic Sound, , 
UNREAL. what a split, , its almost like he wrote up one morning, just at the section, and a new revelation came to him. 
The finale of the 2nd will be his own unique trademark, not imitated by any other composer, like a lightening strike breaking through the clouds.


----------



## AeolianStrains

janxharris said:


> Beethoven unique? Schumann recognised the influence Étienne Méhul's 1st symphony had on Beethoven's fifth:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Actually - it isn't clear who may have influenced the other - the works being contemporary.


Schumann wondered who influenced whom, but it's doubtful either work influenced the other directly. The liner notes for my album simply has them both being composed at the same time. It's more likely they each drew from the contemporary milieu, building on works such as Mozart's Symphony No. 40 (and Beethoven's 3rd).


----------



## KenOC

AeolianStrains said:


> Schumann wondered who influenced whom, but it's doubtful either work influenced the other directly. The liner notes for my album simply has them both being composed at the same time. It's more likely they each drew from the contemporary milieu, building on works such as Mozart's Symphony No. 40 (and Beethoven's 3rd).


I'd guess that neither was aware of the other's work precisely because the symphonies were contemporaneous. Also, they were in different countries and, even when finished, works often traveled slowly. For example, Beethoven's Eroica, written in 1805, was first performed in Italy in 1860!


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Except nothing remotely like his late quartets and piano sonatas was composed in the *Romantic Era*.


There is some confusion here. I've been arguing all along that Beethoven's style remained consistent with the *Classical Era*. Therefore, I wouldn't expect to find anything quite like his late quartets and piano sonatas being emulated in the *Romantic Era*. So I don't quite follow what you are arguing here.

That Beethoven remained largely true to the Classical model is the opinion of the distinguished musicologist and pianist, Charles Rosen, whose famous and influential book_ "The Classical Style"_ has been referred to on several several occasions in this thread. All the required detail on this matter is set out in detail in the book, which concludes that Beethoven's music, including most of the later works, remained basically Classical in style, albeit with some embellishments of various kinds that were novel compared with the way Mozart and Haydn left matters.

There is another book on th*e* same sub*j*ect by William E Caplin _"Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven". _This author is another modern distinguished musicologist. His book reaches similar conclusions as that of Charles Rosen, and is similarly based on a detailed analytical approach. This book has been widely influential.

As far as I can recall, various other books on Beethoven that I'm vaguely familiar with don't cover the issues in the same detail, but I don't rule out the possibility that there maybe be alternative views held in some respectable professional quarters, especially in regard to some of the later works.

As I have said, I fully recognise that alternative views about Beethoven's adherence to the Classical style exist, and I certainly do not pretend that there exists any indisputable evidence either way,. It's just that what I have read points more clearly towards maintained adherence the Classical style rather than his adoption of the Romantic style.

As for Beeethoven's mid/late style allegedly being unique to him, that's a fairly new one that I have only seen in this thread. I have not yet fully come to terms with, but for now I'll only say that it sounds very fishy, and I wouldn't put much faith in it based on my estimation of the reliability of the sources from which it appears to come.

With due respect to other contributors to this thread, I am afraid to say that I have far more faith in what these aforementioned distinguished professional writers have written on the subject than all of the anonymous, amateurish musings and speculation that has been offered by several people here, some of which is clearly of hardly any value at all. There have been a few useful contributions, but on the whole the discussion has become generally confused, patchy and with a lot of misunderstandings thrown in.


----------



## AeolianStrains

KenOC said:


> I'd guess that neither was aware of the other's work precisely because the symphonies were contemporaneous. Also, they were in different countries and, even when finished, works often traveled slowly. For example, Beethoven's Eroica, written in 1805, was first performed in Italy in 1860!


I didn't realize it was that slow! That though must be extraordinary. Plenty of works traveled more quickly than half a century, but still, I can't believe that some Italians were born after it premiered and yet died before it reached them. What they missed out on!


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> The only part of it I withdrew was the connection between Mozart having perfected classical forms and the stylistic path taken by Beethoven. I stand by my comment that Mozart was responsible for taking classical form to its zenith unmatched.


I'm a little surprised that you suddenly know so much about Beethoven, and his style. May I ask how you formed the firm view that you now seem to hold that he went off in another path to that of Mozart.

Is this opinion based on any musicological books you may have read on this subject? If so, may I ask which? Or is it because it now suits your purposes to distance Mozart from any close competition in the Classical Era?

The reason i ask is that I recall that your long-standing interest since joining T-C has been more or less solely based on Mozart, with perhaps the odd nod in Schubert's direction. I do not recall you showing much interest in Beethoven previously, but I accept that things can change. Possibly you are now a Beethoven devotee as well. If so, this must have occurred fairly recently since I clearly recall one instance, not that long ago, when you had no idea about a famous Beethoven work that came under discussion, having not even heard of it.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> He didn't withdraw his comment, he just slightly rephrased it.


Completely wrong.

The sole assertion made in post #142 was that the reason Beethoven went in another direction is because Mozart had already taken the classical era to its zenith.

This ridiculous comment was first picked by Gallus. I then agreed that it was wrong and couldn't possibly be true unless stomanek had access to some kind of psysho-analysis of Beethoven's mind.

stomanek has since accepted that he cannot defend the statement in his post #142.

End of story.

Whatever else he may said in that acceptance to mitigate the absurdity of the initial comment is irrelevant to the specific query that was raised.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I've been arguing all along that Beethoven's style remained consistent with the Classical Era. Therefore, I wouldn't expect to find anything like quite like his late quartets and piano sonatas being emulated in the Romantic Era.


Beethoven's late works would be difficult to emulate in ANY era, including his own.



> That Beethoven remained largely true to the Classical model is the opinion of the distinguished musicologist and pianist, Charles Rosen, whose famous and influential book_ "The Classical Style"_ has been referred to on several several occasions in this thread. All the required detail on this matter is set out in detail in the book, which concludes that Beethoven's music, including most of the later works, remained basically Classical in style, albeit with some embellishments of various kinds that were novel compared with the way Mozart and Haydn left matters.
> 
> There is another book on th*e* same sub*j*ect by William E Caplin _"Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven". _This author is another modern distinguished musicologist. His book reaches similar conclusions as that of Charles Rosen, and is similarly based on a detailed analytical approach. This book has been widely influential.


I know that some of us have read Rosen's _The Classical Style,_ and have drawn our own conclusions which may or may not coincide with his. Rosen came at Beethoven with the specific purpose of analyzing his formal procedures from a Classical standpoint, and I wouldn't presume to argue with his observations. But to state unequivocally that Beethoven "is" a Classicist is to assume that that sort of analysis tells us all we need to know about the historical periods we distinguish for convenience, and about the meaning of the music produced within them. Let's not forget that the idea of Romanticism was all the rage well before the end of the 18th century and was applied to music as early as 1789, before Beethoven had published even his first works in what we would now consider an undisputably Classical style. Surely E.T.A. Hoffmann's non-technical observations, in 1810, about Romanticism in the works of Haydn and Mozart as well as Beethoven should be of some use in helping us understand the musical values of that era.



> As for Beeethoven's mid/late style allegedly being unique to him, that's a fairly new one that I have only seen in this thread. I have not yet fully come to terms with, but for now I'll only say is that it sounds very fishy, and I wouldn't put much faith in it based on my estimation of what I discern are its sources.


I've noticed and talked about the uniqueness of Beethoven's styles - plural - for forty years. It isn't a novel notion. What's fishy about it?



> With due respect to other contributors to this thread, I am afraid to say that I have far more faith in what these aforementioned distinguished professional writers have written on the subject than all of the anonymous, amateurish musings and speculation that has been offered by several people, some of which is clearly of hardly any value at all. There have been a few useful contributions, but on the whole the discussion has been generally confused, patchy and with a lot of misunderstandings thrown in.


We can cite studies and authorities, but ultimately we rely on our ears. My ears tell me that Beethoven's 5th and "Pastoral" symphonies, or his "Appassionata" and "Moonlight" sonatas, project different expressive goals and represent different realms of feeling from those I find in the symphonies and sonatas of Haydn or Mozart, and that the bold freshness of Beethoven's statements marks the dawning of a new sense of music's nature and purpose in a changing culture. Recognizing Beethoven's solid Classical grounding shouldn't cause us to miss his unique position as a cultural marker and herald of things to come. Romantic composers certainly didn't miss it, even if his inspiration sent them off in directions as different as those followed by Schubert, Berlioz, Brahms and Wagner.


----------



## KenOC

hammeredklavier said:


> I see Wagner piano sonatas (
> 
> 
> 
> ) and Mendelssohn string quartets (
> 
> 
> 
> ) as successors of the late Beethovenian ideals to an extent.


Mendelssohn wrote his 2nd string quartet in 1827 at age 18, just two years after Beethoven's Op. 132 quartet in the same key. Felix was obviously quite taken with the earlier work, and his own quartet copies many of the ideas, progressions, and so forth found in Beethoven's. I've read that his father thought Beethoven's late quartets were rubbish and discouraged young Felix from bring any of that stuff into the house, so maybe Mendelssohn did his work somewhat surreptitiously!

In any event, Mendelssohn doesn't seem to show the same influence of Beethoven's late works in his own later work, or at least I can't hear it if it's there.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> We can cite studies and authorities, but ultimately we rely on our ears. My ears tell me that Beethoven's 5th and "Pastoral" symphonies, or his "Appassionata" and "Moonlight" sonatas, project different expressive goals and represent different realms of feeling from those I find in the symphonies and sonatas of Haydn or Mozart, and that the bold freshness of Beethoven's statements marks the dawning of a new sense of music's nature and purpose in a changing culture.


This is exactly what I meant earlier re confusing the bottle with the wine. If writing in "classical forms" makes one a "classical composer," then Brahms was a classical composer too!


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> This is exactly what I meant earlier re confusing the bottle with the wine. If writing in "classical forms" makes one a "classical composer," the Brahms was a classical composer too!


And not only that, he was a more conservative classical composer than Beethoven by that standard.


----------



## KenOC

paulbest said:


> ...It is at exactly 25:40 in the 2nd sym, where he is now just about to leave the Classical Tradition/aka Mozart,,,behind,,, just after this short Mozartian passage, its all forward with The New Philharmonic Sound, ,
> UNREAL. what a split, , its almost like he wrote up one morning, just at the section, and a new revelation came to him.
> The finale of the 2nd will be his own unique trademark, not imitated by any other composer, like a lightening strike breaking through the clouds.


That's a keen observation! It's that very passage, at the end of the finale of Beethoven's 2nd Symphony, that Sir George Grove singled out back in the 1890s as the first expression of what he considered Romanticism in music. He said that it shone with "the light that never was, on sea or land," which seems to be taken from Wordsworth (had to look that one up!)

As for lightning breaking through the clouds, that's Beethoven too.


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> I'd guess that neither was aware of the other's work precisely because the symphonies were contemporaneous. Also, they were in different countries and, even when finished, works often traveled slowly. For example, Beethoven's Eroica, written in 1805, was first performed in Italy in 1860!


OK, The Italians were a little slow, but in Vienna, where things really mattered, the who's who of composers city,,was fresh off the press and into the concert halls.


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> That's a keen observation! It's that very passage, at the end of the finale of Beethoven's 2nd Symphony, that Sir George Grove singled out back in the 1890s as the first expression of what he considered Romanticism in music. He said that it shone with "the light that never was, on sea or land," which seems to be taken from Wordsworth (had to look that one up!)
> 
> As for lightning breaking through the clouds, that's Beethoven too.


well I only cked out sound bites of the 2nd,,and could not believed, what I was hearing,,,It was like a transcription of a theme of Mozart, if not direct lines from Mozart,,and then,,,as soon as it came,,its gone,,,thena powerful new upsurge, of The New Modern Sound. Beethoven was now making a statement in his 2nd sym. Which would result in his ~~Revolutionary~ 3rd sym, The Viennese had not heard anything like that brass, and textured winds, a sound which was Beethoven's defivitive trademark, and no others would follow in that rich, dynamic textures. 
Beethoven in the 3rd had taken Europe by storm. A wind still blowing today,,,yet as we all know,, time can alter what was once seemingly invincible and , also resurrecting what had been forgotten,,,A Renaissance 
Now who will be in this renaissance which is coming soon? 
Which composers? 
Just as there were winds of change in Beethoven's music, a Heralding so to speak,,,i believe there are new winds gathering just to our south and north. 
A renaissance is on the threshold. I can feel it.


----------



## KenOC

paulbest said:


> OK, The Italians were a little slow, but in Vienna, where things really mattered, the who's who of composers city,,was fresh off the press and into the concert halls.


Even in Vienna, things could move slowly, especially for orchestral music. Beethoven's 7th Symphony, for instance, was first performed at the end of 1813. But the score was not published until 1816, likely due to the costs of copyists and engravers and the multiple composer reviews required. In fact, the symphony's publication was noted in the AMZ: "May the courageous publisher soon present us with the promised second new symphony [in F major], and may he be supported in this costly undertaking as he deserves-which, considering the true and lively sense for the truly great in music and the general admiration of B's genius, cannot be doubted."

I assume any earlier performances must have used hand-copied orchestral parts, which doubtless would have inhibited the ability of the work to travel easily.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> I'm a little surprised that you suddenly know so much about Beethoven, and his style. May I ask how you formed the firm view that you now seem to hold that he went off in another path to that of Mozart.
> 
> Is this opinion based on any musicological books you may have read on this subject? If so, may I ask which? Or is it because it now suits your purposes to distance Mozart from any close competition in the Classical Era?
> 
> The reason i ask is that I recall that your long-standing interest since joining T-C has been more or less solely based on Mozart, with perhaps the odd nod in Schubert's direction. I do not recall you showing much interest in Beethoven previously, but I accept that things can change. Possibly you are now a Beethoven devotee as well. If so, this must have occurred fairly recently since I clearly recall one instance, not that long ago, when you had no idea about a famous Beethoven work that came under discussion, having not even heard of it.


I think my comments are not unreasonable - as others have noted.

And since your position is being soundly debunked by notable authorities on this thread I think you had better do some serious reading and re-appraise your views.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Op.127 



 I sense feelings of optimism, hope, longing in moments like this one. I understand it in terms of Classical examples such as 




Op.131 sounds profound in sentimentality, like Romanticism, while not falling into the kind of 'cheap' over-sentimentality certain side of Romanticism has. In fact, I think it actualizes the true spirit of Romanticism more ideally than music of most Romantics.

Even if you would argue there are still a few sections that don't sound like what came before or after Beethoven, one could see them as 'exceptions'. There are exceptions to everything, as Woodduck says. I don't know what you think about those specific pieces I mentioned above, but this is just how I see them.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> In response to janxharris.
> 
> No, , this topic, has not been without some conclusions.
> 
> If we boil it down, can we say,
> Beethoven, as gorgeous as his music is at times,,,is more like a beautiful ,~~Vaneer~~,,whereas Mozart's masterpieces, are cut from the ~~Ancient wood~~ with deep true veins of solid real mahogany?
> 
> This may be what Ravel and Debussy, along with Bernstein was referring to when make criticism on Beethoven's music.
> At least this ~~veneerish~~ quality has been my experience of Beethoven's music.
> 
> Its engineered wood, nice, wonderful stuff, no doubt,,but when one digs deeper, its not as Mzoart's solid authentic wood from the ancient tree.
> 
> I have none of his music in my collection,,I just don't feel I am missing out on something,,,almost as if Beethoven's music did not exist, no big deal.
> 
> Just my 2 cents, mind you, ….
> 
> Or is it that Mozart's music , is so elevated, in my experience, Beethoven's sounds,,,may I say ~~antiquated~~, Yeah that's more like it.,....


That's a lot of conclusions about a composer whose music you don't have in your collection. But then, you did admit that it was only worth a couple of pennies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Compare this particular section from Beethoven Op.111 



with these sections in Chopin Op.10 No.12: 



and Op.25 No.12: 



Also, Hammerklavier slow movement, marked "Appassionato e con molto sentimento", sounds like a Romantic concept to me.



Partita said:


> That Beethoven remained largely true to the Classical model is the opinion of the distinguished musicologist and pianist, Charles Rosen, whose famous and influential book_ "The Classical Style"_ has been referred to on several several occasions in this thread.


Charles Rosen "used the song (Adelaide, Op. 46) to exemplify his claim that, somewhat paradoxically, Beethoven actually drew closer to the compositional practice of his predecessors Haydn and Mozart as his career evolved:

With age, Beethoven drew closer to the forms and proportions of Haydn and Mozart. In his youthful works, the imitation of his two great precursors is largely exterior: in technique and even in spirit, he is at the beginning of his career often closer to Hummel, Weber, and to the later works of Clementi than to Haydn and Mozart ... The equilibrium between harmonic and thematic development so characteristic of Haydn and Mozart is often lost in early Beethoven, where thematic contrast and transformation seem to outweigh all other interests. Beethoven, indeed, started as a true member of his generation, writing now in a proto-Romantic style and now in a late and somewhat attenuated version of the classical style, with an insistence on the kind of broad, square melodic structure that was to find its true justification later in the Romantic period of the 1830's. The early song Adelaide is as much Italian Romantic opera as anything else: its long, winding melody, symmetrical and passionate, its colorful modulations and aggressively simple accompaniment could come easily from an early work of Bellini."


----------



## DaveM

I’m dismayed at some of the comments about Mozart and Beethoven. Both represented accomplishments in classical music that will never be repeated. Making overall value judgements between them is impossible except to say that it is remarkable that Beethoven was not in the least bit intimidated by the Mozart legacy (as Brahms apparently was by Beethoven’s for a time) and composed highly original music in most of the various available formats without reminding of Mozart. Beethoven didn’t compose a Figaro, but Mozart didn’t compose a Sonata #32.

I do believe, arguably, that Beethoven, more than Mozart, influenced more composers that followed simply because so many of the elite-level Romantic composers lived soon after Beethoven, not to mention that Beethoven’s music was closer to the Romantic music that followed than Mozart’s classical style.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I also find the E minor Razumovsky String Quartet intriguing that in the beginning it has sections like 



 which remind me of Classical techniques such as 



but towards the end of the first movement, Beethoven starts to sound like Mendelssohn's E minor violin concerto.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> composed highly original music in most of the various available formats without reminding of Mozart. Beethoven didn't compose a Figaro, but Mozart didn't compose a Sonata #32.


Of course Beethoven did not compose the exact same thing as his predecessors. But he obviously had the Mozart piece (K546) in mind when he composed his own Sonata #32. Refer back to my post #245. Saying that he never did is just as ridiculous as saying Mozart had nothing to do with Michael Haydn. Beethoven even knew the Mozart piece pretty well, having written it down himself as a study (Hess 37). 
The flaw with some people's logic here is that - "No one else composed the exact same thing as him" - you can apply this logic to just about any great master of classical music tradition.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I think my comments are not unreasonable - as others have noted.
> 
> And since your position is being *soundly debunked by notable authorities* on this thread I think you had better do some serious reading and re-appraise your views.


 Yet another of your uninformed, wildly innacurate assertions.

The only "notable authorities" that have been mentioned in this thread are the ones I have referred to, Charles Rosen and William E Caplin.

I think you had better get back to Mozart as anything outside doesn't seem to be quite your forte.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course Beethoven did not compose the exact same thing as his predecessors. But he obviously had the Mozart piece (K546) in mind when he composed his own Sonata #32.


'Obviously?' Are you familiar with #32?



> Refer back to my post #245.


I did and realized that you took a comment such as EdwardBast's: '_Except nothing remotely like his late quartets and piano sonatas was composed in the Romantic Era.'_ and my comment about Figaro and Sonata #32 and dumbed them down to:



> The flaw with some people's logic here is that - "No one else composed the exact same thing as him" - you can apply this logic to just about any great master of classical music tradition.


Now, that is ridiculous.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> *Of course Beethoven did not compose the exact same thing as his predecessors. *But he obviously had the Mozart piece (K546) in mind when he composed his own Sonata #32. Refer back to my post #245. Saying that he never did is just as ridiculous as saying Mozart had nothing to do with Michael Haydn. Beethoven even knew the Mozart piece pretty well, having written it down himself as a study (Hess 37).
> *The flaw with some people's logic here is that - "No one else composed the exact same thing as him" - you can apply this logic to just about any great master of classical music tradition.*


These two comments in bold above nail one of the fallacies that several people in this thread have been basing their opinions upon - that because Beethoven didn't compose in exactly the same way as his predecessors he must have been either "unique" or Romantic in style. This is clearly wrong, as the Classical Style was not rigid but developed over time, and was interpreted differently by each composer.

There is a second fallacy lurking behind several peoples' comments. They're saying that Beethoven sounds different from Mozart and Haydn in terms of things like emotion, urgency, intensity and in various other cute-sounding ways. These people are deceiving themselves, and possibly a few gullible others besides. The Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by such attributes such as emotion, but rather by structure, form, harmony, etc. The only thing that's "unique" or Romantic about Beethoven's music is these peoples' reaction to it.


----------



## KenOC

Partita said:


> ...The Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by such attributes such as emotion, but rather by structure, form, harmony, etc.


Sorry, can't agree with that at all. Again, there seems to be a confusion over wine and the bottles it comes in.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I've noticed and talked about the uniqueness of Beethoven's styles - plural - for forty years. It isn't a novel notion. What's fishy about it?


Only 40 years? In the Wagner thread it was 50 years experience. You've got a bit of catching up to do with Beethoven. Come back in 10 years and I might believe you. I say "might", but don't hold your breath.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I would categorize Beethoven in "Transition period composers", with Schubert, Hummel, Dussek, Spohr, Weber, Danzi, Rossini etc. In fact, you could subdivide even further, early classical, late classical, early Romantic, late Romantic and argue that they all sound different.

_Mozart wrote to his father on 29 March 1783 about the musical gatherings in the apartments of Baron van Swieten: "we love to amuse ourselves with all kind of masters, ancient and modern." So music was the main object of these Kenner's interest - provided it was masterful. Occasionally, one of the other of the composers Mozart and his colleagues studied in these sessions is mentioned in the Mozart correspondence by name: Johann Ernst Eberlin, for instance, or Georg Friedrich Handel, or J.S. Bach and his sons Wilhelm Friedemann and Carl Phillp Emmanuel, or Michael Haydn. Some of these were still among the living; *the works Mozart and his colleagues examined were written for the most part in the first half of the eighteenth century. Nonetheless, some of the composers were already considered to be "old," or, to put it another way, "not modern."*
...
In the spring of 1783, when his father hesitated to send some of his own sacred compositions to Vienna, Mozart encouraged him to do so with the argument that Kenner knew full well, *"that musical taste is continually changing and what is more, that this extends even to church music, which ought not to be the case..."*_

http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf

This is how things were back then in the common practice period.


----------



## hammeredklavier

https://books.google.ca/books?id=2MPXSVcdzPUC&pg=PA99
_"Stylistically Spohr's and Beethoven's development as composers took them in diametrically opposite directions. The op. 18 quartets are the point at which they were closest, but from there their paths diverged. Beethoven moved away from the chromaticism of late Mozart towards a broader harmonic style; it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music marred by his chromatic melody.'"_

What do you think about this in regards to our discussion?
Where do you think Spohr belongs? Classical? or Romantic?


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> I do believe, arguably, that Beethoven, more than Mozart, influenced more composers that followed simply because so many of the elite-level Romantic composers lived soon after Beethoven, not to mention that Beethoven's music was closer to the Romantic music that followed than Mozart's classical style.


Do you really think that composers after Beethoven took their lead and inspiration from the manner and style of his music? I don't think so. Whilst they were all mightily impressed with what Beethoven achieved, I believe from all I have read that they largely went off in another direction altogether. I accept that Brahms was an exception, but that was quite a few years later.

Beethoven's music was generally rooted in the abstract, i.e. "absolute" music. Following his death, there was nothing like a clean break with the "old", and there was variation among them, but the most famous of the early Romantics adopted an approach that was much more heavily based on the use of literature as the main source of inspiration for their work.

Music became generally more "programmatic" in style. Schumann is perhaps the main example here, with his great interest in Romantic poetry, but there are other examples. In order to accommodate this switch, new music forms were required, e.g. the "symphonic poem" of Liszt. Wagner, of course, had completely revolutionary ideas about opera that were even further removed from those current in Beethovenian era.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> Yet another of your uninformed, wildly innacurate assertions.
> 
> The only "notable authorities" that have been mentioned in this thread are the ones I have referred to, Charles Rosen and William E Caplin.
> 
> I think you had better get back to Mozart as anything outside doesn't seem to be quite your forte.


So are you saying that only published musicologists have anything worth saying? We have on this board authorities as far as I am concerned - members who have demonstrated substantial well researched understanding - and generally they disagree with you. As Wooduck has pointed out - Rosen's arguments and analysis are open to critique.

In any case I can see your main gripe with my comments is my statement that Mozart is the greatest classical era composer. I don't know quite why you take this so personally.


----------



## hammeredklavier

It seems some people here haven't seen these yet:

_"Beethoven was fully aware of the tradition that Haydn had established and it influenced him strongly in writing the Mass in C major. Beethoven confessed in a letter to the prince: "may I just say that I will hand the mass over to you with great trepidation, as Your Serene Highness is accustomed to having the inimitable masterworks of the great Haydn performed." Lewis Lockwood writes:
On accepting the prince's commission *Beethoven had praised Haydn's masses, calling them "inimitable masterpieces."* Beethoven meant it. He clearly studied Haydn's masses while composing his own, no doubt for reasons far beyond the fact that the Esterházys had commissioned it, as we see from his sketches for the Gloria. The sketches include two passes copied from the Gloria of Haydn's Schöpfungsmesse ("Creation Mass"), one of four late Haydn masses easily available to Beethoven in published editions."_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_C_major_(Beethoven)

_"After hearing the work in a rehearsal, Beethoven reportedly remarked to a colleague that "[w]e shall never be able to do anything like that."_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._24_(Mozart)

_"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."_ -Johannes Brahms, 1896
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135

Was Brahms more intimidated by Beethoven's legacy than Beethoven was by Haydn's and Mozart's?


----------



## KenOC

Brahms is quoted as saying, "You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission—his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like."

I wonder if Brahms was aware that Beethoven's 4th and 5th symphonies, and many other fine works, were written on commission. Evidently not.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Partita said:


> These two comments in bold above nail one of the fallacies that several people in this thread have been basing their opinions upon - that because Beethoven didn't compose in exactly the same way as his predecessors he must have been either "unique" or Romantic in style. This is clearly wrong, as the Classical Style was not rigid but developed over time, and was interpreted differently by each composer.
> 
> There is a second fallacy lurking behind several peoples' comments. They're saying that Beethoven sounds different from Mozart and Haydn in terms of things like emotion, urgency, intensity and in various other cute-sounding ways. *These people are deceiving themselves, and possibly a few gullible others besides.* The Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by such attributes such as emotion, but rather by structure, form, harmony, etc. The only thing that's "unique" or Romantic about Beethoven's music is these peoples' reaction to it.


Ha ha ha - clearly we lack your superior understanding, but then of course - we have not read Rosen's book.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> Brahms is quoted as saying, "You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like."
> 
> I wonder if Brahms was aware that Beethoven's 4th and 5th symphonies, and many other fine works, were written on commission. Evidently not.


and the 9th symphony - which a British organisation paid £100 for.

Im afraid Brahm's had an idealised, but false notion about what drove Beethoven to compose quality music.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> These two comments in bold above nail *one** of the fallacies that several people in this thread have been basing their opinions upon - that because Beethoven didn't compose in exactly the same way as his predecessors he must have been either "unique" or Romantic in style.* This is clearly wrong, as the Classical Style was not rigid but developed over time, and was interpreted differently by each composer.


This is a straw man argument. EVERYONE is aware that Beethoven didn't compose music in exactly the same style as Haydn or Mozart, and NO ONE is claiming that that fact is sufficient to prove that he was a Romantic composer. That would indeed be a fallacious argument if anyone were to make it, but I haven't seen anyone do so. Most of us are smarter than that, I think.



> There is a second fallacy lurking behind several peoples' comments. They're saying that Beethoven sounds different from Mozart and Haydn in terms of things like emotion, urgency, intensity and in various other cute-sounding ways.


I don't know what sounds "cute" to you, but I never thought that pointing out differences between the expressive qualities of different composers might be described that way. You must be aware that when we talk about the Romantic movement as a broad cultural and artistic phenomenon we are talking about a distinct change in the artist's view of what it's appropriate and desirable for art to SAY. Applied to music, this is precisely and fundamentally a question of emotional content. Romantic music is interested in expressing certain emotional qualities which it deems of particular importance, and this is what most people, who may have no technical understanding of music, perceive in it, and how they differentiate it from other styles of music. This is true despite any disputes we may have about how or whether to assign a particular work or composers to one (somewhat fuzzy) category or another.



> The Classical Style and Romantic Style are not differentiated by such attributes such as emotion, but rather by structure, form, harmony, etc.


The dichotomy is artificial. By the very nature of music form and meaning are not separable. Different sounds, forms and techniques have different expressive uses, and different expressive goals require different sounds, forms and techniques. Beethoven's 5th is, in sound, form and technique, conspicuously unlike anything ever conceived by Haydn, Mozart or anyone else up to that time. But what we first notice about it is that it blows Classical decorum to smithereens. Goethe found it astonishing, E.T.A. Hoffmann found in it the essence of Romanticism, others found it terrifying. Heck, the first time I heard it played at Beethoven's marked tempos even _I_ found it terrifying! To deny the unprecedented character of such music and its effect on later (Romantic) composers is to be willfully deaf.



> The only thing that's "unique" or Romantic about Beethoven's music is these peoples' reaction to it.


Your dogmatic tendentiousness here lands you in complete absurdity. The uniqueness of Beethoven's vision and the remarkable evolution of his style is unmistakable to listeners far less experienced than you, and I'm sure it's actually quite obvious to you too. I don't know why you want to go to such extremes in denying it.

Whether we find the Classical or the Romantic elements in Beethoven's music more appealing or worthy of note is unimportant. What's important is to recognize them when we hear them, and then to understand in what ways he absorbed and transmitted the sensibilities of the revolutionary era in which he lived. He most certainly did that, and with a distinctiveness and power that has no doubt helped to form our very image of that time.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> There are thoughts that have brewing inside me, every since my early days over at CMC/GMG,* but never had the courage to stand up to the bullies over at those 2 sites.* Now here, there seems to be a lot more tolerance and even support for me to get these things off my chest.
> 
> yeah,,,its a good feeling,,,i should say I have more courage now,,that I know all you guys are sleeping in late this Saturday morning..i don;'t feel like i'll be pounced on....scrammmm


and what did those bullies say when you dismissed Mozarts violin concertos as duds?


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I would categorize Beethoven in *"Transition period composers*", with Schubert, Hummel, Dussek, Spohr, Weber, Danzi, Rossini etc. In fact, you could subdivide even further, early classical, late classical, early Romantic, late Romantic and argue that they all sound different.


 Yes, of course Beethoven was a "transition period" composer, along with the others you mention. I would not argue with that for one moment. He lived in interesting times when the social/political backcloth of Europe was changing rapidly.

There were developments in "Romantic" music going on all around him in the early 19th C, and he probably came under pressure to write music in this style. I would accept that some of it, "Adelaide", possibly was quasi-Romantic.

Nor do I dispute that a lot of his mid/late career music does "sound" different from that of Mozart and Haydn, as though it's packed with more emotion and is more deeply reflective than what might have been deemed proper in earlier times. In fact, Beethoven is my favourite composer for these reasons, with Schubert a close second. I am therefore not in any way trying to diminish Beethoven's reputation.

However, none of this persuades me that Beethoven was anything other than a Classicist at heart. He pushed Classicism into previously unexplored areas. I base this opinion not on my own musicological expertise because I openly confess that I am not an expert in this area, and have never pretended to be. Rather it is largely reflective of the professional opinions of people (see earlier posts) I have much more reason to accept as being more valid rather than those of unknown pundits on forums like this one, even though some of them are very sensible people.

I accept that my opinions may be wrong, as there can be no certainty in any of this given that Beethoven was indeed a "transition" composer when styles were in a state of flux. On reflection, if it suits some people to argue that Beethoven's mid/late period works took Classicsm into such new territory that it cannot be described as "Classical" then I don't think that I would wish to pursue that matter any further. It's a definitional problem that cannot be easily resolved.


----------



## DaveM

Partita said:


> Do you really think that composers after Beethoven took their lead and inspiration from the manner and style of his music? I don't think so. Whilst they were all mightily impressed with what Beethoven achieved, I believe from all I have read that they largely went off in another direction altogether...


Did I say anything about 'manner and style of music'. Since when does the fact that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven influenced composers who followed mean that their music was supposed to have the manner and style of their music.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> Beethoven's music was generally rooted in the abstract, i.e. "absolute" music. Following his death, there was nothing like a clean break with the "old", and there was variation among them, but the most famous of the early Romantics adopted an approach that was much more heavily based on the use of literature as the main source of inspiration for their work.
> 
> Music became generally more "programmatic" in style. Schumann is perhaps the main example here, with his great interest in Romantic poetry, but there are other examples. In order to accommodate this switch, new music forms were required, e.g. the "symphonic poem" of Liszt. Wagner, of course, had completely revolutionary ideas about opera that were even further removed from those current in Beethovenian era.


The distinction between "programmatic" and "abstract" music was not clear-cut in Beethoven's time, and it only became something of a fetish - exemplified in the critical work of Eduard Hanslick - later on, as a reaction against the more extreme tendencies of Romanticism. The programmatic qualities of Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 6th and 9th symphonies - the sense that they present musical dramas, narratives, pictures, poetic ideas - is impossible to avoid, and the same can be said of a number of the piano sonatas and overtures.

Remember that Romanticism as a cultural movement was well under way by the time Beethoven produced these works. Even Mozart's and Haydn's late works were understood by their contemporaries as more than entertaining patterns of sound, and the line between expressive music and "program" music is not sharp. One of the things that makes people want to classify Beethoven as a Romantic composer is precisely the sense that even in his "abstract" works he seems to be trying to communicate something specific and significant, utilizing dramatic and even pictorially suggestive devices which can't be understood in terms of "pure" music.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> ...Was Brahms more intimidated by Beethoven's legacy than Beethoven was by Haydn's and Mozart's?


Brahms delayed composing some of his biggest works until they could meet a standard that (he believed) was set by Beethoven. Do you have some evidence that Beethoven did the same when it came to standards set by Haydn and Mozart?


----------



## Larkenfield

Who _is_ to blame for the classical era?


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> So are you saying that only published musicologists have anything worth saying? We have on this board authorities as far as I am concerned - members who have demonstrated substantial well researched understanding - and generally they disagree with you. As Wooduck has pointed out - Rosen's arguments and analysis are open to critique.
> 
> In any case I can see your main gripe with my comments is my statement that Mozart is the greatest classical era composer. I don't know quite why you take this so personally.


 If you had read my earlier post correctly you would have noticed that I wasn't relying exclusively upon the famous book by Charles Rosen. I also referred to another fairly modern book on the same subject by William E Caplin:

"_Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven_. - Oxford University Press (1998). ​
From the title, I trust you will see that it includes three composers, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. It's a while since I glanced through that book, and I don't possess a copy right now. As fas as I recall it reaches similar overall conclusion to those of Rosen, that all of these composers were basically Classical "birds of a feather". In fact, I don't have a copy of Rosen's book either, having loaned it out a few years ago and not having received it back.

You are welcome to choose which members of this Forum you consider have _"demonstrated substantial well researched understanding"_ (to use your expression), but I don't have to agree with you.

Besides, an insufficient number of informed members have joined in this discussion. I recall discussing this same matter on a Beethoven specialist music forum site many years ago, and there was a much more balanced and informed discussion than this, with opinion dividing more evenly on the matter of whether Beethoven remained largely Classical, or moved to something else at some stage.

That's why I accept there are valid differences of opinion. It was that discussion that prompted me to acquire the books by Charles Rosen and William Caplin, as I found it difficult to follow what was being said without them. Having read them, to the limited extent of my abilities, I thought that the best interpretation was that Beethoven remained Classical in style, albeit possibly tending towards Romantic in sprit.

The few people at T-C I tended to have some faith in regarding musicology matters have disappeared from this site. I find some of the current "musicology" experts on this Forum either too obviously biased in the direction of one composer or another, or they write badly so that it's not entirely clear what they're trying to say. That's not to say that they don't occasionally come up with useful observations. I do rather tend to discount badly written comments, and prefer the more eloquent ones, as I find the latter to be a good indicator of general intelligence and knowledge in this area. Those who simply nit-pick and make stupid comments, well what can I say?


----------



## janxharris

Just maybe the root of the problem here (and elsewhere) is the assertion of the supposed 'big three'. There is no 'big' three - rather - we have three composers that are the most recorded/performed/popular.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DaveM said:


> Brahms delayed composing some of his biggest works until they could meet a standard that (he believed) was set by Beethoven. Do you have some evidence that Beethoven did the same when it came to standards set by Haydn and Mozart?


Well, had it not been for Haydn and Mozart's legacy, it's possible Beethoven would have composed 10-minute long symphonies starting at a very early age. Conversely, there's not really evidence Beethoven was the reason and the only reason Brahms delayed composing certain works and destroyed his early works. Brahms's first piano concerto, for example, is reminiscent of both Mozart and Beethoven. But it is true Brahms throughout his life was intimidated by Beethoven's legacy. But Haydn and Mozart's legacy didn't become less relevant with the coming of Beethoven, and I think this was what Brahms was really trying to say.

By the way, I would personally consider Beethoven's first symphony more of a masterpiece than the insincere finale of his ninth symphony.


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> Just maybe the root of the problem here (and elsewhere) is the assertion of the supposed 'big three'. There is no 'big' three - rather - we have three composers that are the most recorded/performed/popular.


BINGO!

Now we have a valid and contemporary viewpoint.
A New Perspective. 
These boxes called, baroque/classical/romantic/modern/post modern, are only generalizations, as a means to a end. 
But the end result is what we are after. That is the music itself. 
I guess 50 yrs ago, it could never be dotbed the greatness of these 3 composers. 
Walk in any Tower store back in the 1970's and it was these 3 composers whose bins were biggest.
Fine, So they wrote great music.
Now today, some 50 yrs later, post LP days, we step into the epoch of YT, , where we can experiment and sample any composer we wish, just have to put up with the annoying ads. 
This is quite a amazing event , as back in the LP days, you could break the piggy in one trip to the LP store,,,,Now we have access to everything.

Seems the big 3 , now finally have ,,competition on their hands.

Its obviously they will lose some glimmer and shine.

With MP 3 ( a format I will never use, as I have a stereo) and other samplings technology, everyone has easy access to any composer,all 10K+.

Bach, Mozart, Beethoven will not be the only brightest stars in the firmament. 
This is a good thing.

This art must live on, and if Mozart's Violin concertos are not delivering the goods, now we have other composers that can, bring us life. 
To me, most all of Szymanowski's works , I personally find more interesting and living art, than Mozart's 5 Violin Concertos. 
I do not need Mozart's 5 violin concertos, These can just go straight to the dungeon vault .But they won't, as the musical schools and The Classical Establishment will make dang sure they remain for the ages. 
I really hate those concertos. In spite of the fact I really love Mozart's music.
Now we can make a choice and a personal preference in our choices.
We do not need to listen and obey any propaganda. 
We can listen,, reflect and make our own individual choice apart from The Establishments propaganda machine, which is programed for their interests only.

I've been noticing with my preferences, if its popular, there is a good chance I won't take to it. 
Not sure why, maybe my early days in raock I always sought the underground bands, , and so this gigging for gold has carried over into my classical music valuations. 
Not sure.
anyway, Surely the top 3 composers will not remain in these positions forever.

Eventually things will change, new music listeners.

Wat I am afraid of, is a long distant , post modern group will skip over all previous epochs and tend towards only the contemporary composers in their time. IOW members of the music community will more highly value music of the past 100 yrs, more than any other previous, so in the year 2110, it will be the music of 2019-2119 which will be most beloved. .
I fear this may occur,, which would be a great tragedy and regrettable loss.

It will be their decision which composers see the most play time, has greater value. 
Our opinions today, will not alter what is fated to come.

At that time, not only your beloved Beethoven, Bruckner and Mahler may collect the dust, but my Szymanowski, Henze and Pettersson also may be lost to the dark cellar vaults.


----------



## paulbest

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, had it not been for Haydn and Mozart's legacy, it's possible Beethoven would have composed 10-minute long symphonies starting at a very early age. Conversely, there's not really evidence Beethoven was the reason and the only reason Brahms delayed composing certain works and destroyed his early works. Brahms's first piano concerto, for example, is reminiscent of both Mozart and Beethoven. But it is true Brahms throughout his life was intimidated by Beethoven's legacy. But Haydn and Mozart's legacy didn't become less relevant with the coming of Beethoven, and I think this was what Brahms was really trying to say.
> 
> By the way, I would personally consider Beethoven's first symphony more of a masterpiece than the insincere finale of his ninth symphony.
> 
> My Oh my, you really area Beethovenian, ,,,1st sym, masterpiece?
> Now that's a new one,,,and no, never heard it, have no desire to. call my a bigot....
> 
> Yet with the coming of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach, lost some of their glimmerings.
> 
> I mean a great perf of Beethoven was surely much kore pop than a crappy perf of any Mozart piece,,,and orchestras were concentrating more on LvB than bach, Mozart and Hayden,,,it was all about the $$$, and Beethoven continues to sell.
> 
> But days are coming where this may change,,,Beethoven may slip a spot or 2 over the next 50 yrs.
> Or you don;'t think, perhaps , Beethoven has been advertised , even propagandized a bit too often?


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Just maybe the root of the problem here (and elsewhere) is the assertion of the supposed 'big three'. There is no 'big' three - rather - we have three composers that are the most recorded/performed/popular.


Are you saying that, Grosse Fuge (which you often express your admiration for, by quoting Stravinsky) and a whole host of Beethoven works don't deserve their the attention and recognition they get today?


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> If you had read my earlier post correctly you would have noticed that I wasn't relying exclusively upon the famous book by Charles Rosen. I also referred to another fairly modern book on the same subject by William E Caplin:
> 
> "_Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven_. - Oxford University Press (1998). ​
> From the title, I trust you will see that it includes three composers, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. It's a while since I glanced through that book, and I don't possess a copy right now. As fas as I recall it reaches similar overall conclusion to those of Rosen, that all of these composers were basically Classical "birds of a feather". In fact, I don't have a copy of Rosen's book either, having loaned it out a few years ago and not having received it back.
> 
> You are welcome to choose which members of this Forum you consider have _"demonstrated substantial well researched understanding"_ (to use your expression), but I don't have to agree with you.
> 
> Besides, an insufficient number of informed members have joined in this discussion. I recall discussing this same matter on a Beethoven specialist music forum site many years ago, and there was a much more balanced and informed discussion than this, with opinion dividing more evenly on the matter of whether Beethoven remained largely Classical, or moved to something else at some stage.
> 
> The few people at T-C I tended to have some faith in regarding musicology matters have disappeared from this site. I find some of the current "musicology" experts on this Forum either too obviously biased in the direction of one composer or another, or they write badly so that it's not entirely clear what they're trying to say. That's not to say that they don't occasionally come up with useful observations. I do rather tend to discount badly written comments, and prefer the more eloquent ones, as I find the latter to be a good indicator of general intelligence and knowledge in this area. Those who simply nit-pick and make stupid comments, well what can I say?


Well as it has been written, A Brave New World is coming,,(man I hate that book,. Huxley was a schikster,a fraud and a fake).

So you prefer the more highly refined, educated, rhetorical style , which is like reading flowing poetry. 
I prefer the more direct, get on with the subect, and a well rounded style, which takes in micro and macro perspectives,,,looking back and forwards. 
If its rough style, does not bother,, its the content I am considering.

My style is a like a garage sale or thrift store, ,,one mans treasure is anothers junk, but there is always something for everyone.



and I love to throw out~~ludicrous ~~ if not ~~preposterous~~ *opinions*,,,others tag this in another more common slang descript 
which I can understand where they are coming from.

But if we don't ask the right q's now, we might never get to the bottom of the issues. 
I like to poke and jab , shakes things up and this jolting might trigger a landslide of new thoughts in the discussion,,and low behold, gold is seen on the mountain side, as the debris gave way.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> The distinction between "programmatic" and "abstract" music was not clear-cut in Beethoven's time, and it only became something of a fetish - exemplified in the critical work of Eduard Hanslick - later on, as a reaction against the more extreme tendencies of Romanticism. The programmatic qualities of Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 6th and 9th symphonies - the sense that they present musical dramas, narratives, pictures, poetic ideas - is impossible to avoid, and the same can be said of a number of the piano sonatas and overtures.
> 
> Remember that Romanticism as a cultural movement was well under way by the time Beethoven produced these works. Even Mozart's and Haydn's late works were understood by their contemporaries as more than entertaining patterns of sound, and the line between expressive music and "program" music is not sharp. One of the things that makes people want to classify Beethoven as a Romantic composer is precisely the sense that even in his "abstract" works he seems to be trying to communicate something specific and significant, utilizing dramatic and even pictorially suggestive devices which can't be understood in terms of "pure" music.


I am aware that the terms "programmatic" and "abstract" music were not used in Beethoven's time, and I have not doubted that Romanticism in music was already under way then. I also accept that Beethoven wrote some "programmatic" music, if we include operatic and stage works like _Fidelio_, _Coriolan_ and various others. There may be other examples, e.g. certain songs and his song cycle, _An die ferne Geliebte._

What I said, however, was that the bulk of Beethoven's output, the works for which he is most famous, is rooted in the abstract, i.e. "absolute" music with no specific story or meaning attached to it. This covers all of chamber music, all of his piano sonatas, all of his concertos, and all but one of his symphonies, the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] "_Pastoral"_ which has a countryside image.

I do not regard the "_Eroica"_, _Fifth_ or the _Ninth_ symphonies as programmatic works as such. The _Ninth_ was certainly designed to make a powerful statement, but programmatic I think not. As for the _Eroica_ and _Fifth_, these were also possibly designed to make some kind of statement by being rather more than purely abstract works. But they do not a tell as such, or reflect some literary work, or mirror a painting, etc. I might perhaps call them "elevated abstract" works, in that they try to project some kind of message, but of an unclear kind. Maybe these symphonies are examples of your notion that Beethoven created works that are unique to him.

Descriptive music of various kinds had existed for a long time before Beethoven, but it was not until the Romantic Era proper got under way that purely orchestral programme music or chamber programme music became more popular, and developed close links with literature. That was after Beethoven's death in 1827. An early good example was, of course, Berlioz' _Symphonie fantastique_ of 1830, which was an epic story set to music of an artist's self-destructive passion for a beautiful woman. This kind of music became more commonplace as the Romantic Era got further under way, with the likes of Schumann's fascination with the poetry of Jean Paul and Liszt's tone poems based on various literary images. With Wagner I do not to say any more.

Seeing himself as a dedicated follower of Beethoven, Brahms tried to reverse this trend by doggedly refusing to write any "programmatic" music as such.  But he was also influenced to some extent by the works of Schubert and his friend, Robert Schumann. Indeed, Brahms spent a great deal time helping to sift through the great piles of unpublished works of Schubert. He also played a major role in helping Clara Schumann decide which of Robert Schumann's last works were fit for retention and those which should get the chop, or be shelved. I don't think there's any known record of which works by Robert Schumann were destroyed in this way, but some were definitely held back. I would reckon that these factors (i.e. the literary-inspired Schubert and Schumann) might have had a softening impact on Brahms' reluctance to avoid the programmatic style altogether. He did after all write many songs and some song cycles. But that's another subject.


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> I am aware that the terms "programmatic" and "abstract" music were not used in Beethoven's time, and I have not doubted that Romanticism in music was already under way then. I also accept that Beethoven wrote some "programmatic" music, if we include operatic and stage works like _Fidelio_, _Coriolan_ and various others. There may be other examples, e.g. certain songs and his song cycle, _An die ferne Geliebte._
> 
> What I said, however, was that the bulk of Beethoven's output, the works for which he is most famous, is rooted in the abstract, i.e. "absolute" music with no specific story or meaning attached to it. This covers all of chamber music, all of his piano sonatas, all of his concertos, and all but one of his symphonies, the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] "_Pastoral"_ which has a countryside image.
> 
> I do not regard the "_Eroica"_, _Fifth_ or the _Ninth_ symphonies as programmatic works as such. The _Ninth_ was certainly designed to make a powerful statement, but programmatic I think not. As for the _Eroica_ and _Fifth_, these were also possibly designed to make some kind of statement by being rather more than purely abstract works. But they do not a tell as such, or reflect some literary work, or mirror a painting, etc. I might perhaps call them "elevated abstract" works, in that they try to project some kind of message, but of an unclear kind. Maybe these symphonies are examples of your notion that Beethoven created works that are unique to him.
> 
> Descriptive music of various kinds had existed for a long time before Beethoven, but it was not until the Romantic Era proper got under way that purely orchestral programme music or chamber programme music became more popular, and
> 
> .


 Great post. 
Now I can understand why I am not attracted to Beethoven,. It has no real story, other than the 6th/Pastoral , the descript in music of the country side life in his day which does a good job of painting this imagery.
His 4th is very stylish in the classical era, each movement connected with before and after, and is unlike the 3rd,5th syms. 
I've seen a few others who agree his 4th is Beethoven's finest sym. There is a certain cohesiveness which is also found in all Mozart's syms.

Abstract you say,,,music for the sake of music. Its like Beethoven is saying *watch me, look at what I can do*,,someone posted a link to a comment about how Beethoven's music was taken up by the French revolutionary movement as a call to power and force. I can hear this in his music, Where there is power there is a way,,Nietzsche's Will to Power.
THe music now for the New French Revolution is that of Pettersson, but they don't know it. \
Pettersson portrays exactly in music, whats taking place there in france.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you saying that, Grosse Fuge (which you often express your admiration for, by quoting Stravinsky) and a whole host of Beethoven works don't deserve their the attention and recognition they get today?


I'm not saying that, no. Rather, that the use of the term 'the big three' emboldens some to think that their view has objective weight.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


> ..By the way, I would personally consider Beethoven's first symphony more of a masterpiece than the insincere finale of his ninth symphony.


You're entitled to your opinion, but you're alone on that island. Btw, I'm not sure how a symphonic movement can be sincere or insincere.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Haydn and Mozart's legacy didn't become less relevant with the coming of Beethoven, and I think this was what Brahms was really trying to say.


What evidence do you have for this? Aside from general acknowledgement of Mozart's mastery, do you hear his specific influence in composers after, say, Schubert? And "Papa Haydn"? What did later composers make of him?



> By the way, I would personally consider Beethoven's first symphony more of a masterpiece than the insincere finale of his ninth symphony.


O Freunde! Nicht diese Toene!

The idea that Beethoven was "insincere" about his 9th is risible. You may not care for it, but be assured that Lud jolly well meant what he wrote. And for what it's worth, I'm with the majority in thinking that the entire symphony is astounding, and one of the monuments of Western music.

But we agree that the First Symphony is, on its own terms, a masterpiece, often underestimated.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Great post.
> Now I can understand why I am not attracted to Beethoven,. *It has no real story,* other than the 6th/Pastoral , the descript in music of the country side life in his day which does a good job of painting this imagery.
> His 4th is very stylish in the classical era, each movement connected with before and after, and is unlike the 3rd,5th syms.
> I've seen a few others who agree his 4th is Beethoven's finest sym. There is a certain cohesiveness which is also found in all Mozart's syms.
> 
> Abstract you say,,,music for the sake of music. Its like Beethoven is saying *watch me, look at what I can do*,,someone posted a link to a comment about how Beethoven's music was taken up by the French revolutionary movement as a call to power and force. I can hear this in his music, Where there is power there is a way,,Nietzsche's Will to Power.
> THe music now for the New French Revolution is that of Pettersson, but they don't know it. \
> Pettersson portrays exactly in music, whats taking place there in france.


Mozart's piano concertos also have no story - and yet you are attracted to them

explain

Tchaik's Manfred has a story - do you like that work?


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> Mozart's piano concertos also have no story - and yet you are attracted to them
> 
> explain
> 
> Tchaik's Manfred has a story - do you like that work?


I actually did find Tchai's Manfred a real delight. I may even, and will , go to YT today and give it a reminiscent listen.

Mozart's 20-27 PC's, all are written in a much finer, developed score. 
Much more complexity and dynamics going on. Story no, But poetics, full of charm, yes, 
Things I just do not hear in Beethoven's 5 piano concertos, Beethoven;s concertos are way over programmed.
Stiff and predictable.

. 
Beethoven is like pre fab, vaneer, Mozart is chisled from the ancient tree.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Woodduck said:


> Well, extracting moments like that doesn't show much; there's a lot more to that mass than a few forceful climactic effects. But we all have our likes and dislikes. Personally, I dislike most Classical era sacred choral works to some extent, at least compared with the greatest manifestations of the Baroque and Renaissance. I think Haydn and Mozart themselves were aware that the music of their time had sacrificed the capacity to express certain things - specifically transcendental (religious) feeling - which is why Classical composers (and Romantic ones too) studied Bach, Handel and even older composers, and tried to incorporate some of their thinking. *I find in the sacred choral works of Haydn and Mozart a less than felicitous blending, or merely a juxtaposition, of neo-Baroque sublimity and relatively shallow, even frivolous, Classical sentiment, which makes these works unappealing except in certain sections (generally the ones that sound most Baroque)*. I'm not a big fan of Beethoven's efforts in the genre either, but he does seem to be aiming at a more integrated style, and achieves it in the _Missa Solemnis._


I agree completely! I contribute the "success" of Mozarts Requiem mainly to the fact that it's actually a Baroque piece in a bad disguise. I don't like it and it's so not Mozart. I don't know any religious work in the classical era that I like.


----------



## tdc

Razumovskymas said:


> I agree completely!* I contribute the "success" of Mozarts Requiem mainly to the fact that it's actually a Baroque piece in a bad disguise*. I don't like it and it's so not Mozart. I don't know any religious work in the classical era that I like.


That doesn't make any sense.

I love Mozart's Requiem, I think he fuses elements of Baroque brilliantly with his own style.


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> I'm not saying that, no. Rather, that the use of the term 'the big three' emboldens some to think that their view has objective weight.


I think it has _some_ objective weight to it, but nothing in music is completely objective. Pointing out the lack of pure objectivity in music in itself does not provide any kind of a valuable insight, except perhaps to those that think their views on music are 100% objective, I can't say I've come across very much of that at TC. I do think there are other composers that arguably deserve the same high standing.


----------



## Larkenfield

Razumovskymas said:


> I agree completely! I contribute the "success" of Mozarts Requiem mainly to the fact that it's actually a Baroque piece in a bad disguise. I don't like it and it's so not Mozart. I don't know any religious work in the classical era that I like.


It's always enlightening to read individuals who are apparently not that religiously inclined commenting on the sacred works of Mozart or anybody else as if they understood the relationship between the music and the Latin texts they probably haven't read in months or years or ever, nor probably care about. Not that one has to be a Catholic to appreciate the Latin texts but only to appreciate that Mozart and Haydn and their temporaries probably held them dear. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard reading the criticism and reservations about sacred works from a secular point of view... and that's what it is: secular criticism about religious works from those who aren't inclined in a strongly religious direction in the first place nor apparently have respect or understanding for those religious works by composers who do. Read the Latin texts sometimes of the masses or requiems before commenting on sacred works, because the music would have no reason for being without them. Both Joseph and Michael Haydn and Mozart wrote tremendous sacred works that are still performed today. And Mozart wrote a whole series of sacred works for the Masons with one of the most famous being...


----------



## paulbest

Had Mozart lived to complete the great Requiem, we would have something even more ,,magnificent. 
Great pity, he never lived to complete the masterpiece,,The latin verses are incredible how Mozart put this religious imagination into music.
I despise Catholicism, still I can appreciate the latin imaginational religious temper


----------



## hammeredklavier

Razumovskymas said:


> I agree completely! I contribute the "success" of Mozarts Requiem mainly to the fact that it's actually a Baroque piece in a bad disguise. I don't like it and it's so not Mozart. I don't know any religious work in the classical era that I like.


I agree with Woodduck's description of the heavenly transcendence baroque works such as Bach Mass in B minor achieve,
while I agree classical choral works don't quite reach that sort of transcendence,
instead, they often invoke terror, hellish visions in a way baroque pieces do not.
'It's so not Mozart', what do you mean,
It's the kind of music Mozart had written all his life: 




I remember Dimace also saying once he thinks Mozart didn't write in this style until the Requiem or something like that.

_"Mozart's Requiem had an overwhelming effect from the outset - on concert audiences, of course, but also on generations of composers. Even Beethoven, who was himself nothing if not a radical musical spirit, found it "too wild and terrible". He was going to write one himself, but more "conciliatory" in manner." _
http://www.heinrichvontrotta.eu/Harnoncourt/HMI/2004-82876-58705-2-Mozart-Requiem.html


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


>


Most orchestras play this piece at MODERATO, when it's marked ADAGIO.






This is still too fast






This feels a little too slow.

I can't find good performance of this piece in proper tempo


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> What evidence do you have for this? Aside from general acknowledgement of Mozart's mastery, do you hear his specific influence in composers after, say, Schubert?






Compare with Mozart Fantasy in C minor K475: 








Compare with Mozart's 40th symphony

_"As Wolfgang Plath has pointed out, the influence of Mozart's Fantasy in F minor, K. 608 was considerable in the nineteenth century. Aside from the editions, manuscripts, and arrangements already mentioned, many public performances can be documented. Beethoven owned the work and made his own arrangement of the fugue. Schubert's F Minor Fantasy for piano four-hands, op. 103 (D. 940, 1828), suggests his reaction to the whole of Mozart's piece, whereas Franz Lachner's Wind Octet in B flat, op. 156 (1859) demonstrates his reception of the Andante"
"As already mentioned, the two principal manuscript copies of K. 608 are on four staves; one is in the Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, the other in the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna. The four-staff version of the work in both manuscripts and in the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe can without further ado be played four-hands," _
https://www.loc.gov/collections/mol...e-to-archives/allegro-and-andante-in-f-minor/



Woodduck said:


> And "Papa Haydn"? What did later composers make of him?


_"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

6:20











_"Schoenberg also praises Haydn for his complex, irregular phrasing and harmonic exploration."_
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25746250?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Haydn also taught Hummel,

_"it is interesting that, having influenced Haydn, Bach (CPE) later allowed himself to be influenced by the younger composer, just as Haydn later influenced and was influenced by Mozart."_
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-Philipp-Emanuel-Bach


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> It's always enlightning to read individuals who are apparently not that religiously inclined commenting on the sacred works of Mozart or anybody else as if they understood the relationship between the effectiveness of the music with the Latin texts they probably haven't read in months or years or ever, nor probably care about. Not that one has to be a Catholic to appreciate the Latin texts but only to appreciate that Mozart and Haydn and their temporaries probably held them dear. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard reading the criticism and reservations about sacred works from a secular point of view... and that's what it is: secular criticism about religious works from those who aren't inclined in a strongly religious direction in the first place nor apparently have respect for those religious works by composers who do. Read the Latin texts sometimes of the masses or requiems before commenting on sacred works, because the music would have no reason for being without them. Both Joseph and Michael Haydn and Mozart wrote tremendous sacred works that are still performed today.


While I can appreciate that Catholics might be wary of non-Catholics' comments on their doctrines, I don't think religious individuals have any grounds for criticizing nonbelievers for their opinions of musical works employing religious texts. Music is not the property of any religion, and musical settings of religious texts tell us nothing about the beliefs of their composers or of the people whose job it is to perform them. A Buddhist can sing a Bach aria with as much comprehension and conviction as a Lutheran, and an atheistic musicologist may actually have greater sensitivity to the way in which Brahms sets a sacred text than a Christian.

"Secularity" is not some sort of psychic defect. Having been on the inside of more than one religious tradition in my fairly long lifetime, I won't accept anyone's claim that I'm unqualified to comment on religious works of art. Art speaks to human nature, and religious people have no monopoly on that.


----------



## Larkenfield

Sublime performances by Friedrich Gulda and Claudio Abbado of Mozart's sublime Piano Concertos 20 & 21:

No. 20: 













No. 21:


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> _"Mozart's Requiem had an overwhelming effect from the outset - on concert audiences, of course, but also on generations of composers. Even Beethoven, who was himself nothing if not a radical musical spirit, found it "too wild and terrible". He was going to write one himself, but more "conciliatory" in manner." _
> http://www.heinrichvontrotta.eu/Harnoncourt/HMI/2004-82876-58705-2-Mozart-Requiem.html


This is an interesting quote, and perhaps related to why some find Mozart's use of dissonance more effective than Beethoven's. I agree Mozart's _Requiem_ is chilling in places, and to me in a way I don't ever hear in Beethoven's music. I often hear aggression and passion in Beethoven, but not this kind of eerie stuff I find in the music of J.S. Bach and sometimes Mozart. I think it is very difficult to do within the Classical style, I think no one in the era other than Mozart achieves it. Woodduck suggests Beethoven's 5th is supposed to be frightening, for me it doesn't quite achieve this.

The fact Mozart's _Requiem_ evokes these kinds of responses is why I think it is one of his most powerful works.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Mozart's _Requiem_ is chilling in places, and to me in a way I don't ever hear in Beethoven's music. I often hear aggression and passion in Beethoven, but not this kind of eerie stuff I find in the music of J.S. Bach and sometimes Mozart. I think it is very difficult to do within the Classical style, I think no one in the era other than Mozart achieves it.
> 
> The fact Mozart's _Requiem_ evokes these kinds of responses is why I think it is one of his most powerful works.


I agree with everything you say here (and with Beethoven's assessment of the work as "wild and terrible"; he admired the gravity of Cherubini's _Requiem_). Parts of Mozart's _Requiem_ are fierce, grim, and even a little weird; compare the "Kyrie" with those in some of Haydn's masses, which are really quite cheery. The Baroque influence is strong in the choral portions of the work, and like Bach, Mozart piles up the voices in imitative counterpoint to intense effect, as he does in the quasi-fugal finale to the more cheerful "Jupiter" symphony.

The _Requiem_ as a whole conveys to me a deep sense of frailty and fear in the face of death and what might come after (which, I guess, is why it doesn't appeal to me as much as some other requiems). I agree with you that in the Classical era only Mozart (to my knowledge) achieves this dark power or, perhaps, wanted to. It's one of those late works that prompts some to feel that Mozart was becoming a Romantic. I wouldn't go that far, but he was certainly alive to the currents of his day.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Woodduck suggests Beethoven's 5th is supposed to be frightening,


I kind of impression I get from Beethoven's 5th is more like heroic struggle than divine punishment


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I kind of impression I get from Beethoven's 5th is more like heroic struggle than divine punishment


But of course. The 5th isn't divine at all (except maybe in the slang sense).

But come to think of it, divine punishment isn't divine either, unless you're really into that sort of thing...


----------



## paulbest

The Requiem is of all great religiously toned classical works, the most ~~uncanny= strange, mysterious in a unsettling way*. There were rumors floating around at that time of *a being having given Mozart a note to write the Requiem* (paraphrased) , when the truth was it was a messenger of a count which requested a Requiem.

I am sure Bach's B Mass has just as many times been performed at great dignitaries as Mozart's Requiem. One notable performance of Mozart's Requiem, was at Napoleon 's reburial procession in Paris, by the Paris Opera. I am sure it was a stunning and overwhelming performance, perhaps the finest for a hundred years afterwards. 

The tranquil cathedral halls would not be the same, if the Requiem was allowed to be performed within its walls. 
Gregorian chant would no longer hold spell bound the parish flock, if previously, Mozart's Requiem had echoed through the vaulted ceilings.. 

Even a weak performance of the Requiem by a class C chorus holds power and majesty in its affects upon the audience. 
One exceptional performance to mention , is the Bohm Live recording in Vienna, superior to his studio recording 1971/DG /Vienna. 
There are quite a few excellent recordings of the Requiem. 
Even a local church choir's performance will emanate some of its inherent power to affect the soul.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Gregorian chant would no longer hold spell bound the parish flock, if previously, Mozart's Requiem had echoed through the vaulted ceilings.


But the Requiem is filled with anxiety. Can you imagine any parish flock returning to church every week if that's the sort of music they knew awaited them?


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> I actually did find Tchai's Manfred a real delight. I may even, and will , go to YT today and give it a reminiscent listen.
> 
> Mozart's 20-27 PC's, all are written in a much finer, developed score.
> Much more complexity and dynamics going on. Story no, But poetics, full of charm, yes,
> Things I just do not hear in Beethoven's 5 piano concertos, Beethoven;s concertos are way over programmed.
> Stiff and predictable.
> 
> .
> Beethoven is like pre fab, vaneer, Mozart is chisled from the ancient tree.


There are great piano concertos before K466. No 17 for example, no 9, others too


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> But the Requiem is filled with anxiety. Can you imagine any parish flock returning to church every week if that's the sort of music they knew awaited them?


That's a very interesting observation. Was Mozart starting to write driven only by his own vision and not (as was his practice) for the market? Where might that have led had he lived a decade or so longer?


----------



## Larkenfield

Mozart's _Requiem_ with Sir Colin Davis in a glorious and magnificent performance with subtitles that fit the music perfectly. It's hard to imagine how Mozart could have been more "conciliatory" according to Beethoven than he was. The text is full of mercy and the music sounds rich and divinely inspired as if the composer himself was identifying with every word. Just because he was Beethoven did not necessarily mean that he could have risen to Mozart's level of genius in such a sacred work. It's as if the forces within heaven are proclaiming their mercy and glory under the power of divine inspiration. I find it truly inspiring and awesome in its mastery and perfection (at least in what the master lived long enough to write himself). Crank it up!


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> You will find the technique of repeating short phrases in a lot of poetry, try Homer's _Odyssey_, or _The Raven_ by Edgar Allen Poe. A lot of poems will use similar forms in terms of structure and number of syllables.


I think you would need to find a poet who repeats near identical phrases across almost the entirety of their work to draw a parallel.



> For your position to be fully informed regarding the over simplicity and repetitiveness of Mozart and Haydn, I think you would have to demonstrate some knowledge of concepts like their use of chromaticism, the interplay of different voices, modulation and key changes over long range structure and how this relates to their choices of themes and chords. Simply pointing out surface elements of the music that sound repetitive or similar to you doesn't demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the style.


I am aware of those concepts but you haven't actually made an argument here. Harmony is not a surface element - rather it, along with melody and perhaps rhythm are fundamentals in music. Certainly, a strong melody over any borrowed chord progression can give the music a strong sense of originality - a good example being the often used I, VI, IV, V (especially in pop music).


----------



## mikeh375

Larkenfield said:


> It's always enlightening to read individuals who are apparently not that religiously inclined commenting on the sacred works of Mozart or anybody else as if they understood the relationship between the music and the Latin texts they probably haven't read in months or years or ever, nor probably care about. Not that one has to be a Catholic to appreciate the Latin texts but only to appreciate that Mozart and Haydn and their temporaries probably held them dear. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard reading the criticism and reservations about sacred works from a secular point of view... and that's what it is: secular criticism about religious works from those who aren't inclined in a strongly religious direction in the first place nor apparently have respect or understanding for those religious works by composers who do. Read the Latin texts sometimes of the masses or requiems before commenting on sacred works, because the music would have no reason for being without them. Both Joseph and Michael Haydn and Mozart wrote tremendous sacred works that are still performed today. And Mozart wrote a whole series of sacred works for the Masons with one of the most famous being...


Interestingly Larkenfield, I was reading recently that Freemasonary (known as the Craft) came about_ in part _as a reaction to the intellectual tyranny of the Church and was ideologically committed to preserving the great Hermetic and Pythagorean tradition and knowledge. As further evidence of their rift from the church, the Craft was also denounced by Papal bull and the alchemical Newton was a hero of theirs.

Die Zauberflote is famously a defence of freemasonary with much musical symbolism and was written at a time when the Craft was under pressure from authorities in Austria to be proscribed. One could say that his work inspired by the Craft may well be sacred, but perhaps not as defined by the Church.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> But the Requiem is filled with anxiety. Can you imagine any parish flock returning to church every week if that's the sort of music they knew awaited them?


Oh yeah, For the *unprepared*,,,elderly, young children, those still living with a neo-middle age mind set (I've seen with my own eyes, middle aged <even early middle age= dark ages!> mind set at a local catholic church, when Mary Magdalene's knee bone was on display , laying daintly on a velvet cloth, housed in a goldren framed glass globe,,,only had I a camera, to actually see <The middle ages> folks, UNREAL, I only went to this event, only for that purpose,,,as I knew there were some hidden away around New Orleans, one had to be ina certain spot to observe this timeless vision)

Anyway, these folks , may have been OK ,,,only up to when 
Rex Tremendae
Opened.
Even today, in 2019, this opening with a chorus in full voice, screaming The King is tremendous, is a near , awakening event. One is reminded, the cathedral 's throne is big , but the bigger more powerful throne is up above.

Children back then, after experiencing the *mass*, may not have slept well that night,,,thinking God is going to come looking for them.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> *I think you would need to find a poet who repeats near identical phrases across almost the entirety of their work to draw a parallel.
> *
> 
> I am aware of those concepts but you haven't actually made an argument here. Harmony is not a surface element - rather it, along with melody and perhaps rhythm are fundamentals in music. Certainly, a strong melody over any borrowed chord progression can give the music a strong sense of originality - a good example being the often used I, VI, IV, V (especially in pop music).


Not just Mozart but the entire baroque period and you will find oft repeated phrased in romantic music too.

There's more to what makes music attractive to the listener and you know - great composers will pull a phrase out of their toolbox and use it in the right place at the right time. Poor composers use them for lack of skill and it usually is obvious where talent is lacking. Much of pop music is based a small number of chords played with a plectrum strumming across the strings - so what? Some of these songs are brilliant. When you look at a great work of architecture you dont look at the mortar between the bricks and say - tut tut - this is oft used, its not new. You look at the whole building.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> There are great piano concertos before K466. No 17 for example, no 9, others too


I have known about 9,12 as early *masterpieces*,,,both are fine concertos,,,But it is when you come to #20, Mozart's beginning to his late great concertos. Its almost like 2 different composers, Mozart before concedrto #20, is writing on a level just above Hayden, which ain't saying much. He is still in his formative days of writing music pre concerto 20.


----------



## Guest

mikeh375 said:


> Interestingly Larkenfield, I was reading recently that Freemasonary (known as the Craft) came about_ in part _as a reaction to the intellectual tyranny of the Church and was ideologically committed to preserving the great Hermetic and Pythagorean tradition and knowledge. As further evidence of their rift from the church, the Craft was also denounced by Papal bull and the alchemical Newton was a hero of theirs.
> 
> Die Zauberflote is famously a defence of freemasonary with much musical symbolism and was written at a time when the Craft was under pressure from authorities in Austria to be proscribed. One could say that his work inspired by the Craft may well be sacred, but perhaps not as defined by the Church.


Mozart was a devout Catholic. The branch of Freemasons that he joined in 1784 was not opposed to Catholicisim. The Papal Bull of 1738 banning Catholics to join Freemason groups did not extend to Austria in Mozart's lifetime.


----------



## paulbest

I know of 2, maybe 3 others, beats out the Colin Davis/Dresdeners. 
I have like 5 Requiems, , Davis /Dresden, would not make the list,


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> I have known about 9,12 as early *masterpieces*,,,both are fine concertos,,,But it is when you come to #20, Mozart's beginning to his late great concertos. Its almost like 2 different composers, Mozart before concedrto #20, is writing on a level just above Hayden, which ain't saying much. He is still in his formative days of writing music pre concerto 20.


If you listen to Haydn's piano concertos - even the best of them are nowhere near the level of the concertos pre K466. no 17 I put in the same level as the later concerti. Alfred Einstein said that PC9 is as good as any concerto he composed later on - it is certainly strikingly original - particularly the last mvt - a work unmistakably of highest creativity.

Dont forget before k466 (no 20) there are some works that Mozart never surpassed - the mass in c minor - some opera, K452.


----------



## mikeh375

Partita said:


> Mozart was a devout Catholic. The branch of Freemasons that he joined in 1784 was not opposed to Catholicisim. The Papal Bull of 1738 banning Catholics to join Freemason groups did not extend to Austria in Mozart's lifetime.


Good to know Partita. I should have realised there where factions within Freemasonry. One assumes then he had no conflicting philosophies to have to rationalise then. There is a theory that the Queen of the Night was altered from a benign character into a "shrilly vengeful lunatic" to represent the Church. Her hatred of Sarastro being allegorical of the Churches opposition to Freemasonry, any thoughts on that?


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Not just Mozart but the entire baroque period and you will find oft repeated phrased in romantic music too.


I agree - and where it occurs I usually lose interest.



> There's more to what makes music attractive to the listener and you know - great composers will pull a phrase out of their toolbox and use it in the right place at the right time. Poor composers use them for lack of skill and it usually is obvious where talent is lacking. Much of pop music is based a small number of chords played with a plectrum strumming across the strings - so what? Some of these songs are brilliant. When you look at a great work of architecture you dont look at the mortar between the bricks and say - tut tut - this is oft used, its not new. You look at the whole building.


All fair points - it seems some (me included) find the use of such oft used devices more than mere 'mortar' - but I respect those, like yourself, who have a different perspective. Indeed, I am the lone voice in the wilderness.

And, yes, there are great pop songs that have a strong enough melody to 'cover over' the fact that the chord progression has been used before.


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> Mozart was a devout Catholic. The branch of Freemasons that he joined in 1784 was not opposed to Catholicisim. The Papal Bull of 1738 banning Catholics to join Freemason groups did not extend to Austria in Mozart's lifetime.


Do you believe Mozart was a devout Catholic,,,he seems to me, too smart to fall for that religion. Can you imagine Mozart at a sunday mass?
I can;'t,,at least not really paying attention,,,more like thinking about his music while being bored in the pew. 
Attendee maybe, devout, no.


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> Do you believe Mozart was a devout Catholic,,,he seems to me, too smart to fall for that religion. Can you imagine Mozart at a sunday mass?
> I can;'t,,at least not really paying attention,,,more like thinking about his music while being bored in the pew.
> Attendee maybe, devout, no.


Now you've done it........probably best to edit this paulbest


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I agree - and where it occurs I usually lose interest.
> 
> All fair points - it seems some (me included) find the use of such oft used devices more than mere 'mortar' - but I respect those, like yourself, who have a different perspective. Indeed, I am the lone voice in the wilderness.
> 
> And, yes, there are great pop songs that have a strong enough melody to 'cover over' the fact that the chord progression has been used before.


Any chord progression no matter how daring when you first hear it will become old and cliched once you have heard it a hundred times - if the music lacks in the ways that matter.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> *The Requiem as a whole conveys to me a deep sense of frailty and fear in the face of death and what might come after *(which, I guess, is why it doesn't appeal to me as much as some other requiems). I agree with you that in the Classical era only Mozart (to my knowledge) achieves this dark power or, perhaps, wanted to. It's one of those late works that prompts some to feel that Mozart was becoming a Romantic. I wouldn't go that far, but he was certainly alive to the currents of his day.


Some interesting thoughts. For me the frailty aspect you mention is only there in the first movement and is a valid sentiment under circumstances of dying. Immediately after that movement the work gains strength and is moving towards a feeling of awe at being at the threshold of the divine, and then towards a peaceful and beautiful resolution.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Any chord progression no matter how daring when you first hear it will become old and cliched once you have heard it a hundred times - if the music lacks in the ways that matter.


Indeed - there is more to music than an original chord progression...or any original musical element for that matter.


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> I think you would need to find a poet who repeats near identical phrases across almost the entirety of their work to draw a parallel.
> 
> I am aware of those concepts but you haven't actually made an argument here. Harmony is not a surface element - rather it, along with melody and perhaps rhythm are fundamentals in music. Certainly, a strong melody over any borrowed chord progression can give the music a strong sense of originality - a good example being the often used I, VI, IV, V (especially in pop music).


Oh boy, we've been through this enough times now. You don't accept my arguments, I find yours weak, ill informed, missing the forest for the trees and lacking in knowledge of the subject matter. I'm done with this, believe what you want.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> Oh boy, we've been through this enough times now. You don't accept my arguments, I find yours weak, ill informed, missing the forest for the trees and lacking in knowledge of the subject matter. I'm done with this, believe what you want.


It was a valid post appropriate to the thread; you didn't substantiate 'weak, ill informed, missing the forest for the trees and lacking in knowledge'.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Do you believe Mozart was a devout Catholic,,,*he seems to me, too smart to fall for that religion*. Can you imagine Mozart at a sunday mass?
> I can;'t,,at least not really paying attention,,,more like thinking about his music while being bored in the pew.
> Attendee maybe, devout, no.


Mozart is not the first and wont be the last smart person to fall for a religeon.

he was brought up in the religeon and frankly - few europeans doubted in Christianity in those times.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Indeed - there is more to music than an original chord progression...or any original musical element for that matter.


We've been through this already like a hundred of times. 
Take for instance, are these written in homophony or polyphony?









I don't respect pop musicians, their skills aren't musical. Gaining knowledge or craftsmanship of music composition isn't one of their primary interests: 'one of their greatest' Paul McCartney says studying techniques and skills from the past, is useless.






When Mozart heard a Bach motet in Leipzig, he said "now that's something we can learn something from."
Whereas Paul McCartney thinks he's better than Beethoven in originality because he (McCartney) is ignorant of musical techniques and skills and "ignorance is bliss".

This is the difference between great classical masters of the past and modern pop legends such as the Beatles, who couldn't even read or write notation. They're musical illiterates who are deluded into thinking being skill-less is a good thing.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> We've been through this already like a hundred of times.
> Take for instance, are these written in homophony or polyphony?.......................................................


Baffled by your post. All I said was that there was more to music than just original chord progressions.

I think you must have misunderstood.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> When Mozart heard a Bach motet in Leipzig, he said "now that's something we can learn something from."
> Whereas Paul McCartney thinks he's better than Beethoven in originality because he (McCartney) is ignorant of musical techniques and skills and "ignorance is bliss".


come on he's not saying that he thinks he's better than Beethoven. He's just saying that for himself ignorance could be an advance in the sense of not being derivative of works of other musicians. And it's a philosophy used by other artists (Ornette Coleman for instance, the art brut movement). I don't think it's necessarily true (and I think that there were composers like Ravel who thought exactly the opposite, that one should try to COPY the music you like and your personality will come out in any case) but it's not saying he's better than Beethoven.
In any case there are pop musicians with a deep understanding of music.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Larkenfield said:


> It's always enlightening to read *individuals who are apparently not that religiously inclined *commenting on the sacred works of Mozart or anybody else *as if they understood the relationship between the music and the Latin texts they probably haven't read in months or years or ever*, *nor probably care about*. Not that one has to be a Catholic to appreciate the Latin texts but only to appreciate that Mozart and Haydn and their temporaries probably held them dear. It's like fingernails on a chalkboard reading *the criticism and reservations about sacred works from a secular point of view*... and that's what it is: *secular criticism* about religious works from those who aren't inclined in a strongly religious direction in the first place *nor apparently have respect or understanding for those religious works by composers who do.* *Read the Latin texts sometimes of the masses or requiems before commenting on sacred works*, because the music would have no reason for being without them. Both Joseph and Michael Haydn and Mozart wrote tremendous sacred works that are still performed today. And Mozart wrote a whole series of sacred works for the Masons with one of the most famous being...


These are a lot of conclusions you draw from me having critique on 1 sacred work! 

Your advice though to read the latin texts I do appreciate, unfortunately my Latin isn't exactly what it used to be (and it never was really any good) so I will just leave it with reading the Bible and other works about the history of christianity.

You speak of "understanding" but isn't the point of a sacred work somewhat beyond understanding?

Anyway, just to set your mind at ease: there are a lot of sacred works that I do appreciate.

What I meant especially was that *for me* Mozarts Requiem isn't an example of Mozarts genius as *I* find it in his chamber works. At the same time I must admit that I'm not that familiar with his orchestral works.


----------



## Razumovskymas

tdc said:


> That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> *I love Mozart's Requiem, I think he fuses elements of Baroque brilliantly with his own style*.


Come on tdc! If you love the piece you can do better than this


----------



## tdc

Razumovskymas said:


> Come on tdc! If you love the piece you can do better than this


Words are difficult for me with masterpieces of this calibre. It has all the gravitas required of such a work, mixed with Mozart's child like grace, and there is something more, hard to explain. Mozart at his best has a quality that I find is like being filled up with so much light one struggles not to laugh. A quality of the 'divine comedy'. I think Ravel inherited a little bit of this in his music.


----------



## Larkenfield

I've not heard better performances. Richter at his best in excellent recorded sound:






It's as if the piano disappears while he's playing. If Hadyn sounds too simple he's being played wrong. He was a man of astonishing invention and creativity. The classical style at its best is modern and streamlined... elegant, beautiful of balance, proportion, refinement and taste. The music is free of self-indulgence and not burdened with emotional excesses. Every note counts and becomes indispensable to the overall scheme of things. The works are alert, bright and intelligent.


----------



## paulbest

But then why settle for Haydn , when you can listen to this

I'm very surprised Haydn is still mentioned in classical music today.


----------



## hammeredklavier

paulbest said:


>


Actually, these are some of the things in the Romantic era that make me prefer Haydn over them in any day.
They're structured in ways similar to Yiruma.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> But then why settle for Haydn , when you can listen to this
> 
> I'm very surprised Haydn is still mentioned in classical music today.


So you're a Romanticist after all! 

Here's another one to enjoy:


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> But then why settle for Haydn , when you can listen to this
> 
> *I'm very surprised Haydn is still mentioned in classical music today.*


LOL - he has his fans here - many of whom cant see why we fuss over Mozart.

Haydn is considered the intellectual/discerning man's Mozart.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Actually, these are some of the things in the Romantic era that make me prefer Haydn over them in any day.
> They're structured in ways similar to Yiruma.


Oh, come on. Really? And the OP is about the change from the Baroque to the Classical era at least 60 or 70 years before Romanticism was born and it was not of the New Age/Pop variety. Anything to besmirch Romanticism without considering its context. That approach doesn't work and others can see it as disingenuous and distorted.


----------



## Larkenfield

paulbest said:


> But then why settle for Haydn , when you can listen to this
> 
> I'm very surprised Haydn is still mentioned in classical music today.


Szymanowski the romanticist as a replacement for Haydn the classicist? I thought the OP is about the change from the Baroque to the Classical. If one were to be difficult about it, it could be argued that the romanticism of Szymanowski is already out-dated because it's been done before by those who were the originals and yet he's being promoted as relatively new and undiscovered. Does everyone feel better with such comparisons when both can still exist on the same plane? Can't an endlessly inventive and remarkable composer of benevolent goodwill like Haydn continue to exist into the 21st Century that remains full of chaos and uncertainties? He was the consummate inspired craftsman who may still have something to say to the people of today. I've been enormously impressed with him lately with his inventive piano sonatas that always have some special feature or discovery about them without having to compare him to Mozart or anyone else. He of course heard others, but he was mostly self-reliant and dependent on himself to discover new territory during his lifetime that became part of the larger stream of music.


----------



## paulbest

I hear Szymanowski casting Chopin in a new style. Szymanowski is Chopin updated and new. 
What can we say about Haydn that can't be noted in Mozart, but on a higher level?


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> So you're a Romanticist after all!
> 
> Here's another one to enjoy:


Great find, excellent music, I love it.
No I am not so staunchly Modernist , as to pass over excellent music from the romantic era.
I hear Szymanowski as Chopin updated and new. 
Szymanowski transcends the romantic sound to bring us new fresh renditions of a older style.

Chopin did a good job at transcending Beethoven , yet he was limited by the age he lived in. The music of Ravel could not been written in the 19th C.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

paulbest said:


> I hear Szymanowski casting Chopin in a new style. Szymanowski is Chopin updated and new.
> What can we say about Haydn that can't be noted in Mozart, but on a higher level?


Mozart is not called the father of the symphony.


----------



## paulbest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Mozart is not called the father of the symphony.


Is it you wish to say, *Do we Mozart considered the genesis of the symphonic form?*

I would suggest he is. I never thought of it, but its true. Mozart kept * chipping away* to get it right, And in his 35 th sym, he figured things out.


----------



## Xisten267

paulbest said:


> Is it you wish to say, *Do we Mozart considered the genesis of the symphonic form?*
> 
> I would suggest he is. I never thought of it, but its true. Mozart kept * chipping away* to get it right, And in his 35 th sym, he figured things out.


It's possible to argue that Mozart perfected the symphonic genre, but not that he created it or codified it's form. And there were composers such as Sammartini making symphonies before Haydn also.


----------



## paulbest

Allerius said:


> It's possible to argue that Mozart perfected the symphonic genre, but not that he created it or codified it's form. And there were composers such as Sammartini making symphonies before Haydn also.


But the Beethoven group would say , their composer perfected the symphony genre. I would support your idea that Mozart perfected the symphonic form and that Beethoven came after wards and gumbled the whole thing up,,,with the exception of his 4th sym, which is the only sym to hold onto what Mozart established. 
Beethoven's supposedly *great* 5th sym,,,just skimmed through it over at YT, The 1st move is SPECTACULAR, STUNNING!
The 2,3 are , hate to overuse that r=tag, just out of laziness, *pompous*, ( I am being nice here btw, can't say what I really wish to say). and the 4th is OK, nothing great.

Compare Beethoven's *great 5th* to any Mozart's
35,36,37,38,39,40, and the grand finale, 41st.

Mozart was the classical era, Not Beethoven's new fandangled mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Woodduck

Nobody "perfected the symphonic form" because there _is_ no such thing.


----------



## Xisten267

...although it's possible to argue that Mozart's contributions to the _genre_ were very effective, considering that his is one of the earliest sets of symphonies that still holds a great relative popularity nowadays among both casual and expert listeners, two centuries after his death.


----------



## Xisten267

paulbest said:


> But the Beethoven group would say , their composer perfected the symphony genre. I would support your idea that Mozart perfected the symphonic form and that Beethoven came after wards and gumbled the whole thing up,,,with the exception of his 4th sym, which is the only sym to hold onto what Mozart established.
> Beethoven's supposedly *great* 5th sym,,,just skimmed through it over at YT, The 1st move is SPECTACULAR, STUNNING!
> The 2,3 are , hate to overuse that r=tag, just out of laziness, *pompous*, ( I am being nice here btw, can't say what I really wish to say). and the 4th is OK, nothing great.
> 
> Compare Beethoven's *great 5th* to any Mozart's
> 35,36,37,38,39,40, and the grand finale, 41st.
> 
> Mozart was the classical era, Not Beethoven's new fandangled mumbo jumbo.


You don't like Beethoven. Got it. Have in mind that what you said is _your_ personal view, not a self-evident truth. Now, what about starting to talk about what you know and like instead of keep trashing what you don't?


----------



## vtpoet

stomanek said:


> LOL - he has his fans here - many of whom cant see why we fuss over Mozart.
> 
> Haydn is considered the intellectual/discerning man's Mozart.


And CPE Bach is considered the individualistic/extravagant man's Haydn.  I actually remember an essayist calling CPE the Ralph Waldo Emerson of composers.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> But the Beethoven group would say , their composer perfected the symphony genre. I would support your idea that Mozart perfected the symphonic form and that Beethoven came after wards and gumbled the whole thing up,,,with the exception of his 4th sym, which is the only sym to hold onto what Mozart established.
> Beethoven's supposedly *great* 5th sym,,,just skimmed through it over at YT, The 1st move is SPECTACULAR, STUNNING!
> The 2,3 are , hate to overuse that r=tag, just out of laziness, *pompous*, ( I am being nice here btw, can't say what I really wish to say). and the 4th is OK, nothing great.
> 
> Compare Beethoven's *great 5th* to any Mozart's
> 35,36,37,38,39,40, and the grand finale, 41st.
> 
> Mozart was the classical era, Not Beethoven's new fandangled mumbo jumbo.


Isn't the internet wonderful! :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

paulbest said:


> I would suggest he is. I never thought of it, but its true. Mozart kept * chipping away* to get it right, And in his 35 th sym, he figured things out.





paulbest said:


> Compare Beethoven's *great 5th* to any Mozart's
> 35,36,37,38,39,40, and the grand finale, 41st.


There's no such thing as "37th symphony by Mozart", other than the introduction he wrote to a Michael Haydn symphony (K444).
I don't get your obsession with Mozart's 35th symphony. I like its energy but the slow movement (the emotional center) doesn't have the expressive quality like 26th (



) or 34th (



).

I have seen your other comments disparaging Mozart's string quartets and quintets. I think your extreme obsession with certain Mozart works are blinding you from seeing artistic merits of Beethoven and other Mozart works. 
If I were you, I would consider works that are not symphonies, in the K300~400 range like Serenade K320, Divertimento K334, Trauermusik K477, Vespers K321, K339, Masses K337, K427 more important.
I'm saying Mozart's 35th symphony is great, but not that 'extraordinary' to make this much obsession about. I would turn my energy into appreciation of other composers' works and Mozart's other works. It's getting too extreme now it almost makes you look like a troll, if I may so.


----------



## paulbest

Allerius said:


> You don't like Beethoven. Got it. Have in mind that what you said is _your_ personal view, not a self-evident truth. Now, what about starting to talk about what you know and like instead of keep trashing what you don't?


How is this trashing Beethoven?
His 1st movement is fantastic, Why can deny this,,,But it goes down hill from there../.
Whereas with Mzoart,,,the beginning movement of his 35-41 syms , is only a prelude of whats to come. Mzoart's finales in his 35-41 syms are stunning. No other composer in history of the symphonic forms, traditional that is, say up to the year 1930, no other composer in the historic forms of the classical sym, delivers what Mozart does in his finales of suym 35-41. 
Neither Dvorak, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, neither Bruckner, neither Mahler ,,,encapsulates , reinforces , highlights all the music which was brought forth in movements 1-3.
The 4th movements ushers in a powerful majestic recapitulation of all the glorious music that brilliantly shimmers in the first 3 movemets…
Whereas, with Beethoven,,, the best may have been already delivered in the 1st movement,,and if you are waiting for moere to come,,,,
I would not hold your breath...
Beethoven has stunning passages mixed in with *duds*, dulls, fluffs, puffs, and poppy cock, ,,,Beethoven;'s music is chalk full of gimmickery.

How often do we read ,,,*Oh I love such and such a m movement from Bruckners, XYZ sym, Mahler's XYZ sym*. 
How can anyone love only part, portions ofa sym??????????
Its either all, or nothing.

I've heard bits of Mahler, Bruckner,,,Bruckner has the incredible codas in the 7th sym, 1st/4th move + a few other notable highlights. 
Mahler , I've skimmed though a lot of his syms,,,I have not found anything worthy of my time. 
The things are bloated with fluff and gimmicks.


----------



## paulbest

hammeredklavier said:


> There's no such thing as "37th symphony by Mozart", other than the introduction he wrote to a Michael Haydn symphony (K444).
> I don't get your obsession with Mozart's 35th symphony. I like its energy but the slow movement (the emotional center) doesn't have the expressive quality like 26th (
> 
> 
> 
> ) or 34th (
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> I have seen your other comments disparaging Mozart's string quartets and quintets. I think your extreme obsession with certain Mozart works are blinding you from seeing artistic merits of Beethoven and other Mozart works.
> If I were you, I would consider works that are not symphonies, in the K300~400 range like Serenade K320, Divertimento K334, Trauermusik K477, Vespers K321, K339, Masses K337, K427 more important.
> I'm saying Mozart's 35th symphony is great, but not that 'extraordinary' to make this much obsession about. I would turn my energy into appreciation of other composers' works and Mozart's other works. It's getting too extreme now it almost makes you look like a troll, if I may so.


The Masses, I have the Philips 12 cd box sets, + lots of other Mozart sacred music,,all Glorious,,in the trad of Vialdi. 
His SQ's are interesting, no doubt, But I prefer modern chamber over Mozart's.

My bad, of course Mozart has no 37th sym. 
But if he did, it would have been a majestic work.

I plan to hear the Mozart 26 today,,,The slow movement of the 35th may not be *exceptional*, That is of course a possibility,,I will have to visit the 35th today,,,will report back on my findings.
Thank you for a enlightened and interesting approach to Mozart's music.

I am not one to take in all Mozart w/o some criticism,,, I've already posted my verdicts on Mozart's 5 VC's quite often here on TC. 
I've never come around to those 5 works of Mozart. To me they are not very interesting. 
And Hahn plays the 3rd so well for the Pope and his Vatican group.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> How is this trashing Beethoven?
> His 1st movement is fantastic, Why can deny this,,,But it goes down hill from there../.
> Whereas with Mzoart,,,the beginning movement of his 35-41 syms , is only a prelude of whats to come. Mzoart's finales in his 35-41 syms are stunning. No other composer in history of the symphonic forms, traditional that is, say up to the year 1930, no other composer in the historic forms of the classical sym, delivers what Mozart does in his finales of suym 35-41.
> Neither Dvorak, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, neither Bruckner, neither Mahler ,,,encapsulates , reinforces , highlights all the music which was brought forth in movements 1-3.
> The 4th movements ushers in a powerful majestic recapitulation of all the glorious music that brilliantly shimmers in the first 3 movemets…
> Whereas, with Beethoven,,, the best may have been already delivered in the 1st movement,,and if you are waiting for moere to come,,,,
> I would not hold your breath...
> Beethoven has stunning passages mixed in with *duds*, dulls, fluffs, puffs, and poppy cock, ,,,Beethoven;'s music is chalk full of gimmickery.
> 
> How often do we read ,,,*Oh I love such and such a m movement from Bruckners, XYZ sym, Mahler's XYZ sym*.
> How can anyone love only part, portions ofa sym??????????
> Its either all, or nothing.
> 
> I've heard bits of Mahler, Bruckner,,,Bruckner has the incredible codas in the 7th sym, 1st/4th move + a few other notable highlights.
> Mahler , I've skimmed though a lot of his syms,,,I have not found anything worthy of my time.
> The things are bloated with full and gimmicks.


I sometimes wonder if you are being serious. What about Beethoven's 9th sy - everyone knows and loves the final mvt - the 1st movements are less impressive - only because the finale to the 9th sets such a high standard. The eroica is surely well balanced.

BTW Mozart Prague has only 3 movements. One epic 1st mvt and two - by comparison - ordinary mvts. Mozart was not always consistent even in his best works. K491 PC 24 - middle mvt again - weak compared with the outer 2 - which is a shame - as Mozart's middle mvts of the PCs are usually his stongest.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> The Masses, I have the Philips 12 cd box sets, + lots of other Mozart sacred music,,all Glorious,,in the trad of Vialdi.
> His SQ's are interesting, no doubt, But I prefer modern chamber over Mozart's.
> 
> My bad, of course Mozart has no 37th sym.
> But if he did, it would have been a majestic work.
> 
> I plan to hear the Mozart 26 today,,,The slow movement of the 35th may not be *exceptional*, That is of course a possibility,,I will have to visit the 35th today,,,will report back on my findings.
> Thank you for a enlightened and interesting approach to Mozart's music.
> 
> I am not one to take in all Mozart w/o some criticism,,, I've already posted my verdicts on Mozart's 5 VC's quite often here on TC.
> I've never come around to those 5 works of Mozart. To me they are not very interesting.
> And Hahn plays the 3rd so well for the Pope and his Vatican group.


I agree with you about the haffner sy - pure gold - all mvts top quality inc the slow mvt - so charming.

Sy 26 - not a masterpiece but has some fine music and yes the 2nd mvt is good - its one of the better "early" symphonies.

NB ,,, listen to K139 mass in c minor.


----------



## Razumovskymas

since when do we abbreviate symphony to "sym"????????????

that's it, I can stand forum members for the 100th time fighting over who's the boss, Beethoven or Mozart, but sym???


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> There's no such thing as "37th symphony by Mozart", other than the introduction he wrote to a Michael Haydn symphony (K444).
> I don't get your obsession with Mozart's 35th symphony. I like its energy but the slow movement (the emotional center) doesn't have the expressive quality like 26th (
> 
> 
> 
> ) or 34th (
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> I have seen your other comments disparaging Mozart's string quartets and quintets. I think your extreme obsession with certain Mozart works are blinding you from seeing artistic merits of Beethoven and other Mozart works.
> If I were you, I would consider works that are not symphonies, in the K300~400 range like Serenade K320, Divertimento K334, Trauermusik K477, Vespers K321, K339, Masses K337, K427 more important.
> I'm saying Mozart's 35th symphony is great, but not that 'extraordinary' to make this much obsession about. I would turn my energy into appreciation of other composers' works and Mozart's other works. It's getting too extreme now it almost makes you look like a troll, if I may so.


I have to disagree there - its about time people really started giving credit to the haffner symphony it deserves. One of my first CDs had it coupled with the jupiter - in my early CM days - and I felt the 2 works were equal at that time.


----------



## Bulldog

Razumovskymas said:


> since when do we abbreviate symphony to "sym"????????????


It's been happening for a long time. It is shorter and everyone knows what it means. Earlier today, I listened to Mozart's piano con. 24.


----------



## Razumovskymas

"Mo's keycon 24" is even better! If you do it you might as wel go all the way!


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> I sometimes wonder if you are being serious. What about Beethoven's 9th sy - everyone knows and loves the final mvt - the 1st movements are less impressive - only because the finale to the 9th sets such a high standard. The eroica is surely well balanced.
> 
> BTW Mozart Prague has only 3 movements. One epic 1st mvt and two - by comparison - ordinary mvts. Mozart was not always consistent even in his best works. K491 PC 24 - middle mvt again - weak compared with the outer 2 - which is a shame - as Mozart's middle mvts of the PCs are usually his stongest.


Excellent, well thought out comments. 
Yes agree the Beethoven 3rd is no doubt his most consistent, ,,well no wait,,it is the 4th sym , which is his finest representation of the *Classical sym format*. 
All 4 moves are connected with a inner theme and is that is the exception, which I really can not knock.
The 3rd I don't know as well. Will pay a visit today.

If you say the 3rd is well balanced I believe you,,,but will double ck your idea after posting here....

I've heard this many times, that Mozarts' s middle movements in the PC's are perhaps his finest accomplishments in the PC;s, yet you say in his 24th, middle move, there are some *issues*,,
I will need to double ck that opinion today as well...You gave me a lot of homework to do.

Perhaps Mozart at the time writing the slow move in the 24th, was maybe writing operas, sacred works, chamber, appointments, concerts, etc ETC ...so he may have had a *bad day* on that 24th slow movement.
WE can forgive him, can't we?


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> I sometimes wonder if you are being serious. What about Beethoven's 9th sy - everyone knows and loves the final mvt - the 1st movements are less impressive - only because the finale to the 9th sets such a high standard. The eroica is surely well balanced.
> 
> BTW Mozart Prague has only 3 movements. One epic 1st mvt and two - by comparison - ordinary mvts. Mozart was not always consistent even in his best works. K491 PC 24 - middle mvt again - weak compared with the outer 2 - which is a shame - as Mozart's middle mvts of the PCs are usually his stongest.


Oh btw, on the 9th,,,I've seen comments by solid seasoned Beethovenites,w ho say they have some issues with Beethoven's 9th,,,at least parts of it,,,Some say the last move has some *issues*,,,others say this move and others *that * movement.

So the 9th's quality is up for debate./


----------



## paulbest

Razumovskymas said:


> since when do we abbreviate symphony to "sym"????????????
> 
> that's it, I can stand forum members for the 100th time fighting over who's the boss, Beethoven or Mozart, but sym???


I hen peck whuile typing,,I have to for abbreviation..at least my spelling and semantics are 
much improved
over last time at GMG, CMC. 
Believe it or not, I am more refined than before,,,although my ideas are just as 
wacky

I will try to write,,,Symphony.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> Oh btw, on the 9th,,,I've seen comments by solid seasoned Beethovenites,w ho say they have some issues with Beethoven's 9th,,,at least parts of it,,,Some say the last move has some *issues*,,,others say this move and others *that * movement.
> 
> So the 9th's quality is up for debate./


Beet's 9th is the one out of the 9 I would least want to pull out and play. Its too much hassle listening to it. I would go 3 6 7 5 8 4 and leave out the 9th.

dont know the 3rd well? sit down then and listen from start to finish. Its quite a journey.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> Beet's 9th is the one out of the 9 I would least want to pull out and play. Its too much hassle listening to it. I would go 3 6 7 5 8 4 and leave out the 9th.
> 
> dont know the 3rd well? sit down then and listen from start to finish. Its quite a journey.


well now there we go. 
The 9th has
*issues*
*Oh no it don't*…
*Well then you can have IT*

*Whats your problem, don't you know Beethoven, the god is perfect*

*Oh brother*


----------



## paulbest

hammeredklavier said:


> There's no such thing as "37th symphony by Mozart", other than the introduction he wrote to a Michael Haydn symphony (K444).
> I don't get your obsession with Mozart's 35th symphony. I like its energy but the slow movement (the emotional center) doesn't have the expressive quality like 26th (
> 
> 
> 
> ) or 34th (
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> I have seen your other comments disparaging Mozart's string quartets and quintets. I think your extreme obsession with certain Mozart works are blinding you from seeing artistic merits of Beethoven and other Mozart works.
> If I were you, I would consider works that are not symphonies, in the K300~400 range like Serenade K320, Divertimento K334, Trauermusik K477, Vespers K321, K339, Masses K337, K427 more important.
> I'm saying Mozart's 35th symphony is great, but not that 'extraordinary' to make this much obsession about. I would turn my energy into appreciation of other composers' works and Mozart's other works. It's getting too extreme now it almost makes you look like a troll, if I may so.


Now I just heard bits of the 35th Symphony,... Now I clearly recall, what you are referring to.
Yes I can easily understand your idea on the sluggishness of the 2nd movement. 
But here is why it works as it does. 
The tempo of the 2nd move has to be as it is, so as to allow the 3rd movement to havea broader stage of voicing,,,and also has to be sluggardly, so as to allow the last, the presto to come in with a incredible flourishing of colors, and brilliance.
Mozart's presto's are pure heaven. 
No I can not agree the 2nd movement of the 35th Symphony is a bit too slow/thinly scored.

I also could not accept the 26th symphony as holding more dynamics that anything in the 35th symphony .

Sorry but I can not lower the 35th symphony and to raise up the 26th simony as anything comparable in composition.

Yes I am a bit of a ..
Troll

Yes I feel need to critique,
I am a Iconoclast,
This is what we do, our purpose, our mission.

This desire to critique in our blood.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> well now there we go.
> The 9th has
> *issues*
> *Oh no it don't*…
> *Well then you can have IT*
> 
> *Whats your problem, don't you know Beethoven, the god is perfect*
> 
> *Oh brother*


I used to be an LP dealer - classical - and I sold a lot to Chinese, Korean Japanese. One korean dealer used to buy my cheap LPs - £1 each for 5000 LPs at a time. He always stipulated - no opera - no organ and no Beethoven sy 9.

make of that what you will


----------



## paulbest

No
The 3rr Symphony, only the 1st and 3rd movements are interesting, I did not like the 2nd, 4th movements, not at all. 
Beethovebn's 4th symphony, is his only symphony, other than his 6th symphony, which I have no issues with. 

My opinion on Beethoven's symphonies are as follows
His 6th symphony and 4th symphony are his strongest and best. 
All the others have some issues , here and there. 
Things , weaknesses , which I never hear in any of Mozart's 35-41st symphonies. 
Hope this clears things up a bit.


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> I used to be an LP dealer - classical - and I sold a lot to Chinese, Korean Japanese. One korean dealer used to buy my cheap LPs - £1 each for 5000 LPs at a time. He always stipulated - no opera - no organ and no Beethoven sy 9.
> 
> make of that what you will


haha
too funny
Here is what I make of that, exclusion of Beethoven's 9th symphony. 
Seems he had way too many complete sets in Beethoven to sell off, you do realize Beethoven's symphonies are the most recorded in history.
And it might mean some Beethovenites, felt the 9th symphony was not something they feel they want to hang on to.
Yes your anecdotal mention, does make sense.
Almost proof the 9th is not anything folks want to listen to.
I've never heard the thing all the way through.


----------



## Xisten267

paulbest said:


> haha
> too funny
> Here is what I make of that, exclusion of Beethoven's 9th symphony.
> Seems he had way too many complete sets in Beethoven to sell off, you do realize Beethoven's symphonies are the most recorded in history.
> And it might mean some Beethovenites, felt the 9th symphony was not something they feel they want to hang on to.
> Yes your anecdotal mention, does make sense.
> Almost proof the 9th is not anything folks want to listen to.
> *I've never heard the thing all the way through.*


How come you attack something you doesn't even know? Are you trolling?


----------



## Larkenfield

Hector Berlioz and his essays on the Beethoven symphonies: 
http://www.hberlioz.com/Predecessors/beethsym.htm
Let's assume that he's commenting intelligently on symphonies that he's actually heard rather than foolishly on the ones that he hasn't.


----------



## paulbest

Allerius said:


> How come you attack something you doesn't even know? Are you trolling?


There are flaws in the 9th symphony. 
Mixed reviews past 200 years. Something is wrong with the symphony.

Many comments I noted say its too long, and lacks cohesion,
'You can not find any link describing issues with Mozart's symphony 41. 
What Mozart wrote in his finale symphony was perfection.

Beethoven should have stopped scoring at his 8th symphony. 
His 9th should be scratched from the records.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

paulbest said:


> There are flaws in the 9th symphony.
> Mixed reviews past 200 years. Something is wrong with the symphony.
> 
> Many comments I noted say its too long, and lacks cohesion,
> 'You can not find any link describing issues with Mozart's symphony 41.
> What Mozart wrote in his finale symphony was perfection.
> 
> Beethoven should have stopped scoring at his 8th symphony.
> His 9th should be scratched from the records.


But the orchestras love to book it and the people love to go hear it played.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> *How is this trashing Beethoven?*
> *His 1st movement [of the 5th symphony] is fantastic, Why can deny this,,,But it goes down hill from there../.
> Whereas with Mzoart,,,the beginning movement of his 35-41 syms , is only a prelude of whats to come.* Mzoart's finales in his 35-41 syms are stunning. No other composer in history of the symphonic forms, traditional that is, say up to the year 1930, no other composer in the historic forms of the classical sym, delivers what Mozart does in his finales of sym 35-41.
> *Neither Dvorak, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, neither Bruckner, neither Mahler ,,,encapsulates , reinforces , highlights all the music which was brought forth in movements 1-3.*
> *The 4th movements ushers in a powerful majestic recapitulation of all the glorious music that brilliantly shimmers in the first 3 movemets…*
> *Whereas, with Beethoven,,, the best may have been already delivered in the 1st movement*,,and if you are waiting for moere to come,,,,
> I would not hold your breath...
> Beethoven has stunning passages mixed in with *duds*, dulls, fluffs, puffs, and poppy cock, ,,,Beethoven;'s music is chalk full of gimmickery.
> 
> *How can anyone love only part, portions ofa sym??????????
> Its either all, or nothing.*


I see this differently.

I can't think of any symphony of the Classical era, including Mozart's best, in which all four movements are of equal interest or significance. But then, I don't believe they were intended to be, or that this constitutes any sort of failure. The sonata form concept gave composers possibilities for emotional weight and formal complexity, but this occurred mainly in opening movements. Slow movements (most of them not really slow) had the potential for considerable depth of expression, though this was often not exploited to any great extent; minuets were essentially pleasant interludes for "easy listening," tuneful and clever at best; and finales were usually spirited rondos, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, easy to follow, and aiming mainly at leaving the audience in a happy mood. The symphony as a whole aimed at a pleasing succession of ideas with effective contrast between movements; it might achieve some unity by means of key relationships, but it didn't aim at creating an overarching "narrative" looking forward to a finale that would "encapsulate," climax, fulfill or resolve any question of meaning or emotional tension set up in the previous movements. Any number of Classical symphonies could exchange movements without creating significant incongruity (I recall KenOC mentioning a radio announcer who did this with Haydn symphonies as a prank, and no one noticed).

The same can't be said of Beethoven. You're certainly correct that the first movement of his 5th is the most stunning of the four (and I might point out that the last movement of Mozart's "Jupiter" is disproportionately stunning in that work, as is the first movement of his "Prague"), but Beethoven makes it abundantly clear that he is not writing a pleasing succession of pleasing movements but an integrated work which has to be understood and judged as such. This had already been the case with the "Eroica," but it becomes that much more obvious with the 5th's cyclic use of its opening rhythmic motif in all four movements, not to mention the extraordinary transition between the third and fourth movements in which the "fate" motif is tapped out by the timpani; here cyclic form and uninterrupted dramatic narrative come together in an unprecedented conception of what a symphony could be. It makes little sense in this context to talk about one movement being superior to another, since each movement is what it is only because of how it fits into the whole.

BTW, your statement that the first movement of Beethoven's 5th is fantastic and the other three are not isn't exactly congruent with your question "How can anyone love only part of a sym?" Unless, of course, "sym" is short for "sybiosis."


----------



## paulbest

Well at least you and others here are aware that I can certainly hear whats best in Beethoven,,and whats *not so great*.
I did show I have a keen sense in composers whose music I am not interested in.

The 41st symphony of Mozart , finale is as you say *beyond the 1st 3 movements*, yet we are speaking of level which only transcends the other 3 ,,,relatively, speaking. .
The 41st, if you read musicologists reports, all agree it is a organic complete masterpiece, the likes of which can not be found in any symphony, up to say 1900. 
Even Brahms knew this. Every note is like dew from heaven. 
Mozart I believe wrote the 41st ina trance , dedicated by God Himself...
Back to Beethoven. His 5th has a opening that is smashing..But afterwards there are disappointments.

His 4th symphony, IMHO is the only organically whole symphony , that has no weakness start to finish. 
Yet sadly its not everyones *masterpiece*. Folks are crazy about the openinsg in the 3rd, 5th, 7th symphonies, also the opening to the 6th drives the crowds crazy.

They really are not that interested what comes later. As long as they get their 
*Beethoven opening smash hit fix*,,they are happy campers. 
*Its Beethoven,,you know*
What the Viennese loved past 250 years, is not what I love, What I love the Viennese most likely have not, in fact , have not heard,
Vienna , like Amsterdam, lives in a tiny cocoon cave dwellers .
In their eyes I am not a Iconoclast,,I am a authentic

TROLL


----------



## paulbest

If you go to YT, Beethoven's 3,5,7 symphony's all uploads have hits in the millions...Here is Mozart's, 41st, 6 yrs old upload.
Not even breaking 40K hits.

Comments in the Beethoven 3,5,7 in the thousands,,,here in Mozart's 41st, hardly breaking 100 comments. 
Go figure, folks live in a small world.

If you can point out the *weaknesses* in the 41st, please give me the minute/second. 
Where you can hear, fluff/filler/gimmickery


----------



## Xisten267

paulbest said:


> Well at least you and others here are aware that I can certainly hear whats best in Beethoven,,and whats *not so great*.
> I did show I have a keen sense in composers whose music I am not interested in.
> 
> The 41st symphony of Mozart , finale is as you say *beyond the 1st 3 movements*, yet we are speaking of level which only transcends the other 3 ,,,relatively, speaking. .
> The 41st, if you read musicologists reports, all agree it is a organic complete masterpiece, the likes of which can not be found in any symphony, up to say 1900.
> Even Brahms knew this. Every note is like dew from heaven.
> Mozart I believe wrote the 41st ina trance , dedicated by God Himself...
> Back to Beethoven. His 5th has a opening that is smashing..But afterwards there are disappointments.
> 
> His 4th symphony, IMHO is the only organically whole symphony , that has no weakness start to finish.
> Yet sadly its not everyones *masterpiece*. Folks are crazy about the openinsg in the 3rd, 5th, 7th symphonies, also the opening to the 6th drives the crowds crazy.
> 
> They really are not that interested what comes later. As long as they get their
> *Beethoven opening smash hit fix*,,they are happy campers.
> *Its Beethoven,,you know*
> What the Viennese loved past 250 years, is not what I love, What I love the Viennese most likely have not, in fact , have not heard,
> Vienna , like Amsterdam, lives in a tiny cocoon cave dwellers .
> In their eyes I am not a Iconoclast,,I am a authentic
> 
> TROLL


Nice job trashing legendary classical composers and turning Beethoven and Mozart lovers against each other, mr. troll. Are you happy now?


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> The 41st, if you read musicologists reports, all agree it is a organic complete masterpiece, the likes of which can not be found in any symphony, up to say 1900.


How do you know that all musicologists agree that the likes of the organic masterpiece which is the "Jupiter" cannot be found in any symphony up to 1900? Have you surveyed all musicologists? And why 1900?



> Even Brahms knew this.


Proof? Did he say that? And if he thought it, is thinking the same as knowing?



> Every note is like dew from heaven. Mozart I believe wrote the 41st ina trance , dedicated by God Himself...


God help us.



> Back to Beethoven. His 5th has a opening that is smashing..But afterwards there are disappointments.


You said that before. I don't experience any disappointments afterwards.



> His 4th symphony, IMHO is the only organically whole symphony , that has no weakness start to finish.


I find it less interesting than some of his others. It shows him to be a fine Classical composer, but Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 open doors on new worlds. You might want to take another survey of all those musicologists.



> Yet sadly its not everyones *masterpiece*. Folks are crazy about the openinsg in the 3rd, 5th, 7th symphonies, also the opening to the 6th drives the crowds crazy. They really are not that interested what comes later. As long as they get their
> *Beethoven opening smash hit fix*,,they are happy campers.


No, "folks" are "crazy" about the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th as _wholes._ I went over that in my last post. You're ignoring what I said. Clearly you have no idea what "folks" think. You're too busy self-pleasuring with your musical fantasy toys.



> What the Viennese loved past 250 years, is not what I love, What I love the Viennese most likely have not, in fact , have not heard,
> Vienna , like Amsterdam, lives in a tiny cocoon cave dwellers .
> In their eyes I am not a Iconoclast,,I am a authentic
> 
> TROLL


Why should we care what the Viennese think, what you _think_ the Viennese think, or why you _care_ what the Viennese think? What _I_ think is that you have very large musical blind spots. And if it comes down to choosing between iconoclast and troll, there is often, and there may be in this case, not a hair's breadth of difference.


----------



## paulbest

WEll in 1900, we have Debussy, Ravel, not so much symphonists, but certainly music that surpasses all that went before. Mahler and Bruckner symphonies, Sibelius symphonies,,all surpassed by Ravel. 
Then we have the masterworks of the 3 great 2nd Viennese composers, Henze is writing his great 2nd symphony in 1948, I believe. 
This is why I say , up to 1900 as far as symphonic genre is concerned. Brahms has plenty of fluff and fillers, Dvorak as well, many *dull sections*..
No one pre 1900, in symphonic form, has equaled Mozart's 41st, much less his 35-40 symphonies. 
Now in the piano concertos, there Mozart has his competition,. Brahms, Chopin, Greig, Rachmaninov's 1st, Prokofiev's 1st,,,the last 2, just after 1900 composed.

But in symphonic form, Mahler has sections that go no where,,,they just go on and on,,Bruckner has the incredible codas 7th symphony, 1st, 4th movements,,,But are you willing to sit througha hour long symphony just to hear 2 incredible codas?
I;m not willing.

Mozart has something in every note. Sure the slow sections can tend to bea bit sentimental,,,but that is the way the orchestration was meant to be in late 1700's. Mozart could not compose a symphony in the style of say, Schnittke and Pettersson.

The Viennese love THEIR classical, and I love mine,.

Iconoclast


----------



## paulbest

*blind spots* in music. 
ha!
The Viennese/Amsterdamians have not heard one note of
Pettersson
Schnittke (maybe they have)
Henze. 
Carter they may know by name, but not his music. The Viennese /Amsterdamians have their little darlings, and I have my Modern Masters. 
Like programmed robots.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> WEll in 1900, we have Debussy, Ravel, not so much symphonists, but certainly music that surpasses all that went before. Mahler and Bruckner symphonies, Sibelius symphonies,,all surpassed by Ravel.


When people say things as batsh*t crazy as this, nothing else they say can be taken seriously. Therefore I won't respond to the rest of your music depreciation lecture.



> The Viennese love THEIR classical, and I love mine,.
> 
> Iconoclast


Iconoclasm is an adolescent substitute for ability and achievement. Any drunken fool with a hammer can smash Michelangelo's _Pieta._ Only Michelangelo could create it.


----------



## paulbest

You guys are the ones polishing Beethoven's statue all day. Like all music today, its up for critique. 
Especially that of Beethoven. 
Unless you think its beyond reproach?

Right at my 2nd or 3rd year into classical music, I sense, *Beethoven is not for me*, its wayyy over rated and its bogus. 

Even Bernstein pointed out the obvious flaws in his music. 

Beethoven 's music is for the common man, the masses, the lemmings. 
Sorry to smash your lilly white statue of Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> You guys are the ones polishing Beethoven's statue all day. Like all music today, its up for critique.
> Especially that of Beethoven.
> Unless you think its beyond reproach?
> 
> Right at my 2nd or 3rd year into classical music, I sense, *Beethoven is not for me*, its wayyy over rated and its bogus.
> 
> Even Bernstein pointed out the obvious flaws in his music.
> 
> Beethoven 's music is for the common man, the masses, the lemmings.
> Sorry to smash your lilly white statue of Beethoven.


Beethoven's statue doesn't need polishing. It may need an electric fence to protect it from a garrulous mediocrity who has nothing to boast about but his ability to swing a pickaxe on a drunken rampage through the pages of music history.

Anyone who takes unsupported potshots at a creative giant, whose music has been speaking for humanity for centuries, for his flaws (real or imagined), while holding up a suffocatingly neurotic third-rater like Pettersson as the music of the future, has no credibility.

Your boy Ravel? Wrote lots of lovely, impeccable, glistening, sensual music for those who need their eardrums stroked. Fine, as far as it goes. Beethoven didn't give a damn about stroking anyone's eardrums. He had larger issues on his mind. If those issues are beyond your comprehension or concern, just ignore him and go wallow in your post-romantic swamp. Who cares that you don't appreciate his music? Go take another phony survey among your "musicologists" and see what _they_ think, since you were so eager to cite them before. Or are most of the world's great musicians and scholars among the "lemmings" you so freely insult?


----------



## paulbest

I can not believe there is a TC member who has such a commitment,a fidelity , a stauch supporter of a composers who is so out dated. And has no wishes to takea honest listen to Beethoven's music,,sounds which the only a popularity approves of. 
This is why the world is in the condition it is in, popular vote. 
It is the popular vote that made the world what it is. Beethoven is pop classical, pop = POPULARITY.

A group of lemmings. 


You know very well ravel scored music so far superior to anything Beethoven could not even dream of. Beethoven had issues, this is a historical fact. these issues come out in his music. 


ravel had no issues, His music is froma depth of creativity, a power and strength Beethoven could never know,. Beethoven was busy scratching out , tearing up sheets, starting over, revising, its all hodge-podge, , None of his music makes any sense. 
Sure there area few great lines, but the whole is full of fluff, fillers and gimmicks. 

As you know the populace can so easily be fooled. Just look at the world around us. 
Oh the positive news. How could I forget,,,for every 10 bad news, there is one good news article. 
Beethoven is pop classical. I knew this , instinctively some 35 years ago. 
When I was busy comparing Klemperere/Philharmonia's with Bruno Walter's /Columbia Beethoven cycle sets. 
It dawned on me, 
*This stuff is antithetical to my very being., Its so contrary to what I know music could be*, So I jumped into Rachmaninov , Sibelius, Mozart , Bach, Vivaldi, Prokofiev, for some melodic , beauty. Add lots of Debussy and Ravel at this time. Beethoven was out, there was something in his music that just struck the wrong chords in my being. 
Now , after 35 yrs later, I know why.

The populace can have all they want of that stuff. 
If I ever hear another note, I'll break a oath. 
But you go ahead and stay a faithful follower. 
Block real music from entering your core. Go right ahead, exercise your free will. 
2 opposites can not occupy the same vessel at the same time, hope you know.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> I can not believe there is a TC member who has such a commitment,a fidelity , a stauch supporter of a composers who is so out dated. And has no wishes to takea honest listen to Beethoven's music,,sounds which the only a popularity approves of.
> This is why the world is in the condition it is in, popular vote.
> It is the popular vote that made the world what it is. Beethoven is pop classical, pop = POPULARITY.
> 
> A group of lemmings.
> 
> You know very well ravel scored music so far superior to anything Beethoven could not even dream of. Beethoven had issues, this is a historical fact. these issues come out in his music.
> 
> ravel had no issues, His music is froma depth of creativity, a power and strength Beethoven could never know,. Beethoven was busy scratching out , tearing up sheets, starting over, revising, its all hodge-podge, , None of his music makes any sense.
> Sure there area few great lines, but the whole is full of fluff, fillers and gimmicks.
> 
> As you know the populace can so easily be fooled. Just look at the world around us.
> Oh the positive news. How could I forget,,,for every 10 bad news, there is one good news article.
> Beethoven is pop classical. I knew this , instinctively some 35 years ago.
> When I was busy comparing Klemperere/Philharmonia's with Bruno Walter's /Columbia Beethoven cycle sets.
> It dawned on me,
> *This stuff is antithetical to my very being., Its so contrary to what I know music could be*, So I jumped into Rachmaninov , Sibelius, Mozart , Bach, Vivaldi, Prokofiev, for some melodic , beauty. Add lots of Debussy and Ravel at this time. Beethoven was out, there was something in his music that just struck the wrong chords in my being.
> Now , after 35 yrs later, I know why.
> 
> The populace can have all they want of that stuff.
> If I ever hear another note, I'll break a oath.
> But you go ahead and stay a faithful follower.
> Block real music from entering your core. Go right ahead, exercise your free will.
> 2 opposites can not occupy the same vessel at the same time, hope you know.


That's right. Beethoven is so fake and artificial, not many can appreciate the riches Petterson mined out of music, while Beethoven's is just glorified pop music. The truth hurts...


----------



## janxharris

Beethoven - great.
Ravel - great.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> The sonata form concept gave composers possibilities for emotional weight and formal complexity, but this occurred mainly in opening movements. Slow movements (most of them not really slow) had the potential for considerable depth of expression, though this was often not exploited to any great extent; minuets were essentially pleasant interludes for "easy listening," tuneful and clever at best; and finales were usually spirited rondos, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, easy to follow, and aiming mainly at leaving the audience in a happy mood. The symphony as a whole aimed at a pleasing succession of ideas with effective contrast between movements; it might achieve some unity by means of key relationships, but it didn't aim at creating an overarching "narrative" looking forward to a finale that would "encapsulate," climax, fulfill or resolve any question of meaning or emotional tension set up in the previous movements. Any number of Classical symphonies could exchange movements without creating significant incongruity (I recall KenOC mentioning a radio announcer who did this with Haydn symphonies as a prank, and no one noticed).


2:41






In the minuet of 41th, there is an emphasis on the 'credo motif', preparing us for the motivic working of the finale. Also passages of chromatic part-writing are noteworthy, I wouldn't consider any of the minuets in the last symphonies trivial movements. Look at Bernstein's analysis on 40th symphony: 









Listen to the minuets String Quintets K406, K516. The minuet of K406 is essentially a canon + its double canon, + its inversion canon. I don't get why you and EdwardBast keep claiming they're "mere dance movements". They're not. As I said, Mozart, Haydn in their late periods, incorporated 'Thematische Arbeit' into minuet movements as well. (btw, Haydn used Scherzo movements before Beethoven, in string quartets)

I find the slow movements of 38th, 39th interesting for their mood shift and contrast. Slow movement from 39th in particular, ( 



 ) is capricious to the point that it almost foreshadows Chopin Ballade No.2 in F major.

Also, I'm baffled everytime when someone uses the expression, "easy listening". I've occasionally seen Phil loves classical using this expression as well. What constitutes "easy listening"?
Is something easy to listen, is it also easy to compose? 
Is Beethoven "easy listening" compared to say, Boulez or Stockhausen? If so, is a Beethoven symphony easier to compose than their style of composition?
For someone who likes Bartok far better than Haydn, would it be easy to get him to listen to 104 symphonies of Haydn instead of Bartok works? If Haydn is easy to listen to than Bartok?
Whenever I 'criticize' music artists, I'm not necessarily saying their music is "easy listening", but pointing out that their styles are not that hard for others to copy - they lacked certain technique, special sense or talent for composition compared to others. I mean I can critique on music just as everybody else, but would not want to sound like an elitist snob.

Look at some of the criticisms on Beethoven's ninth in the 19th century. 
https://www.oregonlive.com/classicalmusic/2008/09/beethovens_ninth_kicks.html

_"It opened with eight bars of a commonplace theme, very much like Yankee Doodle...The general impression it left on me is that of a concert made up of Indian war whoops and angry wildcats." _-- a Providence, R.I. newspaper, 1868

_"But is not worship paid this Symphony mere fetishism? Is not the famous Scherzo insufferably long-winded? The unspeakable cheapness of the chief tune, 'Freude, Freude!'"_ -- Musical Record, Boston, 1899


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> I can not believe there is a TC member who has such a commitment,a fidelity , a stauch supporter of a composers who is so out dated. And has no wishes to takea honest listen to Beethoven's music,,sounds which the only a popularity approves of.


How's that again? You can't believe that there is actually a classical musician who would call your mindless remarks about Beethoven mindless? What planet are you phoning in from? On planet Earth the prevailing view among classical music performers, scholars, critics and listeners is that Beethoven is one of the greatest composers of all time. Of course its only the prevailing view. Some people prefer Philip Glass. Some might even prefer Taylor Swift.



> This is why the world is in the condition it is in, popular vote.
> It is the popular vote that made the world what it is. Beethoven is pop classical, pop = POPULARITY.


Damn that Beethoven! What we need is a musical electoral college. With all those democratic, popular-vote-loving people thinking he's one of the greatest composers of all time, it's no wonder we have rampant crony capitalism, unaffordable medical care, an epidemic of homelessness, rising white nationalism, immanent environmental collapse, and Trump and Putin sittin' in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.



> A group of lemmings.


Yeah. They should be ground up and made into lemmingade.



> You know very well ravel scored music so far superior to anything Beethoven could not even dream of.


Yeah, that Ravel did lots of of neat scoring. If the lemmings would just pay more attention to scoring, the world would be a better place.



> Beethoven had issues, this is a historical fact. these issues come out in his music.


Yeah, he was deaf and homely, women weren't interested, and he thought he was as good as an aristocrat. What good is a deaf, ugly composer who doesn't know his place?



> ravel had no issues, His music is froma depth of creativity, a power and strength Beethoven could never know,. Beethoven was busy scratching out , tearing up sheets, starting over, revising, its all hodge-podge, , None of his music makes any sense.
> Sure there area few great lines, but the whole is full of fluff, fillers and gimmicks.


I know. Just think what Beethoven could have done if he hadn't torn up sheets.



> As you know the populace can so easily be fooled. Just look at the world around us.


Yeah, yeah... We've been over that. Damn that Beethoven! Damn him! Damn him!



> Oh the positive news. How could I forget,,,for every 10 bad news, there is one good news article.
> Beethoven is pop classical. I knew this , instinctively some 35 years ago.


My God! That _is_ good news! But - 35 _years_ ago? You've known Beethoven was a fraud for 35 years? And you're just telling us now? Didn't you realize you could have saved the world?



> When I was busy comparing Klemperere/Philharmonia's with Bruno Walter's /Columbia Beethoven cycle sets.
> It dawned on me,
> *This stuff is antithetical to my very being., Its so contrary to what I know music could be*,


Yeah, music can be really, really different from Beethoven. Anything different would make the world a better place, but especially Elliott Carter. If only the world gave a ****.



> So I jumped into Rachmaninov , Sibelius, Mozart , Bach, Vivaldi, Prokofiev, for some melodic , beauty. Add lots of Debussy and Ravel at this time. Beethoven was out, there was something in his music that just struck the wrong chords in my being.
> Now , after 35 yrs later, I know why.


Well, better late than never. You've achieved enlightenment now. You've transcended, transcended everything - including reason, grammar, and punctuation.



> The populace can have all they want of that stuff.
> If I ever hear another note, I'll break a oath.
> But you go ahead and stay a faithful follower.
> Block real music from entering your core. Go right ahead, exercise your free will.


Sigh. You're making me feel _so_ bad about myself. All that different-from-Beethoven, world-changing music that I'm not allowing into my core!



> 2 opposites can not occupy the same vessel at the same time, hope you know.


I know. A statement can't be both reasonable and ridiculous at the same time. That's why I choose the former. Try it in your next post.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I mean I can critique on music just as everybody else, but would not want to sound like an elitist snob.


Unfortunately, you do - and you do. Your criticisms of Chopin and Schubert are among the most "elitist" and "snobbish" remarks I've ever seen directed at major composers. Perhaps paulbest has you beat, but I suppose most of his "critiques" are too absurd to be called elitist.

My generalization about the relative weight and character of movements in the Classical symphony, and Beethoven's shift toward a different conception of the symphony as having a narrative "through-line," stands. We can always point to this or that example as exceptional. The exception does not invalidate the rule. You do have a talent for diverting a train of thought into the weeds.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Is Beethoven "easy listening" compared to say, Boulez or Stockhausen? If so, *is a Beethoven symphony easier to compose than their style of composition?*


I'd say yes to that HammeredK, but only from a certain perspective, obviously works of high artistic attainment in any style are difficult to achieve. Technically though, it's a darn sight easier to pastiche LVB than it is PB or KS because LVB in the main uses the common stock of material that most of us learn early on and are very familiar with (which is probably why some might consider him "easy listening").

The amount of musical magic in any pastiche will vary but the best of them will most likely _sound_ like LVB. The same can be said for Mozart et al and earlier styles too. All pastiche-able from a technical pov...musically?...well as always, that takes a bit more work.


----------



## paulbest

hammeredklavier said:


> 2:41
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the minuet of 41th, there is an emphasis on the 'credo motif', preparing us for the motivic working of the finale. Also passages of chromatic part-writing are noteworthy, I wouldn't consider any of the minuets in the last symphonies trivial movements. Look at Bernstein's analysis on 40th symphony:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to the minuets String Quintets K406, K516. The minuet of K406 is essentially a canon + its double canon, + its inversion canon. I don't get why you and EdwardBast keep claiming they're "mere dance movements". They're not. As I said, Mozart, Haydn in their late periods, incorporated 'Thematische Arbeit' into minuet movements as well. (btw, Haydn used Scherzo movements before Beethoven, in string quartets)
> 
> I find the slow movements of 38th, 39th interesting for their mood shift and contrast. Slow movement from 39th in particular, (
> 
> 
> 
> ) is capricious to the point that it almost foreshadows Chopin Ballade No.2 in F major.
> 
> Also, I'm baffled everytime when someone uses the expression, "easy listening". I've occasionally seen Phil loves classical using this expression as well. What constitutes "easy listening"?
> Is something easy to listen, is it also easy to compose?
> Is Beethoven "easy listening" compared to say, Boulez or Stockhausen? If so, is a Beethoven symphony easier to compose than their style of composition?
> For someone who likes Bartok far better than Haydn, would it be easy to get him to listen to 104 symphonies of Haydn instead of Bartok works? If Haydn is easy to listen to than Bartok?
> Whenever I 'criticize' music artists, I'm not necessarily saying their music is "easy listening", but pointing out that their styles are not that hard for others to copy - they lacked certain technique, special sense or talent for composition compared to others. I mean I can critique on music just as everybody else, but would not want to sound like an elitist snob.
> 
> Look at some of the criticisms on Beethoven's ninth in the 19th century.
> https://www.oregonlive.com/classicalmusic/2008/09/beethovens_ninth_kicks.html
> 
> _"It opened with eight bars of a commonplace theme, very much like Yankee Doodle...The general impression it left on me is that of a concert made up of Indian war whoops and angry wildcats." _-- a Providence, R.I. newspaper, 1868
> 
> _"But is not worship paid this Symphony mere fetishism? Is not the famous Scherzo insufferably long-winded? The unspeakable cheapness of the chief tune, 'Freude, Freude!'"_ -- Musical Record, Boston, 1899


SOLID research, highly refined insights, 
Excellent, thought provoking, enlightening comments and scholarship. 
Just amazing,

Mozart, the invincible. 
Poor Beethoven's 9th,,,there are harsh critics at every turn on his finale. 
The poor chorus, has to sit through 3 long boring movements to get to their *glory part*. 
How embarrassing, as they state in boredom at the audience, the bored audience back at them. Folks are so manipulated in how the music industry dictates to what they should/ought/must like and accept as &great classical music*. 
*Its Beethoven so it must be great, and don't you ever forget that.
As PB does not know what he is taking about.*

Some folks are more sensitive to living forms in music, , others less so.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Unfortunately, you do - and you do. Your criticisms of Chopin and Schubert are among the most "elitist" and "snobbish" remarks I've ever seen directed at major composers. Perhaps paulbest has you beat, but I suppose most of his "critiques" are too absurd to be called elitist.
> 
> My generalization about the relative weight and character of movements in the Classical symphony, and Beethoven's shift toward a different conception of the symphony as having a narrative "through-line," stands. We can always point to this or that example as exceptional. The exception does not invalidate the rule. You do have a talent for diverting a train of thought into the weeds.


Why can't you accept the clear fact that Schubert and Chopin have out dated forms and styles. 
In their day they may have been considered great, but as we know, or should realize, time rolls on.

Its like there are guards at the gates, like Buckinghams palace, Vatican guards, trying to ward off any *intrusions* into the *holy palace halls* of *our great grand daddy's composers*, We must hold all such oldies but goodies as ,,Sacrosanct.

I always heard Schubert as a themes on Beethoven, Chopin as , music that suffocates the beauty of Maurice Ravel. Which is why I dumped Chopin, just a few years into this art world. In past 35 years , I feel no loss. 
Schubert, never once bought a LP/CD, even at garage sales, where Schubert /Chopin CDs were going for 50 cents. Neither free.


----------



## paulbest

mikeh375 said:


> I'd say yes to that HammeredK, but only from a certain perspective, obviously works of high artistic attainment in any style are difficult to achieve. Technically though, it's a darn sight easier to pastiche LVB than it is PB or KS because LVB in the main uses the common stock of material that most of us learn early on and are very familiar with (which is probably why some might consider him "easy listening").
> 
> The amount of musical magic in any pastiche will vary but the best of them will most likely _sound_ like LVB. The same can be said for Mozart et al and earlier styles too. All pastiche-able from a technical pov...musically?...well as always, that takes a bit more work.


and this is why Beethoven is so welcoming programed in symphony concerts. 
With everyone working long hours, travel times are long, daily chores , long, no orchestra has time, energy to prepare for new scores,,,especially difficult, unfamiliar material like Henze and Pettersson, Elliott Carter 
These 3 composers to get performances will take
1) resources in $$$
2) a orchestra that has members capable virtuoso resources
3) time + energy resources

= *can we just play something like Beethoven?*. *how about a Bruckner or a Mahler symphony , which holds many sections where not much really happens, we get nice long breaks, every now and then all we have to do is peep our horns,,, pluck our strings*
*music we know from our high school days of practice*. 
*Lets make life easy*

*Pettersson!!!, 40 minutes nonstop???, Are you joking?,,,where hardly any of us get nice long slow cotton candy parts,,,moments we can do a quick manicure.*


----------



## mikeh375

Paul, my post above does not confirm why modern music is under-represented, you have taken it out of context. As a (now retired) pro, I find your post glib and insulting to players (and composers for that matter). The standards of instrumental performance are incredibly high in most parts of the world and every pro I ever worked with was absolutely 100% dedicated to getting it right and able to.
The sad fact of the matter is that there is hardly a market for modernity in comparison to earlier music in the concert hall, although there are exceptions (thankfully). but mostly programming is of the "***** sandwich" variety (a modern piece slotted in between 2 pieces from the standard repertoire) - not my expression btw, nor do I agree with it, but there it is.


----------



## paulbest

Hi Mike. Well why should a orchestra program bow to a market, a public that honestly does not know what they want?


The conductors alive today, most are of the old school, it was the old standards that got them to the podium, and they'll die conducting their long life beloveds. 


The only conductor I know today who is Modernist, is Rattle, Salonen, and a yound elglish conductor who madea Pettersson 7th performance, 
Then we have Lindberg making world tour in The Pettersson Project. The BIS and CPO labels are modernist,,w/o these 2 and also WERGO, we would have very slim pickings,,,



Ck you local orchestra program, its full of *oldies but goodies*. 
Likea groken record, they just can't stop , like pre programmed robots. 
I ain;'t buyin into your idea, *the programs are coerced by the public demands*. You really believe this?


----------



## mikeh375

paulbest said:


> Hi Mike. Well why should a orchestra program bow to a market, a public that honestly does not know what they want?


Because standard repertoire pays the bills and if we are lucky, some money goes to sponsoring programmes/workshops for young up and coming composers and some pays for commissions of new work by established contemporary composers. There's a truth in that concert halls and audience are in part curators, but there is a willingness to not ignore contemporary music completely despite the aesthetic gulf between some modern composers and the general audience.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Why can't you accept the clear fact that Schubert and Chopin have out dated forms and styles.
> In their day they may have been considered great, but as we know, or should realize, time rolls on.


The only thing outdated here is the tired Modernist dogma that great art is outdated merely because it originated in an earlier era. Nobody has taken that quaint nonsense seriously since the middle of the last century - which, from your picks for the "greatest composers of our time," appears to be the era that spawned you and the place where your brain is still stuck.

Music which expresses the sensibilities of earlier times inevitably loses _some_ of its interest for _some_ people as time passes. But if it's good music it will continue to be valued for those qualities which enable it to transcend its own time. The definitive test for whether music has transcended its era is, in fact, whether substantial numbers of people still want to listen to it.

That is reality. If you and reality don't get along, too bad. Reality wins. And given your unbelievably tiresome behavior on this forum, you'll no doubt be kvetching and whining about that on your deathbed.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> The only thing outdated here is the tired Modernist dogma that great art is outdated merely because it originated in an earlier era. Nobody has taken that quaint nonsense seriously since the middle of the last century - which, from your picks for the "greatest composers of our time," appears to be the era that spawned you and the place where your brain is still stuck.
> 
> Music which expresses the sensibilities of earlier times inevitably loses _some_ of its interest for _some_ people as time passes. But if it's good music it will continue to be valued for those qualities which enable it to transcend its own time. The definitive test for whether music has transcended its era is, in fact, whether substantial numbers of people still want to listen to it.
> 
> That is reality. If you and reality don't get along, too bad. Reality wins. And given your unbelievably tiresome behavior on this forum, you'll no doubt be kvetching and whining about that on your deathbed.


No wait, I agree in some sense with you,. See we can get along.
Look, is it possible for Beethoven and Schubert to be carried further into the modern world. 
That is to say, did Bruckner pick up where Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert left off?
That is to say, the musical forms created by Beethoven were channeled through, Schubert, Brahms
Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, ,.
Now along comes
Bruckner to add his creative touches to these previous masters which he learned from. 
Thus Beethoven is now reformed, reshaped via a New Sound of Bruckner.
Is this a a possibility?

That music is in a Evolution,,,and , opnly in the Modern Era would the old musical forms, become more than
Evolutionary
But now
Revolutionary. 
Think 2nd Viennese, perhaps Wagner's Parsifal, Debussy's Prelude, = Revolutions in sounds.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> No wait, I agree in some sense with you,. See we can get along.
> Look, is it possible for Beethoven and Schubert to be carried further into the modern world.
> That is to say, did Bruckner pick up where Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert left off?
> That is to say, the musical forms created by Beethoven were channeled through, Schubert, Brahms
> Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, ,.
> Now along comes
> Bruckner to add his creative touches to these previous masters which he learned from.
> Thus Beethoven is now reformed, reshaped via a New Sound of Bruckner.
> Is this a a possibility?
> 
> That music is in a Evolution,,,and , opnly in the Modern Era would the old musical forms, become more than
> Evolutionary
> But now
> Revolutionary.
> Think 2nd Viennese, perhaps Wagner's Parsifal, Debussy's Prelude, = Revolutions in sounds.


I don't know what you're getting at here. I don't know what "carried further into the modern world" means.

The question was whether old music has to be viewed as "outdated." History's answer seems to be "no." Beethoven and Schubert are still around, and are likely to stay around, because they meet a need for music to communicate what their music communicates. That need was, in part, created by the music itself, but until the need vanishes, or until it's met by new music, theirs will continue to do the job. That's what matters here. We can have our personal judgments of their work - even ridiculous, off-the-wall judgments - but history is a reality against which there's no winning argument.


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> Hi Mike. Well why should a orchestra program bow to a market, a public that honestly does not know what they want?


I think the public knows what it wants. You just don't like the answers.


----------



## paulbest

Bulldog said:


> I think the public knows what it wants. You just don't like the answers.


so what you are saying is this 
THIS is not Petttersson's people?
I agree

https://www.lincolncenter.org/organization/new-york-philharmonic


----------



## Larkenfield

Not everyone sounded like Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven during the Classical era, with Boccherini (1743 - 1805) being only one example:






Nor did Carl Philipp Emanual Bach (Mar 1714 - December 1788) sound like them:






There was also the brilliant Muzio Clementi (January 1752 - March 1832) with his highly fluent and technical legato style that usually sounded freer, wilder, less restrained and more improvisational than Haydn or Mozart... He didn't sound like the others either though sometimes I find that he can lose his intensity in the middle of a sonata and then pick it up again:






I believe that most Classical era composers were seeking the ideal balance between the expected and unexpected, nothing that was non-essential like the ideal proportions in Greek architecture and art, and there was usually some sense of classical restraint that kept them within what was considered the bounds of good taste. (That was one of the qualities that Chopin appreciated in Mozart: not exceeding the boundaries of good taste.) Most of them knew how far not to go too far and that sense of reserve and elegant craftsmanship is still appreciated by many of their listeners. The music rarely if ever sounds _cluttered_ or a mess. But after Europe had been saturated with the objectified Greek-inspired ideals of classical restraint, it was time for the Romantic era to begin with Beethoven and Schubert helping to usher it in.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that most Classical era composers were seeking the ideal balance between the expected and unexpected, nothing that was non-essential like the ideal proportions in Greek architecture and art, and there was usually some sense of *classical restraint that kept them within what was considered the bounds of good taste. *(That was one of the qualities that Chopin appreciated about Mozart: not exceeding the boundaries of good taste.) Most of them knew how far not to go too far and that sense of reserve and elegant craftsmanship is still appreciated by many of their listeners. The music rarely if ever sounds _cluttered_ or a mess. But after Europe had been saturated with the objectified Greek-inspired ideals of classical restraint, it was time for the Romantic era to begin with Beethoven and Schubert helping to usher it in.


Are you certain about this?

_"I asked Chopin to explain what it is that gives the impression of logic in music. He made me understand the meaning of harmony and counterpoint; how in music, the fugue corresponds to pure logic, and that to be well versed in the fugue is to understand the elements of all reason and development in music ... As Chopin said to me, 'Where Beethoven is obscure and appears to be lacking in unity, it is not, as people allege, from a rather wild originality - the quality which they admire in him - it is because he turns his back on eternal principles." _-Eugene Delacroix
https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ggkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83

Some members here including norman bates tend to think the 'balance' in classicism is just being 'nice'. It is not. In fact, I tend to think it has more to do with concepts like Thematische Arbeit, which is inspired by the Ideals of the Enlightenment, for example.
Define "good taste" as in the expression "boundaries of good taste". Isn't just euphemism for "easy listening"? Sibelius Tapiola sounds like early 20th century film music to me. How can you say objectively Sibelius, with Tapiola, went beyond the boundaries evoke greater variety of emotions in everyone, than say Haydn Seven Last Words of Christ?

And other people said that:


Woodduck said:


> It is not Classical for a composer to keep us for too long in states of discontent, ambiguity, anxiety, turbulence, grief, pain, shock, or any extreme state, and to regard such states as self-justifying, much less to leave us in them when a work or a movement ends.


But then how do we explain
Beethoven's monumental _Grosse Fuge_, despite all its emotional outpourings, eventually ends rather optimistically, 
whereas Mozart's K546 and K608 do not.




And do you think Schubert objectively had greater variety of techniques and skills to express emotion than Bach, Haydn, Mozart?


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you certain about this?
> 
> _"I asked Chopin to explain what it is that gives the impression of logic in music. He made me understand the meaning of harmony and counterpoint; how in music, the fugue corresponds to pure logic, and that to be well versed in the fugue is to understand the elements of all reason and development in music ... As Chopin said to me, 'Where Beethoven is obscure and appears to be lacking in unity, it is not, as people allege, from a rather wild originality - the quality which they admire in him - it is because he turns his back on eternal principles." _-Eugene Delacroix
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ggkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83
> 
> Some members here including norman bates tend to think the 'balance' in classicism is just being 'nice'. It is not. In fact, I tend to think it has more to do with concepts like Thematische Arbeit, which is inspired by the Ideals of the Enlightenment, for example.
> Define "good taste" as in the expression "boundaries of good taste". Isn't just euphemism for "easy listening"? Sibelius Tapiola sounds like early 20th century film music to me. How can you say objectively Sibelius, with Tapiola, went beyond the boundaries evoke greater variety of emotions in everyone, than say Haydn Seven Last Words of Christ?
> 
> And other people said that:
> 
> But then how do we explain
> Beethoven's monumental _Grosse Fuge_, despite all its emotional outpourings, eventually ends rather optimistically,
> whereas Mozart's K546 and K608 do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do you think Schubert objectively had greater variety of techniques and skills to express emotion than Bach, Haydn, Mozart?


Equating Sibelius's Tapiola with mere film music is a baffling assertion. Since the piece depicts the God of the forest (as depicted in the Finnish epic Kalevala) then it would be surprising if it didn't treat of imagery appropriate to the subject. Please cite a piece of film music that contains the same kind of thematic working that Sibelius employs.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you certain about this?
> 
> _"I asked Chopin to explain what it is that gives the impression of logic in music. He made me understand the meaning of harmony and counterpoint; how in music, the fugue corresponds to pure logic, and that to be well versed in the fugue is to understand the elements of all reason and development in music ... As Chopin said to me, 'Where Beethoven is obscure and appears to be lacking in unity, it is not, as people allege, from a rather wild originality - the quality which they admire in him - it is because he turns his back on eternal principles." _-Eugene Delacroix
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=1ggkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT83
> 
> Some members here including norman bates tend to think the 'balance' in classicism is just being 'nice'. It is not. In fact, I tend to think it has more to do with concepts like Thematische Arbeit, which is inspired by the Ideals of the Enlightenment, for example.
> Define "good taste" as in the expression "boundaries of good taste". Isn't just euphemism for "easy listening"? Sibelius Tapiola sounds like early 20th century film music to me. How can you say objectively Sibelius, with Tapiola, went beyond the boundaries evoke greater variety of emotions in everyone, than say Haydn Seven Last Words of Christ?
> 
> And other people said that:
> 
> But then how do we explain
> Beethoven's monumental _Grosse Fuge_, despite all its emotional outpourings, eventually ends rather optimistically,
> whereas Mozart's K546 and K608 do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do you think Schubert objectively had greater variety of techniques and skills to express emotion than Bach, Haydn, Mozart?


I don't know all of Haydn's Seven Last Words, but listening to the first few minutes one is immediately subjected to all the usual clichés that dominate the period. As with most of Mozart - it's a patchwork pastiche.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Originally Posted by Woodduck:
> 
> *It is not Classical for a composer to keep us for too long in states of discontent, ambiguity, anxiety, turbulence, grief, pain, shock, or any extreme state, and to regard such states as self-justifying, much less to leave us in them when a work or a movement ends.*
> 
> But then how do we explain
> Beethoven's monumental _Grosse Fuge_, despite all its emotional outpourings, eventually ends rather optimistically,
> whereas Mozart's K546 and K608 do not.


Your question certainly fails as a response to my statement. Why is there anything to "explain"? As usual when you quote me, you seem not to have read carefully what I so carefully said, and so you go searching for cases that you imagine invalidate my points. You don't grasp the rather well-known fact that general statements may not apply to the same extent in all particular cases. Here you might start by considering the definition of "general"... 

But, that aside, do you really think you've offered a meaningful description of the _Grosse Fuge?_ "All its emotional outpourings"? _"Rather optimistically"?_ What does any of that mean? And the Mozart sonata? What does it prove? That some Classical pieces are in minor keys, and therefore do not end "rather optimistically"? Well, OK...

My general statement about the Classical sensibilty stands. It does not imply that NO musical works composed between 1750 and 1800 end less than "optimistically." And note: Classical works of exceptional expressive intensity or turbulent character are often pointed to as prefiguring Romanticism, or are given special designations such as "Sturm und Drang." Doesn't that suggest that people understand them to be somehow unusual for the time?

I must also point out that using Mozart to make points about Classicism, as you constantly do, is quite deceptive. You know very well that he was not a typical composer of his day, any more than Bach was typical of Baroque style, or Wagner of Romanticism.


----------



## infracave

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you certain about this?
> 
> But then how do we explain
> Beethoven's monumental _Grosse Fuge_, despite all its emotional outpourings, eventually ends rather optimistically,
> whereas Mozart's K546 and K608 do not.


What do you mean ? It's also easy to find Beethoven works that end in tragedy (appassionata & moonlight PS immediately come to mind).
Beethoven ends his quartet in the home key of bflat maj as customary. I don't think one can find a classical era work that begins in major but ends in minor...


----------



## hammeredklavier

infracave said:


> What do you mean ? It's also easy to find Beethoven works that end in tragedy (appassionata & moonlight PS immediately come to mind).


I know. I'm just reminding Woodduck cause he used to say these things: https://www.talkclassical.com/61833-so-who-blame-classical-16.html#post1658793



infracave said:


> Beethoven ends his quartet in the home key of bflat maj as customary. I don't think one can find a classical era work that begins in major but ends in minor...


----------

