# Beethoven's 9th Symphony - final movement



## Oliver

Who actually likes this? Just curious..


----------



## Webernite

Me and Beethoven. And Brahms.

Edit: And Wagner. But not Stravinsky or Gustav Leonhardt, apparently.


----------



## poconoron

I like alot of other Beethoven much more.


----------



## kv466

I 'actually' like and love 'this' and know every single moment of music in it, as I do with several other pieces from several other composers. I am only curious why such a question would be posted and why in such a way.


----------



## Webernite

What I most like about it is the way he uses the orchestra to imitate human speech, which he does in the G major Piano Concerto, too.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Count me among those who more than "like" this.


----------



## mmsbls

Each movement of Beethoven's 9th stands as a supreme (great, beautiful, moving, etc.) piece of music making the symphony perhaps the greatest work ever written. Count me as another who more than likes that movement.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Me too. Especially when someone like Furtwangler gets hold of it.


----------



## jalex

Yeah, it's okay I guess.


----------



## Olias

The finale of the 9th is as close to heaven as I can get in this mortal existence.

(so I guess I'm saying I like it)


----------



## Vaneyes

LvB 9, The Nutcracker, Carmina Burana, and some others are now reserved for once-a-year listening in December.


----------



## Couchie

Greatest thing that side of Wagner.


----------



## Crudblud

Personally I find it a bit "meh."


----------



## pjang23

I love the fourth movement, but it's the third movement in particular that makes it one of my all-time favorites.


----------



## ksargent

I actually like it - love it, in fact. But I think I love the other three movements even more.


----------



## violadude

I'm not fond of that symphony in general really.


----------



## Art Rock

Th first three movements are OK, if not his most brilliant work. The fourth ruins it for me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The last movement would work a lot better as a stand a lone choral/orchestral work than part of a symphony. Just change the opening where some reused material from the rest of the symphony is edited out, and it would make a fantastic setting of Schiller's poem that isn't part of a symphony. But I do love that finale though.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The last movement would work a lot better as a stand a lone choral/orchestral work than part of a symphony. Just change the opening where some reused material from the rest of the symphony is edited out, and it would make a fantastic setting of Schiller's poem that isn't part of a symphony. But I do love that finale though.


Beethoven deliberately "reused" material as an attempt to integrate the preceeding movements with the ode, by using instrumental recitative, the latter prepares the listener to anticipate for vocal music that is coming. Beethoven might have thought his choral movement was so damn good that it would go to waste if it was a separate piece of work. Why not make a choral symphonic movement as a fitting close to a gigantic symphony? There would be little doubt that had he lived long enough, he would have continued to write more symphonies. But I think it served as a fitting close to the symphonic aspect of his career as it turned out.


----------



## science

pjang23 said:


> I love the fourth movement, but it's the third movement in particular that makes it one of my all-time favorites.


I was going to say something like this. To me, the fourth is pretty good (I wouldn't say "love" but I think I know why so many people like it), but the third is great.


----------



## DavidMahler

GeneralOJB said:


> Who actually likes this? Just curious..


LOLOL Great post, great thread!


----------



## DavidMahler

There is not a single movement in all of Mahler or in all of Brahms that I like less than the finale of Beethoven's 9th.

I think the finale of Beethoven's 9th is the single most overrated movement in the canon. At its bare bones, it's no more interesting than Yankee Doodle and it's no less bombastic than a Sousa march.


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> I think the finale of Beethoven's 9th is the single most overrated movement in the canon. At its bare bones, it's no more interesting than Yankee Doodle and it's no less bombastic than a Sousa march.


When did you last listen to it?


----------



## science

DavidMahler said:


> There is not a single movement in all of Mahler or in all of Brahms that I like less than the finale of Beethoven's 9th.
> 
> I think the finale of Beethoven's 9th is the single most overrated movement in the canon. At its bare bones, it's no more interesting than Yankee Doodle and it's no less bombastic than a Sousa march.


The sappiness of the melody used to bother me, and I felt the same way about the movement in Mahler 1 that uses Frère Jacques, but in both cases I've come to feel differently. Even though the seductive simplicity of the main melody still makes me a little uneasy, the context surrounding them more than redeems them. And I'm not sure I'd feel that way about either melody anyway if I hadn't heard them so often.


----------



## DavidMahler

jalex said:


> When did you last listen to it?


about 2 months ago


----------



## DavidMahler

science said:


> The sappiness of the melody used to bother me, and I felt the same way about the movement in Mahler 1 that uses Frère Jacques, but in both cases I've come to feel differently. Even though the seductive simplicity of the main melody still makes me a little uneasy, the context surrounding them more than redeems them. And I'm not sure I'd feel that way about either melody anyway if I hadn't heard them so often.


I agree about the Mahler too. It's not one of my favorite movements in Mahler. Perhaps its in my 2 least favorite movements in fact.


----------



## mmsbls

DavidMahler said:


> I think the finale of Beethoven's 9th is the single most overrated movement in the canon. At its bare bones, it's no more interesting than Yankee Doodle and it's no less bombastic than a Sousa march.


If I overrate or underrate a work or composer, I simply believe that means I disagree with the majority of music listeners. I'm not sure if you believe your first sentence means anything different from that. Given that you feel the final movement of Beethoven's 9th is so vastly overrated, I assume you believe that movement is held in very high esteem by the classical music community. Presumably you do not believe that all the people who adore the work believe that the finale is "no more interesting than Yankee Doodle" and "no less bombastic than a Sousa march."

I have never found anything interesting, beautiful, or compelling about Berg's violin concerto, but I know that it is generally considered to be one of the best violin concertos of the 20th century. Apparently I'm missing something that many others are not. I wish I could enjoy the work so that I could appreciate music that many others find so wonderful. Do you feel you are missing something in Beethoven's 9th finale and wish you could enjoy what so many others do?


----------



## smoledman

My favorite part of the 4th movement is the "Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?" part with the baritones followed by sopranos. It's like evoking heaven itself.


----------



## Couchie

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The last movement would work a lot better as a stand a lone choral/orchestral work than part of a symphony. Just change the opening where some reused material from the rest of the symphony is edited out, and it would make a fantastic setting of Schiller's poem that isn't part of a symphony. But I do love that finale though.


Seriously? The quotation of the previous movements and then the interruption of the Baritone with "O Freunde, nicht diese Toene! Sondern lasst uns angenehmere anstimmen und freundenvollere!" (O friends! Not these sounds! But let us strike up more pleasant sounds and more joyful!) is what this symphony is ALL ABOUT. ******* hell.


----------



## Couchie

DavidMahler said:


> There is not a single movement in all of Mahler or in all of Brahms that I like less than the finale of Beethoven's 9th.
> 
> I think the finale of Beethoven's 9th is the single most overrated movement in the canon. At its bare bones, it's no more interesting than Yankee Doodle and it's no less bombastic than a Sousa march.


And I prefer the 4th of the 9th to every movement of every Mahler symphony combined. The simplicity of the melody is perfectly suited to the theme of universal brotherhood, a band for every man who has known love or friendship to join in rejoicing. I suppose you're one of the ones who must creep tearfully away.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^Yeah whatever, couchie.


----------



## Couchie

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^Yeah whatever, couchie.


You have a lot to learn as a composer. Someday you may want to write something that means something to people, rather than cool-sounding noise.


----------



## ZombieBeethoven

My earliest memories of classical music involve playing a Beethoven symphonic cycle on a very simple record player. I wish I could remember what the cycle was. That was about forty years ago and I still love the movement in question.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Couchie said:


> You have a lot to learn as a composer. Someday you may want to write something that means something to people, rather than cool-sounding noise.


Been there done that.


----------



## moody

I think it's wonderful and always listen to it when I need to be uplifted.


----------



## danechang

Not only 4 movement but also all piece do i love


----------



## DavidMahler

I have never been able to listen to the entire finale movement from beginning to end without either falling asleep or drifting really far away. It's harmonically so uninteresting for 20 minutes. It makes me angry in fact when I see people discuss it as the clear greatest work of music ever written. If you google questions like "greatest music ever written" you will see people cite that finale movement. They're usually people who are reciting others and based on the reasons I've seen, they typically know very little about music. 

The only 2 symphonies I prefer less by Beethoven are his first two. Beethoven's greatest symphony in my opinion was his 8th....what a phenomenal work that is, the 1st movement is one of the most amazing things ever. 

But seriously, if you compare what Beethoven was doing with the piano and string quartet at that time to 9th Symphony, there's not even the remotest contest in my mind. I almost half-believe that the symphony was stagnated for several decades, not because of Beethoven's overwhelming triumph and his successor's fears to be compared, but rather because with the inclusion of that choral ending, it left people wondering about the symphony's future. Notice no one else used a chorus in a numbered symphony until Mahler, and Berlioz hardly wrote a symphony with Romeo & Juliet. 

If you read up on criticisms of the symphony from the time in which it was written, all through the 19th century's conclusion, you will see that statistically, the finale was considered a very very weak movement for Beethoven. It was the 3rd movement which gained the most praise of all 4 by most of the critical accounts I've read, including Debussy's very famous one. In my opinion, the finale of the 9th is famous for the same reason Fur Elise is the most famous piano work, because it is easy, hummable and it is still Beethoven. It's one of Beethoven's very few hummable melodies. Most people would not be able to hum anything from the 7th or the 8th, Eroica, or any string Quartet. So Beethoven wrote one hummable melody.... 

...whoopty friggin do.


----------



## Sid James

In addition to what HC said HERE in his conversation with ComposerOfAvantGarde, Beethoven did write an instrumental finale to the 9th (or substantially complete one) but he shelved it and wrote the choral/vocal one that stands as it is now. Some of the ideas of that instrumental finale he incorporated later into the finale of his string quartet Op. 132.

I do like this symphony, incl. it's finale, however I don't do overkill with it. The last time I heard it was a few years ago live in concert. That's how rarely I hear this work, and that's the approach I tend to take with Beethoven's symphonies in general. I don't listen to them as often as his chamber works which are my favourite part of his output...


----------



## smoledman

DavidMahler said:


> If you read up on criticisms of the symphony from the time in which it was written, all through the 19th century's conclusion, you will see that statistically, the finale was considered a very very weak movement for Beethoven. It was the 3rd movement which gained the most praise of all 4 by most of the critical accounts I've read, including Debussy's very famous one. In my opinion, the finale of the 9th is famous for the same reason Fur Elise is the most famous piano work, because it is easy, hummable and it is still Beethoven. It's one of Beethoven's very few hummable melodies. Most people would not be able to hum anything from the 7th or the 8th, Eroica, or any string Quartet. So Beethoven wrote one hummable melody....
> 
> ...whoopty friggin do.


Those are fightin' words. I can name a lot of "hummable" Beethoven melodies:

Piano Sonata No. 8 - 1st movement
Moonlight Sonata
Tempest Sonata
Apassionata Sonata
Piano Sonatas 26-32
Rasumovsky String Quartets
5th symphony 2nd movement
7th symphony 2nd movement
Opus 127 String Quartet first movement
Opus 70 Piano Trio
4th & 5th Piano Concerti

just off the top of my head.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^last Monday I was humming the last movement of Beethoven's eighth piano sonata. I have also been accused of whistling entire Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^last Monday I was humming the last movement of Beethoven's eighth piano sonata. I have also been accused of whistling entire Beethoven symphonies.


I have been accused of humming Schoenberg.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

violadude said:


> I have been accused of humming Schoenberg.


So have I. No joke there.


----------



## DavidMahler

Anyone with a musical mind can hum anything. But I don't think Beethoven has any great melodies. Not a single one. Try to get a person inexperienced with music to hum the appassionata. Don't confuse motifs with melody. Beethoven was a master of motifs, but as far as melody...tuneful, stand alone melodies he is amongst the least gifted of the great masters. As far as I see it Ode To Joy is his only universally hummable melody. The 5th symphony's opening notes can be hummed but it's not a full bloom melody. 

Beethoven was a horrible melodist


----------



## Webernite

DavidMahler said:


> Anyone with a musical mind can hum anything. But I don't think Beethoven has any great melodies. Not a single one. Try to get a person inexperienced with music to hum the appassionata. Don't confuse motifs with melody. Beethoven was a master of motifs, but as far as melody...tuneful, stand alone melodies he is amongst the least gifted of the great masters. As far as I see it Ode To Joy is his only universally hummable melody. The 5th symphony's opening notes can be hummed but it's not a full bloom melody.
> 
> Beethoven was a horrible melodist







:tiphat:


----------



## Eviticus

DavidMahler said:


> Anyone with a musical mind can hum anything. But I don't think Beethoven has any great melodies. Not a single one. Try to get a person inexperienced with music to hum the appassionata. Don't confuse motifs with melody. Beethoven was a master of motifs, but as far as melody...tuneful, stand alone melodies he is amongst the least gifted of the great masters. As far as I see it Ode To Joy is his only universally hummable melody. The 5th symphony's opening notes can be hummed but it's not a full bloom melody.
> 
> Beethoven was a horrible melodist


About 4:46 in...a great melody.


----------



## DavidMahler

Eviticus said:


> About 4:46 in...a great melody.


Ok I'll give you that


----------



## Couchie

DavidMahler said:


> I have never been able to listen to the entire finale movement from beginning to end without either falling asleep or drifting really far away. It's harmonically so uninteresting for 20 minutes. It makes me angry in fact when I see people discuss it as the clear greatest work of music ever written. If you google questions like "greatest music ever written" you will see people cite that finale movement. They're usually people who are reciting others and based on the reasons I've seen, they typically know very little about music.
> 
> If you read up on criticisms of the symphony from the time in which it was written, all through the 19th century's conclusion, you will see that statistically, the finale was considered a very very weak movement for Beethoven. It was the 3rd movement which gained the most praise of all 4 by most of the critical accounts I've read, including Debussy's very famous one. In my opinion, the finale of the 9th is famous for the same reason Fur Elise is the most famous piano work, because it is easy, hummable and it is still Beethoven. It's one of Beethoven's very few hummable melodies. Most people would not be able to hum anything from the 7th or the 8th, Eroica, or any string Quartet. So Beethoven wrote one hummable melody....
> 
> ...whoopty friggin do.


Given the text of universal brotherhood, the chorus' texture is perfectly suited to accomplish the goal of the piece. It wouldn't make sense for it to be as challenging as the late quartets given the calls for all humanity to join in. It's overwhelming popularity proves Beethoven succeeded in the piece's intent. Taking the entire movement (not just the ode), you do overstate its simplicity given the fair amount of polyphony in the piece, especially in the soloists' vocal lines.

Also, you seem to simultaneously criticizing that the melody is easily hummable and criticizing Beethoven for not writing hummable melodies... what is your point with that? Mahler is also pretty melody-anemic, definitely not one of the great melodists like Mozart or Wagner.


----------



## DavidMahler

Couchie said:


> Given the text of universal brotherhood, the chorus' texture is perfectly suited to accomplish the goal of the piece. It wouldn't make sense for it to be as challenging as the late quartets given the calls for all humanity to join in. It's overwhelming popularity proves Beethoven succeeded in the piece's intent. Taking the entire movement (not just the ode), you do overstate its simplicity given the fair amount of polyphony in the piece, especially in the soloists' vocal lines.
> 
> Also, you seem to simultaneously criticizing that the melody is easily hummable and criticizing Beethoven for not writing hummable melodies... what is your point with that? Mahler is also pretty melody-anemic, definitely not one of the great melodists like Mozart or Wagner.


I definitely agree. Mahler's melodies are not instantly hummable like Mozart's or Wagner's. But they are so much deeper. Mahler's melodic gift was very complex. In my eyes, he was actually a greater melodist than Beethoven.


----------



## DavidMahler

I love this. It's how I feel:


----------



## mmsbls

violadude said:


> I have been accused of humming Schoenberg.





ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> So have I. No joke there.


I have read that one of Schoenberg's greatest disappointments was that he never saw people "humming his melodies." I couldn't find the place where I read that, but here it says, "He hoped for a day when chamber maids would hum his melodies as they did Puccini's."

Where were you two when Schoenberg needed you?


----------



## poconoron

DavidMahler said:


> I have never been able to listen to the entire finale movement from beginning to end without either falling asleep or drifting really far away.


Exactly the same for me.............. although I thoroughly enjoy much of Beethoven's other work.


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> I love this. It's how I feel:


Any idiot can see that Bernstein is exaggerating for effect. He thought Beethoven was the greatest composer and said elsewhere that everything else, 'heavenly melody' and all, was mere 'dust' compared to Beethoven's ability to 'find the _right next note_'.

I have two things to say on the matter. First, although Beethoven was unquestionably not inclined to expansive, lyrical melodies in the style of Schubert of Tchaikovsky, I don't agree with the claim that he was a _poor_ melodist. In his symphonies alone there are lots of great melodies to be found, especially in the slow movements of #2-6. Also the phrase 'poor melodist' implies the tried to write these kind of melodies and failed, which is absolutely false. Secondly, does this (exaggerated) critcism have any direction or purpose, other than possibly to make people who don't like Beethoven that much and resent his popularity feel a bit better? Does the fact that his compositions generally lacks these vocal Schubertian melodies make them any weaker or more deficient? Would perhaps the late quartets and piano sonatas be improved if he chucked some other stuff out to include more of them? I'd say not, and that the 'criticism' is actually less a criticism than an observation. In purpose then it's somewhat reminiscent of Fidelio-bashing, which the Penguin Guide to Opera laughed off as the insecurities of people who feel the need to 'free themselves from the burden of Beethoven's greatness'.


----------



## jalex

mmsbls said:


> I have read that one of Schoenberg's greatest disappointments was that he never saw people "humming his melodies." I couldn't find the place where I read that, but here it says, "He hoped for a day when chamber maids would hum his melodies as they did Puccini's."
> 
> Where were you two when Schoenberg needed you?


I know he remarked after a some audience complaints at the premiere of Pierrot Lunaire that 'If they were musical, not a single one would give a damn about the words. Instead, they would go away whistling the tunes!'

I actually find myself whistling the recurring 'arpeggio' figure from the first song on occasion. The pitching's a bit inaccurate, but hey.


----------



## poconoron

jalex said:


> He thought Beethoven was the greatest composer


Just curious............. where can I find information to that effect?


----------



## jalex

poconoron said:


> Just curious............. where can I find information to that effect?


2:25


----------



## DavidMahler

poconoron said:


> Just curious............. where can I find information to that effect?


at the end of the video i posted where he basically says despite all of Beethoven's shortcomings, he was the most gifted of all composers.


----------



## DavidMahler

jalex said:


> *Any idiot can see that Bernstein is exaggerating for effect*. He thought Beethoven was the greatest composer and said elsewhere that everything else, 'heavenly melody' and all, was mere 'dust' compared to Beethoven's ability to 'find the _right next note_'.
> 
> I have two things to say on the matter. First, although Beethoven was unquestionably not inclined to expansive, lyrical melodies in the style of Schubert of Tchaikovsky, I don't agree with the claim that he was a _poor_ melodist. In his symphonies alone there are lots of great melodies to be found, especially in the slow movements of #2-6. Also the phrase 'poor melodist' implies the tried to write these kind of melodies and failed, which is absolutely false. Secondly, does this (exaggerated) critcism have any direction or purpose, other than possibly to make people who don't like Beethoven that much and resent his popularity feel a bit better? Does the fact that his compositions generally lacks these vocal Schubertian melodies make them any weaker or more deficient? Would perhaps the late quartets and piano sonatas be improved if he chucked some other stuff out to include more of them? I'd say not, and that the 'criticism' is actually less a criticism than an observation. In purpose then it's somewhat reminiscent of Fidelio-bashing, which the Penguin Guide to Opera laughed off as the insecurities of people who feel the need to 'free themselves from the burden of Beethoven's greatness'.


Who are you, Brahms? I don't agree that he was exaggerating. I think he's spot on. That despite many of Beethoven's shortcomings, he is the most intuitive composer of all. I'm not dissing Beethoven in this thread IMHO.


----------



## poconoron

Jalex,

Thanks for that interesting clip!


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> Who are you, Brahms?


:lol:



> I don't agree that he was exaggerating. I think he's spot on. That despite many of Beethoven's shortcomings, he is the most intuitive composer of all. I'm not dissing Beethoven in this thread IMHO.


C'mon, it's Lenny in front of the camera with a famous actor. He's in 'exuberant mode'. He's just making the point that the form is what _really_ makes Beethoven great. He doesn't actually think Beethoven was a bad harmonist or whatever (incidentally Beethoven has I think the most citations of any composer in Piston's classic harmony textbook).


----------



## DavidMahler

jalex said:


> :lol:
> 
> C'mon, it's Lenny in front of the camera with a famous actor. He's in 'exuberant mode'. He's just making the point that the form is what _really_ makes Beethoven great. He doesn't actually think Beethoven was a bad harmonist or whatever (incidentally Beethoven has I think the most citations of any composer in Piston's classic harmony textbook).


Let's face it, Beethoven is only famous because he had the best hair. You'll see I'm right when David Coverdale ends up in Grove's.


----------



## moody

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^last Monday I was humming the last movement of Beethoven's eighth piano sonata. I have also been accused of whistling entire Beethoven symphonies.


Well i'm glad that I'.ve missed that !


----------



## moody

DavidMahler said:


> I have never been able to listen to the entire finale movement from beginning to end without either falling asleep or drifting really far away. It's harmonically so uninteresting for 20 minutes. It makes me angry in fact when I see people discuss it as the clear greatest work of music ever written. If you google questions like "greatest music ever written" you will see people cite that finale movement. They're usually people who are reciting others and based on the reasons I've seen, they typically know very little about music.
> 
> The only 2 symphonies I prefer less by Beethoven are his first two. Beethoven's greatest symphony in my opinion was his 8th....what a phenomenal work that is, the 1st movement is one of the most amazing things ever.
> 
> But seriously, if you compare what Beethoven was doing with the piano and string quartet at that time to 9th Symphony, there's not even the remotest contest in my mind. I almost half-believe that the symphony was stagnated for several decades, not because of Beethoven's overwhelming triumph and his successor's fears to be compared, but rather because with the inclusion of that choral ending, it left people wondering about the symphony's future. Notice no one else used a chorus in a numbered symphony until Mahler, and Berlioz hardly wrote a symphony with Romeo & Juliet.
> 
> If you read up on criticisms of the symphony from the time in which it was written, all through the 19th century's conclusion, you will see that statistically, the finale was considered a very very weak movement for Beethoven. It was the 3rd movement which gained the most praise of all 4 by most of the critical accounts I've read, including Debussy's very famous one. In my opinion, the finale of the 9th is famous for the same reason Fur Elise is the most famous piano work, because it is easy, hummable and it is still Beethoven. It's one of Beethoven's very few hummable melodies. Most people would not be able to hum anything from the 7th or the 8th, Eroica, or any string Quartet. So Beethoven wrote one hummable melody....
> 
> ...whoopty friggin do.


Whoopty friggin do, I'm glad you've sorted it all out for us mere mortals !


----------



## moody

kv466 said:


> I 'actually' like and love 'this' and know every single moment of music in it, as I do with several other pieces from several other composers. I am only curious why such a question would be posted and why in such a way.


That makes two of us buddy.


----------



## moody

jalex said:


> When did you last listen to it?


I doubt he'd do any thing daft like that.


----------



## Couchie

DavidMahler said:


> I definitely agree. Mahler's melodies are not instantly hummable like Mozart's or Wagner's. But they are so much deeper. Mahler's melodic gift was very complex. In my eyes, he was actually a greater melodist than Beethoven.


This contradicts what you said earlier. Also, Mahler is very shallow.


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> But seriously, if you compare what Beethoven was doing with the piano and string quartet at that time to 9th Symphony, there's not even the remotest contest in my mind. I almost half-believe that the symphony was stagnated for several decades, not because of Beethoven's overwhelming triumph and his successor's fears to be compared, but rather because with the inclusion of that choral ending, it left people wondering about the symphony's future. Notice *no one else used a chorus in a numbered symphony until Mahler*, and Berlioz hardly wrote a symphony with Romeo & Juliet.


*cough* Mendelssohn 2 *cough*



> Most people would not be able to hum anything from the 7th or the 8th, Eroica, or any string Quartet. So Beethoven wrote one hummable melody....


Sorry, the melody from the last movement of the Eroica is eminently hummable (not that I consider this a particular virtue, I don't know why you keep going on about it. And it's hard to tell what point you're actually trying to make since you seem to be simultaneously scorning the Ode theme for being hummable and criticising Beethoven for not writing hummable melodies).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_Originally Posted by DavidMahler 
I have never been able to listen to the entire finale movement from beginning to end without either falling asleep or drifting really far away. It's harmonically so uninteresting for 20 minutes. It makes me angry in fact when I see people discuss it as the clear greatest work of music ever written. If you google questions like "greatest music ever written" you will see people cite that finale movement. They're usually people who are reciting others and based on the reasons I've seen, they typically know very little about music.

The only 2 symphonies I prefer less by Beethoven are his first two. Beethoven's greatest symphony in my opinion was his 8th....what a phenomenal work that is, the 1st movement is one of the most amazing things ever.

But seriously, if you compare what Beethoven was doing with the piano and string quartet at that time to 9th Symphony, there's not even the remotest contest in my mind. I almost half-believe that the symphony was stagnated for several decades, not because of Beethoven's overwhelming triumph and his successor's fears to be compared, but rather because with the inclusion of that choral ending, it left people wondering about the symphony's future. Notice no one else used a chorus in a numbered symphony until Mahler, and Berlioz hardly wrote a symphony with Romeo & Juliet.

If you read up on criticisms of the symphony from the time in which it was written, all through the 19th century's conclusion, you will see that statistically, the finale was considered a very very weak movement for Beethoven. It was the 3rd movement which gained the most praise of all 4 by most of the critical accounts I've read, including Debussy's very famous one. In my opinion, the finale of the 9th is famous for the same reason Fur Elise is the most famous piano work, because it is easy, hummable and it is still Beethoven. It's one of Beethoven's very few hummable melodies. Most people would not be able to hum anything from the 7th or the 8th, Eroica, or any string Quartet. So Beethoven wrote one hummable melody.... 
Whoopty friggin do._

Whoopty friggin do, I'm glad you've sorted it all out for us mere mortals !

Now this response is enough to lead me to reconsider and apologize for all the rude comments I made to you earlier in that other thread.

:tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Currently listening to Brahm's First Symphony... 

The fourth movement seems clearly but one more example of how someone who "typically knows very little about music" could be seduced by such a crass and crude play upon our emotions.


----------



## Philip

Those who dislike Beethoven's 9th, more specifically the 4th movement, had an unhappy childhood.

Dr Philip


----------



## DavidMahler

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Currently listening to Brahm's First Symphony...
> 
> The fourth movement seems clearly but one more example of how someone who "typically knows very little about music" could be seduced by such a crass and crude play upon our emotions.


the finale of brahms 1st is so much more interesting than beethoven's 9th


----------



## DavidMahler

*cough* Mendelssohn 2 *cough*

I forgot about this one. Haven't heard it in at least 7 years...made me want to take this out and listen to it

Sorry, the melody from the last movement of the Eroica is eminently hummable (not that I consider this a particular virtue, I don't know why you keep going on about it. And it's hard to tell what point you're actually trying to make since you seem to be simultaneously scorning the Ode theme for being hummable and criticising Beethoven for not writing hummable melodies)

I'm just a load of contradictions. The point I'm attempting to drive home is that I agree with the sentiment of the OP, and while my assertions have been confused due to incorrect data in parts, my overall sentiment is sustained and I don't mind the hyperbole of stating Beethoven was eh at melody - he is still one of my favorite composers, top 10 infact. I know for certain he was greater than Mahler and yet Mahler is my favorite, but I prefer the complexity of Mahler's harmonic pallet.

Either way, my comments have lead to harmony amongst those who would prefer to bash my hyperbolic phrases. That's pretty nice


----------



## violadude

I agree with DM that this symphony is Beethoven's weakest late period piece.


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> I agree with DM that this symphony is Beethoven's weakest late period piece.


What madness be this?

I reckon the only works from any period which can seriously challenge it are the Missa Solemnis, the 13th and 14th string quartets and possibly the Eroica. Nothing else matches the 9th. The cavalier attitude some people are adopting to dismissing it is quite shocking. The opening paragraph on its Wikipedia page says, quoting from the Cambridge University Press handbook to the 9th, 'among critics, it is universally considered to be among Beethoven's greatest works, and is considered by some to be the greatest piece of music ever written'. We'd do well to remember that before judging its quality.


----------



## Couchie

DavidMahler said:


> the finale of brahms 1st is so much more interesting than beethoven's 9th


Your mother was more interesting last night than Mahler's 9th. We have to specify Mahler's 9th because THE Ninth refers unequivocally to Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## Dodecaplex

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+ninth+symphony


----------



## DavidMahler

Couchie said:


> Your mother was more interesting last night than Mahler's 9th. We have to specify Mahler's 9th because THE Ninth refers unequivocally to Beethoven's 9th.


funny, my mother couldnt say the same about you:/


----------



## DavidMahler

Dodecaplex said:


> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+ninth+symphony


last time i had google tell me what was good i ended up with a andrea bocelli cd


----------



## Dodecaplex

DavidMahler said:


> last time i had google tell me what was good i ended up with a andrea bocelli cd


And Bocelli is not good because? ...


----------



## violadude

Alright, I clearly don't get it. So how about someone explain to me and DM why Beethoven's 9th is the greatest piece ever written by anyone in the world. Explain to me without using over blown and over emotional hyperbole please.


----------



## smoledman

Remember all 4 movements are stunning in their own right.


----------



## Eviticus

jalex said:


> I reckon the only works from any period which can seriously challenge it are the Missa Solemnis, the 13th and 14th string quartets and possibly the Eroica. Nothing else matches the 9th.


What about the flawless FIFTH symphony?


----------



## sahibagupta

Hi

Hi
The aloft is the aboriginal appellation bestowed by Beethoven himself on the absolution of his awe-inspiring piece, Symphony No. 9 in D Minor, Opus 125. Chronologically, the achievement of the section in 1824 places the plan in Beethoven's third period, his a lot of attentive one.

Thanks


----------



## Dimboukas

Crudblud said:


> Personally I find it a bit "meh."


Post-Ludovico treatment patient, ueber-anti-Beethovian or pretentious?


----------



## Art Rock

Dimboukas said:


> Post-Ludovico treatment patient, ueber-anti-Beethovian or pretentious?


Or simply a different taste?


----------



## smoledman

I can't believe anyone is slagging off the 9th. It's beyond perfection. It's the Mt. Everest of music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Post-Ludovico treatment patient, ueber-anti-Beethovian or pretentious?

Certainly, we all must remember those guys in high-school who made a point of letting us all know that they didn't listen to any of the popular music that the rest of us were listening to. Rather, they were listening to some obscure post-punk bands that could only be special ordered on independent record labels. Had they simply had different tastes than everyone else they would have only said, "No, I don't like X. What I listen to is Y" and left it at that. But the whole point was to prove to the rest of mere mortals how superior their taste was, and so they went on with comments suggesting that "No one who had really listened to music seriously or had half a brain could truly like X when it was so obvious just how superior Y is".

Well, naturally some of these guys eventually grew up.

Sort of...


----------



## DavidMahler

smoledman said:


> I can't believe anyone is slagging off the 9th. It's beyond perfection. It's the Mt. Everest of music.


I think I can sum up my dislike of the final movement like this:

I like music when I can see myself in it, when I know that I've been to a similar imaginary place that the composer has been to in creating the work. While no one can step inside someone else's life, experiences or thoughts, there's a certain connection one feels (or should feel) when hearing music. In my opinion, the finale of the 9th is harmonically void of even the shred of humanness and in its attempt to unite people, in its attempt to display universal joy, it misses somehow to the contrast, the sacrifice, the mortality - the truth of human spirit. I think this is why Mahler's 8th fails to captivate the majority of its listeners as well - it is so explosively grand, verbose in its nature, that it fails to remind us that sorrow exists as well as joy, and that happiness is not forced upon us, but we come to it.

The 9th Symphony is a very forceful symphony altogether. It has great ideas within it and I believe one or two of the movements are among Beethoven's greatest symphonic creations, but that final movement, as impressive as it sounds, has left me as an observer. I have never participated in that world. In that sense, I walk away feeling removed and sometimes bored because nowhere in it am I.


----------



## Art Rock

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Post-Ludovico treatment patient, ueber-anti-Beethovian or pretentious?
> 
> Certainly, we all must remember those guys in high-school who made a point of letting us all know that they didn't listen to any of the popular music that the rest of us were listening to. Rather, they were listening to some obscure post-punk bands that could only be special ordered on independent record labels. Had they simply had different tastes than everyone else they would have only said, "No, I don't like X. What I listen to is Y" and left it at that. But the whole point was to prove to the rest of mere mortals how superior their taste was, and so they went on with comments suggesting that "No one who had really listened to music seriously or had half a brain could truly like X when it was so obvious just how superior Y is".
> 
> Well, naturally some of these guys eventually grew up.
> 
> Sort of...


Or simply a different taste?


----------



## brianwalker

The community cannot live without sacred cows, for without sacred cows there is no center, no community. If there are no dogmas, there are no heretics, and without heretics there can be no sense of community.

Lincoln once declared that he had "never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence." For Lincoln, the Declaration was a timeless source of political wisdom. It was a source of such wisdom for the American people as much as were the tablets of the law brought down by Moses from Sinai for the children of Israel. If we however turn to Carl Becker's The Declaration of Independence, a book perfectly characteristic of non-Straussian scholarship in political philosophy, we find the following:

To ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is essentially a meaningless question.

My suggestion to all those who do not adore Beethoven's 9th do not adore it in silence.

No one more than classical music fans question the foundation of their own community. Beatle fans don't ask unnecessarily skeptical questions like "Is Sgt. Pepper's whatever a great album?" etc, but "How much better is Sgt. Pepper's better than Rolling Stone album X", "a lot", "a lot a lot", "incomparably superior", etc etc.


----------



## violadude

Why is it so impossible to not be fond of Beethoven's 9th??

And no one has told me why they think is so great. That was a serious request. I promise I won't bite.


----------



## brianwalker

I'm not too fond it of it either (save the Molto Vivace), but I think in the spirit of unity and community I will say that it is my fault that I don't like it i.e. don't hold it in the same esteem that everyone here does (personally, I'd take 3 Bruckner symphonies (4, 7, 8) and pretty much any Mahler over the 9th, not to mention any of his late quartets or sonatas from the 28th onwards, but that's my deficiency, and has no bearing on the work).


----------



## moody

Dodecaplex said:


> And Bocelli is not good because? ...


He has no technique, he has no voice and is mostly liked by maiden aunts.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Alright, I clearly don't get it. So how about someone explain to me and DM why Beethoven's 9th is the greatest piece ever written by anyone in the world. Explain to me without using over blown and over emotional hyperbole please.


I think young Jalex has been trying to. But the important thing is ---do you like it? Because if not all explanations are a waste of time,you don't need to like it you know.


----------



## moody

DavidMahler said:


> the finale of brahms 1st is so much more interesting than beethoven's 9th


You see this is where you let yourself dowm. More interesting to whom---I bet you mean you.


----------



## violadude

Well yes I like the piece ok... I just don't understand the notion that it is so ******* fantastic that nothing in the universe can ever surpass it ever and no one can ever ever dislike it or they are crazy.


----------



## DavidMahler

moody said:


> You see this is where you let yourself dowm. More interesting to whom---I bet you mean you.


i already explained why i don't like the finale of beethoven's 9th. i think i state what's missing in it for a good chunk of people. if you look at my post on the previous page.

i can repost it too if necessary:

_I think I can sum up my dislike of the final movement like this:

I like music when I can see myself in it, when I know that I've been to a similar imaginary place that the composer has been to in creating the work. While no one can step inside someone else's life, experiences or thoughts, there's a certain connection one feels (or should feel) when hearing music. In my opinion, the finale of the 9th is harmonically void of even the shred of humanness and in its attempt to unite people, in its attempt to display universal joy, it misses somehow to the contrast, the sacrifice, the mortality - the truth of human spirit. I think this is why Mahler's 8th fails to captivate the majority of its listeners as well - it is so explosively grand, verbose in its nature, that it fails to remind us that sorrow exists as well as joy, and that happiness is not forced upon us, but we come to it.

The 9th Symphony is a very forceful symphony altogether. It has great ideas within it and I believe one or two of the movements are among Beethoven's greatest symphonic creations, but that final movement, as impressive as it sounds, has left me as an observer. I have never participated in that world. In that sense, I walk away feeling removed and sometimes bored because nowhere in it am I._


----------



## moody

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Post-Ludovico treatment patient, ueber-anti-Beethovian or pretentious?
> 
> Certainly, we all must remember those guys in high-school who made a point of letting us all know that they didn't listen to any of the popular music that the rest of us were listening to. Rather, they were listening to some obscure post-punk bands that could only be special ordered on independent record labels. Had they simply had different tastes than everyone else they would have only said, "No, I don't like X. What I listen to is Y" and left it at that. But the whole point was to prove to the rest of mere mortals how superior their taste was, and so they went on with comments suggesting that "No one who had really listened to music seriously or had half a brain could truly like X when it was so obvious just how superior Y is".
> 
> Well, naturally some of these guys eventually grew up.
> 
> Sort of...


But this place if full of these people.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> Well yes I like the piece ok... I just don't understand the notion that it is so ******* fantastic that nothing in the universe can ever surpass it ever and no one can ever ever dislike it or they are crazy.


Yes, but they are mostly very intense young people.


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> Well yes I like the piece ok... I just don't understand the notion that it is so ******* fantastic that nothing in the universe can ever surpass it ever and no one can ever ever dislike it or they are crazy.


No-one's saying this, let's not have a tantrum. Of course it's fine to dislike it, but if someone is going to make derisive comments about its _quality_ they'd better have a thorough understanding of the piece, a good familiarity with the major critical literature on it and some precise and well supported crticisms. Statements like 'it sounds like Yankee Doodle' I don't consider worth responding to.

What makes you say it's the weakest of his late works? For me, the idea of calling any of B's late works even _relatively_ weak is nonsensical; I couldn't say that he succeeded in some area in the 15th string quartet where he had previously failed in the 12th or anything like that. Some works are just more ambitious and cover a vaster terrain than others. The 9th is one of these, a stupendous step forward from any prior ideas of what the symphony could be. It took Beethoven almost a year and a half to write even discounting the lengthy period of gestation, far longer than anyone had taken over a symphony before this; he put more effort in to it timewise than any of his late works apart from the Missa Solemnis (I believe the Diabellis were composed in a piecemeal fashion over a long period).

Any list of its great qualities which ignores any emotional hyperbole will be hopeless, since one could compile such a list of technical qualities for any number of lesser works. Here are some sections from Berlioz's essay on it, mostly focusing on technical aspects but liberally interspersed with overblown metaphor; take it or leave it.



> [In] the first movement...the harmony is at times excessively daring: the most original patterns, the most expressive gestures crowd in and criss-cross in every direction, but without causing any obscurity or congestion. On the contrary the result has perfect clarity....
> 
> ...written in D minor, begins nevertheless on the chord of A without the third...this prolonged tonal ambiguity gives great power and character to the entry of the full orchestra on the chord of D minor.
> 
> ...[Of the coda]...it would be hard to hear anything more profoundly tragic than the song of the wind instruments beneath which a chromatic phrase played tremolo by the strings swells and rises gradually, like the roar of the sea before an approaching storm. This is a passage of magnificent inspiration.
> 
> [In] the scherzo vivace...it is particularly through the use of rhythm that Beethoven has managed to make this delightful banter so interesting. The theme with its fugal response four bars later is full of vitality, and sparkles with wit when the response then comes a bar earlier and follows a ternary instead of the initial binary rhythm.
> 
> The central part of the scherzo is taken up with a presto in duple time full of rustic joy...the melody is finally brought back by a phrase of delightful freshness in the oboe; after staying poised for a moment over the dominant major chord of D it finally blossoms in the key of F natural in a way that is as graceful as it is unexpected.
> 
> Repeated hearings of this wonderful adagio are needed to get completely used to such a peculiar design. As for the beauty of all these melodies, the infinite grace of the ornaments which decorate them, the feelings of sad tenderness, passionate despair and religious reverie they express...it is an immense movement, and once the listener has succumbed to its powerful charm, the only answer to the criticism that the composer has violated here the law of unity has to be: so much the worse for the law!
> 
> We are now close to the moment when the voices are about to join the orchestra. Cellos and double-basses intone the recitative we mentioned above...after this first recitative, he puts in the orchestra, in the midst of exquisitely chosen chords, the beautiful theme which is about to be sung by all the voices on Schiller's ode. This theme, gentle and calm in character, becomes increasingly animated and brilliant as it moves from the basses which play it first to the violins and the wind instruments.
> 
> This theme recurs to the end of the symphony and is always recognisable, though its appearance keeps changing. A study of these diverse transformations is all the more absorbing as each of them brings out a new and distinctive nuance in the expression of a single feeling, that of joy. At first this joy is full of gentleness and peace; it becomes somewhat livelier when the voice of women is heard. The beat changes; the theme, sung initially in quadruple time, returns in 6/8 time in syncopated style and now takes on a more robust and agile character that has a martial quality. This is the song of a departing hero who is confident of victory...
> 
> ...a fugal theme in which the original melody can be recognised, serves for a while as subject for a lively orchestral development, which recalls the bustling activity of a crowd full of ardour… But the chorus soon re-enters and sings energetically the joyful hymn in its original simplicity, supported by chords of the wind instruments which shadow the melody, and criss-crossed by a diatonic passage played by the whole mass of strings in unison and octaves.
> 
> The andante maestoso which follows is a kind of chorale intoned first by the tenors and basses of the chorus, in unison with a trombone, the cellos and double-basses. Joy here assumes a religious dimension and becomes solemn and immense. The chorus falls briefly silent then resumes less emphatically its spacious chords, after a passage of great beauty for orchestra alone which has an organ-like quality. The imitation of the majestic instrument of Christian churches is produced by flutes in the lower register, clarinets in the chalumeau register, the lower notes of the bassoons, the violas divided into two parts, upper and lower, and the cellos playing on their open strings...
> 
> There follows a great allegro in 6/4 where from the start are combined the beginning of the first theme, already used frequently with such variety, and the chorale of the preceding andante. The contrast between these two ideas is made even more striking by a fast variation of the joyful theme, on top of the long notes of the chorale, played not only by the first violins but also by the double-basses...there is less fire and grandeur, and greater lightness in the style of the following piece: its keynote is that of innocent joy, expressed first by four solo voices and then given greater warmth through the addition of the chorus. Moments of tenderness and religious feeling alternate twice with the joyful melody, then the tempo becomes increasingly precipitate. The whole orchestra bursts out...Joy resumes her sway, a popular and tumultuous joy which might look like an orgy if at the end the voices did not pause once more on a solemn rhythm to send, in an ecstatic cry, their final greeting of love and respect for religious joy. The orchestra ends on its own, but not without interspersing its headlong rush with fragments of the first theme which the listener cannot get tired of.


He also defends Beethoven's use of a chorus which has been called in to question before on this board:



> Beethoven had already written eight symphonies before this one. To progress beyond the point he had already reached solely with the resources of orchestral instruments, what further means were available? The answer is the addition of voices to instruments. But in order to observe the law of crescendo, and enhance in the work itself the power of the additional resource he wanted to provide to the orchestra, it was surely necessary to allow the instruments to figure on their own in the first section of the musical canvas he intended to display… Granted this premise, it is easy to see that he must have been led to search for a mixed musical genre to serve as link between the two major articulations of the symphony. The instrumental recitative was the bridge he had the audacity to throw between the chorus and the orchestra, over which the instruments crossed to go and join the voices. The transition once established the composer must have wanted to announce and motivate the fusion that was about to take place. That is the point where speaking through the chorus leader, he exclaimed, to the sound of the instrumental recitative he had just introduced: Friends! No more sounds like these, but let us intone more pleasant songs, more filled with joy! That is, so to speak, the treaty of alliance concluded between chorus and orchestra; the same theme of the recitative, used by both orchestra and chorus, seems to constitute the oath formula. Thereafter it was up to the composer to select the text for his choral composition: for this Beethoven turned to Schiller and took over the Ode to Joy. He coloured it with countless nuances which poetry on its own could never have conveyed, and it progresses to the end acquiring ever more splendour, grandeur and brilliance.


Anyway, I can't help but feel that that fails to do the music any justice, and I'd prefer to hear your criticisms of it than compile a sterile list of its virtues.


----------



## afterpostjack

I prefer the other movements (especially the 1st and 3rd), although the orchestral buildup before the singing starts is very good IMO. The rest of the piece is overrated. Overall, I like his 4th, 5th and 7th symphonies better.
Other symphonies that I like better are those of Bruckner (3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th) and Tchaikovsky (5th, 6th), and possibly Schubert (for his 8th and 9th).


----------



## moody

DAVIDMAHLER.
My comment still stands and you've made a brave attempt to explain, but you still said that the Brahms was more interesting, But you did not say "to me", so what happens when you are asked to prove it's more interesting? You can't really can you?


----------



## Dodecaplex

moody said:


> He has no technique, he has no voice and is mostly liked by maiden aunts.


You falsely presuppose that having technique is good while not having technique is bad.

Other than to yourself, these values are of no value.


----------



## Couchie

I can't help but feel a sense of self-loathing in all of the anti-9th'ers posts.


----------



## smoledman

I think there is a certain elitist segment among classical music listeners who don't want to be emotionally manipulated by the composer. The 9th is one of the ultimate emotionally manipulating pieces of music, you just have to surrender to it.


----------



## violadude

smoledman said:


> I think there is a certain elitist segment among classical music listeners who don't want to be emotionally manipulated by the composer. *The 9th is one of the ultimate emotionally manipulating pieces of music*, you just have to surrender to it.


I didnt find this to be true at all....


----------



## smoledman

violadude said:


> I didnt find this to be true at all....


I didn't say it was THE most, but up there.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Why is it so impossible to not be fond of Beethoven's 9th??

The real question is why is it not possible to dislike Beethoven's 9th without needing to go on for page after page attempting to convince others of ones point of view... or why is it not possible to dislike Beethoven's 9th without needing to infer that all those who actually do like it are somehow poor listeners, afraid to question "sacred cows" blindly following along with the masses, etc...?

From my own experience, I first came upon Beethoven's 9th after hearing it discussed on a video tape (possibly by Bernstein). I was immediately enthralled... swept away... and moved by the work in spite of the fact that I knew very little about classical music, let alone the reputation of the 9th as some sacred cow. My admiration for the work has remained the same in spite of all that I have learned and experienced in the realm of classical music since then.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In a related manner, I came across the following quote by John Eliot Gardiner pertaining to Brahms' symphonies today:

*I really don't understand (such) statements. These non-technical assessments of relative "worth" are so difficult to deal with, being usually disguises for simple gestures of approval ("I like it.") or preference ("I prefer the other one.").*


----------



## moody

Dodecaplex said:


> You falsely presuppose that having technique is good while not having technique is bad.
> 
> Other than to yourself, these values are of no value.


Give it a break!


----------



## moody

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In a related manner, I came across the following quote by John Eliot Gardiner pertaining to Brahms' symphonies today:
> 
> *I really don't understand (such) statements. These non-technical assessments of relative "worth" are so difficult to deal with, being usually disguises for simple gestures of approval ("I like it.") or preference ("I prefer the other one.").*


But this is normal,does one have to have technical knowledge to show a preference? Heaven help us!


----------



## smoledman

To me if the 9th does nothing for you, there is something wrong.


----------



## DavidMahler

smoledman said:


> To me if the 9th does nothing for you, there is something wrong.


----------



## poconoron

smoledman said:


> To me if the 9th does nothing for you, there is something wrong.


I could just as easily say that if Don Giovanni or Marriage of Figaro does nothing for you, there must be something wrong. People have different tastes.............. get over it.


----------



## Couchie

DavidMahler said:


>


Every Mahler symphony:


----------



## violadude

Couchie said:


> Every Mahler symphony:


That's Sibelius.....


----------



## poconoron

BTW, it's not just a few dunderheads on TC Forum who have not been enamored with the final movement:

Verdi:

"_The alpha and omega is Beethoven's 9th, marvelous in the first three movements, very badly set in the last. No one will ever approach the sublimity of the 1st movement, but it *will be an easy task to write as badly* for voices as is done in the last movement."
_

Stravinsky:

_"The failure of the last movement must be attributed, in large measure, to it's thumping theme. As the composer could not develop it - who would? - he spreads it out like a military parade. I am ever surprised in this movement by the poverty of the Allegro ma non tanto........................."The Ninth" is sacred, and was already sacred when I first heard it in 1897 - I have often wondered why."_

Wagner (in a letter to Liszt):

"_In the Ninth Symphony the last choral movement is decidedly the weakest part, although historically important.............."_


----------



## Couchie

violadude said:


> That's Sibelius.....


HAHAHA I actually thought the same thing after I posted it.


----------



## Dodecaplex

DavidMahler said:


>


What's wrong with yankee doodle? It's such a beautiful melody. So is ode to joy.



poconoron said:


> BTW, it's not just a few dunderheads on TC Forum who have not been enamored with the final movement:
> 
> Verdi:
> 
> "_The alpha and omega is Beethoven's 9th, marvelous in the first three movements, very badly set in the last. No one will ever approach the sublimity of the 1st movement, but it *will be an easy task to write as badly* for voices as is done in the last movement."
> _
> 
> Stravinsky:
> 
> _"The failure of the last movement must be attributed, in large measure, to it's thumping theme. As the composer could not develop it - who would? - he spreads it out like a military parade. I am ever surprised in this movement by the poverty of the Allegro ma non tanto........................."The Ninth" is sacred, and was already sacred when I first heard it in 1897 - I have often wondered why."_
> 
> Wagner (in a letter to Liszt):
> 
> "_In the Ninth Symphony the last choral movement is decidedly the weakest part, although historically important.............."_


No one cares.


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> No one cares.


Oh, so a composer's opinion should only be taken into account when it's a positive opinion but not a negative one?

Well that' cool. I'll remember that next time John Cage or Boulez comes up.


----------



## smoledman

I don't give a frak what those 2nd rate composers had to say about the 4th movement. I don't admit to listening to it in entirety all the time, but I do snatch a piece here and there. It's easy with digital files.


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> Oh, so a composer's opinion should only be taken into account when it's a positive opinion but not a negative one?


Come on, you know I'd never say such crap.

What I'd say is that a composer's (edit: or anyone's) opinion doesn't matter, whether it's positive or negative. Like I said, these values have no value. Gardiner praising the 9th is of no value, Wagner criticizing the 9th is of no value, etc.


----------



## violadude

smoledman said:


> I don't give a frak what those 2nd rate composers had to say about the 4th movement. I don't admit to listening to it in entirety all the time, but I do snatch a piece here and there. It's easy with digital files.


Stravinsky and Wagner are second rate composers??


----------



## DavidMahler

If someone wanted to argue that Beethoven's 5th is the greatest piece of music ever written, you would have no argument from me. It's not my favorite. But from beginning to end, it is wholly a more digestable and enjoyable work than the 9th. It doesn't get lost in mundane passages. The 9th finale does.

The 9th finale sounds like this to me:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Stravinsky and Wagner are second rate composers?? 

Indeed! Wagner a second-rate composer?! He must have meant Weber.


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> It doesn't get lost in mundane passages. The 9th finale does.


Where does this happen?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Why are we spending pages and pages arguing with an insignificant minority opinion vastly outweighed by the majority of classical music listerners about the merits of the 9th? Who really cares.


----------



## DavidMahler

jalex said:


> Where does this happen?


the second time the main melody is introduced and the dozens of repetitions after that.

Had it not been written by Beethoven, and had it not been attached to 3 excellent movements, only to be the most extroverted, and had it not been the first symphonic movement to incorporate a chorus, not a single person on this forum would hold the movement in any regard. I really believe this. From the standpoint melodic invention, orchestration and variation, thematic ideas and even as a text setting, it borders on amateur. Never in classical music is work of such profundity spoiled by such a falsely profound movement.

It's like hearing Tristan followed by Mass in B Minor followed by Don Giovanni followed by the 1812 Overture


----------



## smoledman

Oh I get it now. Hipsters think it's cool to trash the 4th movement now.


----------



## DavidMahler

smoledman said:


> Oh I get it now. Hipsters think it's cool to trash the 4th movement now.


no not hipsters. people who need a little more than major scale repeated in choral fashion for 20 minutes are not hipsters


----------



## trazom

The only parts of the finale I don't really care for are some of the vocal lines for the soloists, especially the sustained high notes for the soprano that sound so labored to me no matter how good the performance is.


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> the second time the main melody is introduced and the dozens of repetitions after that.


Stopped here. It's a _variations_ movement. The 'dozens of repetitions' do not exist.

How do you reconcile your view of this symphony with the evident admiration of your idols Brahms and Mahler?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Hey, look at me! I hate Beethoven's 9th symphony because I am so kewl. Anyone who disagrees with me will have my witty witticisms shoved down their throats until they learn their place, because I am kewl like that. Indeed, I am the god of the musics and the arts. Yankee doodle!


----------



## violadude

Ok look, I don't hate the 9th and I don't think the finale is a bad piece of music. but all I am saying is that I simply can't see how it is considered *so* unmatched and unsurpassed. I just don't get it. Sorry if that makes me a "kewl" hipster that is just pretending to not like something to look "kewl."


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> Ok look, I don't hate the 9th and I don't think the finale is a bad piece of music. but all I am saying is that I simply can't see how it is considered *so* unmatched and unsurpassed. I just don't get it. Sorry if that makes me a "kewl" hipster that is just pretending to not like something to look "kewl."


You did say that the 9th is the weakest work of Beethoven's late period. Can I hear a criticism of it?


----------



## brianwalker

jalex said:


> You did say that the 9th is the weakest work of Beethoven's late period. Can I hear a criticism of it?


Weak *relative* to the last 5 sonatas and 5 last quartets, which are unrivaled masterpieces in their genre.

All these hipster comments are really rude.

I'm not too fond of the "Beethoven symphony" tradition that runs through Schubert (who rebelled against it), Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, and even Sibelius. I like the Jupiter better than any Beethoven symphony, and then after that Bruckner and Mahler.

Plenty of people dislike Wagner, but somehow they're not hipsters? Surely Gotterdammerung is a greater work than Beethoven's 9th, but plenty of people dislike Gotterdammerung, are they hipster? Etc.


----------



## jalex

brianwalker said:


> Weak *relative* to the last 5 sonatas and 5 last quartets, which are unrivaled masterpieces in their genre.


Yes, well, many might say similar of the 9th. Not unrivalled (nor are the late string quartets), but certainly among the very best symphonies and arguably unsurpassed. And to say it is weak relative to the other works still implies that it fails somewhere or lacks something present in the other works which apparently no-one will disclose to me (ignoring the bizarre criticisms of DavidMahler ranging from the peurile 'it sounds like Yankee Doodle' to the incomprehensible 'I can't see my reflection in it').



> I'm not too fond of the "Beethoven symphony" tradition that runs through Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, and even Sibelius. I like the Jupiter better, and then after that Bruckner and Mahler.


Bruckner and Mahler had a healthy respect for Beethoven, especially Beethoven #9 (is there a Bruckner symphony which _doesn't_ start with string tremolos?)


----------



## brianwalker

Yes, well, many might say similar of the 9th. Not unrivalled (nor are the late string quartets), but certainly among the very best symphonies and arguably unsurpassed.

And no one is blamed as a "hipster" for not liking the Grosse Fugue.

http://www.talkclassical.com/solo-chamber-music/poll-66-a.html

Are these all hipsters? The 51.14%?

Bruckner and Mahler had a healthy respect for Beethoven, especially Beethoven #9 (is there a Bruckner symphony which doesn't start with string tremolos?)

Mahler already greatly respected Mozart. Your point being?

Edit: also greatly respected.


----------



## jalex

brianwalker said:


> And no one is blamed as a "hipster" for not liking the Grosse Fugue.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/solo-chamber-music/poll-66-a.html
> 
> Are these all hipsters? The 51.14%?
> 
> Mahler already greatly respected Mozart. Your point being?


I haven't called anyone a 'hipster', nor endorsed any such accusations made by any other posters.

My point was simply to throw more critical backing from weighty names behind the symphony. I might ask you what _your_ point was when you told me your symphonic preferences.

And I'm still waiting for a coherent criticism of the finale.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> You did say that the 9th is the weakest work of Beethoven's late period. Can I hear a criticism of it?


I can give you a criticism of it relative to his other late period works. Half of it is a biased musical criticism however, because I generally am not too fond of Beethoven's works when he tries to be so grand. I much prefer Beethoven when he is in a more subtle or humorous mood.

Anyway, one of the things I love so much about Beethoven's late period in general is his experimentation with form, harmony and counterpoint. I know the 9th has some of that as well, but not to the extent that his other pieces of this era do. One thing I love about the 28th piano sonata is that it has such a harmonically ambiguous beginning that never really has a firm resolution, it just keeps going and going. The motor like counterpoint in the context of a stickler march. I think the fugues that end the 28th, 29th and 31st piano sonatas are more interesting than any of the fugal sections in the 9th symphony, especially the one at the end of the 29th, I think of the Hammerklavier fugue as Beethoven's Well Tempered Clavier or Art of Fugue in a way. Also, the variations that end the 30th and 32nd sonatas are stellar. I feel they have much more substance than the ode to joy variations, well maybe not substance. But I feel he does a better job at varying the variations in those movements, if that makes any sense. I also love the quirky first movement of the 30th. That's one of the things I miss about the 9th symphony, its quirkiness. It's all really too serious. Even the HammerKlavier has quirkiness in the middle of its 2nd movement.

The string quartets are the same deal. I love the experimentation of form in the b flat and the c# minor quartets. I think in both of those pieces, plus the a minor quartet, Beethoven has a much greater pallet and experiments more with a wider range of expression (again, I miss the humor and the fun in the 9th). Also, I think the slow movement of the a minor, or the fugue beginning of the c# much more profound than most of the 9th (save for perhaps its slow movement). I find the daring abruptness of the first movement of the Bb quartet and the scherzo of the Eb very interesting and compelling. And the Grosse Fugue is just out of this world. It's rhythms, harmonies and sense of counterpoint are way into the early 20th century, much more so than absolutely anything in the 9th.

So just to sum things up, I just like the experimentation and range of expression in the piano sonatas and string quartets much better than stuff in the 9th. I think the 9th has some of that, but Beethoven might have had the public a bit more in mind when writing it. It's not as quirky or surprising as the 9th is. And I think much of the things that he tried in the 9th (fugues, variations, crazy scherzos) he pulled off much better in his other late pieces.

In many ways, I think lots of his daring experiments that are in the piano sonatas and the string quartets of his late period are streamlined in order to somewhat fit the public's tastes in the 9th.


----------



## DavidMahler

jalex said:


> I can't see my reflection in it.


you're paraphrasing me there. I think it's a very important criticism of the work. I think it's why most who do criticize that movement, criticize it. It's not relatable to many. It's hard to feel moved by something so forcefully vibrant without a stitch of contrast.


----------



## Sid James

violadude said:


> Alright, I clearly don't get it. So how about someone explain to me and DM why Beethoven's 9th is the greatest piece ever written by anyone in the world. Explain to me without using over blown and over emotional hyperbole please.


You wont get that. Some kind of opinion without "emotional hyperbole" as you call it. It's just people pushing various agendas.

Re Wagner as I understand it he was an admirer of Beethoven's 9th (as well as the late quartets, esp. the _Op. 131_). He esp. liked the choral finale, I have read, loved to conduct it. & I know Stravinsky admired the _Grosse Fuge_ as well. But I'm wary of these quotes to prove various unrelated agendas, as composer's opinions change over time (esp. guys who live as long as Stravinsky did). So they're only snapshots in time of their opinions, at best. Not set in stone, not "proof" for anything, really.

But anyway, people will have their "fun," for better or worse...


----------



## jalex

Firstly, I agree that the fugal sections of the 9th aren't comparable to the huge Hammerklavier fugue or the giant fugues in the Missa Solemnis. That's okay, they aren't supposed to be. They really are just fugato sections, not substantial fugues in their own right. 

The thing to bear in mind with the variations is that they are built not only around the original musical theme but also the extra-musical theme of joy; there isn't going to be any heart-rendingly tragic variation, it just wouldn't fit. The variations also stray less far from the theme, but once again this is a deliberate stylistic choice to keep with the overriding idea. But to look at the variations from another perspective, not even in the Diabelli variations is there such deep scrutiny of the many facets of a single emotion.

I think here you're expecting something Beethoven didn't plan to deliver - although the variation and fugal forms were trademarks of his late style they aren't as pivotal in the ninth as in the other late works.

As for quirkiness, I'd just point to, uh, the Turkish march? And as Berlioz says, the scherzo positively 'sparkles with wit'. No lack of humour there.

The formal experimentation in the finale equals any to be found anywhere else in his output. There still isn't any real agreement on what he was doing - 4 movements in one? And how about that bizarre adagio, which 'violates the law of unity' yet still sounds wholly satisfying?


----------



## jalex

DavidMahler said:


> you're paraphrasing me there. I think it's a very important criticism of the work. I think it's why most who do criticize that movement, criticize it. It's not relatable to many. It's hard to feel moved by something so forcefully vibrant without a stitch of contrast.


It's an empty criticism. It doesn't mean anything precise. It's ambiguous word-spinning. And if you think the finale of the 9th lacks contrast we must be working on such different levels that communication becomes pointless. What can I say to someone who hears the same thing in the furious opening as he does in the sombre recitatives as he does in the gentle presentation of the theme as he does in the haunting slow sections as he does in the exultant coda?


----------



## moody

Dodecaplex said:


> Come on, you know I'd never say such crap.
> 
> What I'd say is that a composer's (edit: or anyone's) opinion doesn't matter, whether it's positive or negative. Like I said, these values have no value. Gardiner praising the 9th is of no value, Wagner criticizing the 9th is of no value, etc.


What does matter and what does have some value in your mind?


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Firstly, I agree that the fugal sections of the 9th aren't comparable to the huge Hammerklavier fugue or the giant fugues in the Missa Solemnis. That's okay, they aren't supposed to be. They really are just fugato sections, not substantial fugues in their own right.
> 
> The thing to bear in mind with the variations is that they are built not only around the original musical theme but also the extra-musical theme of joy; there isn't going to be any heart-rendingly tragic variation, it just wouldn't fit. The variations also stray less far from the theme, but once again this is a deliberate stylistic choice to keep with the overriding idea. But to look at the variations from another perspective, not even in the Diabelli variations is there such deep scrutiny of the many facets of a single emotion.
> 
> I think here you're expecting something Beethoven didn't plan to deliver - although the variation and fugal forms were trademarks of his late style they aren't as pivotal in the ninth as in the other late works.
> 
> As for quirkiness, I'd just point to, uh, the Turkish march? And as Berlioz says, the scherzo positively 'sparkles with wit'. No lack of humour there.
> 
> The formal experimentation in the finale equals any to be found anywhere else in his output. There still isn't any real agreement on what he was doing - 4 movements in one? And how about that bizarre adagio, which 'violates the law of unity' yet still sounds wholly satisfying?


Perhaps our tastes just differ. I feel that the experiments in the other pieces are much more interesting than the ones in the 9th. I understand what you are saying about Beethoven's expressive and musical choices regarding the finale and it makes sense. I guess I just don't like that kind of expression, whatever that means.

Part of my aversion to people declaring the 9th the greatest piece of music ever written is also just my feeling that there is so much equally great music out there, I think it is impossible to declare any of it the greatest.


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> Part of my aversion to people declaring the 9th the greatest piece of music ever written is also just my feeling that there is so much equally great music out there, I think it is impossible to declare any of it the greatest.


That's fine, I'm not declaring it the greatest anything; I'm just declaring it great.


----------



## Dodecaplex

moody said:


> What does matter and what does have some value in your mind?


The music itself, but not what other people think of it.

Of course, I recognize the nonsensicality of what I'm saying. But I have to draw this 'line of value' somewhere, and that's where I currently draw it.


----------



## Sid James

violadude said:


> ...
> In many ways, I think lots of his daring experiments that are in the piano sonatas and the string quartets of his late period are streamlined in order to somewhat fit the public's tastes in the 9th.


I doubt Beethoven cared much about the public's tastes, at least not to significantly change the "vision" of a work. When violinist Ignaz Schuppanzigh compalined to Beethoven about the apparent unplayability of passages in the late string quartets, the composers bellowed "f*** your f***ing fiddles." Beethoven also said he was writing the late quartets for future generations, not only the current generation.

He did bow to the pressures of his publisher to write a new simpler ending to the Op. 130 string quartet, but he left the _Grosse Fuge _intact exactly as it was, as a separate opus, Op. 133.

I think Beethoven put down what he did, and he was a perfectionist. Eg. writing four versions of the_ Fidelio _overture. That opera, which attests to his skills for writing for the voice, was actually not successful on it's premiere, despite the fact he was as perfectionist as he got writing that work.

I can't remember the exact history of his 9th symphony, apart from what I said in earlier post (that he originally had planned it as purely instrumental work, incl. the finale), but I would apply what I said above about those other works to this work. His working method, imo, was to express his vision and communicate with the public in his own way, he was so innovative and unique...


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> That's fine, I'm not declaring it the greatest anything; I'm just declaring it great.


Well, you are an easy to get along with and reasonable poser, Jalex. Much of my seeming spite towards the 9th is just a bad reaction to people who say things like: "To me if the 9th does nothing for you, there is something wrong."

I like the 9th ok, but it's not my favorite when people make grand assumptions like that it doesn't help.


----------



## poconoron

jalex said:


> That's fine, I'm not declaring it the greatest anything; I'm just declaring it great.


Now that is a statement I can agree with.


----------



## DavidMahler

I've decided to listen to this work again, in its entirety.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Beethoven's finale for that work isn't bad.


----------



## moody

Dodecaplex said:


> Hey, look at me! I hate Beethoven's 9th symphony because I am so kewl. Anyone who disagrees with me will have my witty witticisms shoved down their throats until they learn their place, because I am kewl like that. Indeed, I am the god of the musics and the arts. Yankee doodle!


They are not really that witty you know. More like painful!


----------



## moody

jalex said:


> I haven't called anyone a 'hipster', nor endorsed any such accusations made by any other posters.
> 
> My point was simply to throw more critical backing from weighty names behind the symphony. I might ask you what _your_ point was when you told me your symphonic preferences.
> 
> And I'm still waiting for a coherent criticism of the finale.


What the hell's a hipster?


----------



## Eviticus

DavidMahler said:


> It's like hearing Tristan followed by Mass in B Minor followed by Don Giovanni followed by the *1812 Overture*


Alright Dave, i understand you're taking it from all angles but let's not go mental - you were doing so well.


----------



## jalex

moody said:


> What the hell's a hipster?


Uh, when used as a pejorative it's a term for someone who voices their dislike for something popular simply because it _is_ popular, regardless of it's objective merits (or even their own true feelings).


----------



## moody

jalex said:


> Uh, when used as a pejorative it's a term for someone who voices their dislike for something popular simply because it _is_ popular, regardless of it's objective merits (or even their own true feelings).


Thanks buddy I thought it was a type of jeans.


----------



## brianwalker

DavidMahler said:


> the second time the main melody is introduced and the dozens of repetitions after that.
> 
> Had it not been written by Beethoven, and had it not been attached to 3 excellent movements, only to be the most extroverted, and had it not been the first symphonic movement to incorporate a chorus, not a single person on this forum would hold the movement in any regard. I really believe this. From the standpoint melodic invention, orchestration and variation, thematic ideas and even as a text setting, it borders on amateur. Never in classical music is work of such profundity spoiled by such a falsely profound movement.
> 
> It's like hearing Tristan followed by Mass in B Minor followed by Don Giovanni followed by the 1812 Overture


I've been listening to the Furtwangler 1951 9th. Have to agree, the fourth movement is kinda disappointing.

I thought along with the 1st movement of the 6th, movement 1 and 2 of the 9th were his greatest achievements symphonic-ally.


----------



## Oliver

Just thought I'd say I take this thread back. I've given it some more listens and love it now, along with the other movements. 

Heheh..


----------



## ivorytutu

I was wondering if you guys thing that Beethoven had any major improvements or big changes between his 1st and 9th symphonies that you fine particularly drastic? I know that in his 9th symphony he uses voices but am curious about deeper bits. Things about the form and melody that you think changed largely through his career. Improvements. or just changes because of influences.


----------



## DavidA

The ninth is simply awesome to me. I have listened to it time upon time and its seems to me like Beethoven was on another plane. The last movement represents an ultimate in praise of joy (or 'freedom' maybe as the two words are similar in German, I believe). It is, of course, a secular work (unlike the Missa Solemnis) and a work that breaks new ground in many forms, not least the last movement. Of course, there are always some who criticise greatness, as Spohr did when he first heard the ninth. But I think that all such criticisms pale into insignificance (to me anyway) at the sheer impact a great performance of the work can make.


----------



## GGluek

Ivory --

Well, HC Robbins Landon has been widely quoted as saying that the "Eroica" represents the greatest single leap in the expessive power of music that has ever occurred (kind of like Bob Beamon's Olympic long jump). I don't think anyone has successfully argued against that judgment.


----------



## jani

GeneralOJB said:


> Who actually likes this? Just curious..


I don't like it, *I LOVE IT!!!*

It's the most glorious moment in all music!


----------



## jani

GeneralOJB said:


> Just thought I'd say I take this thread back. I've given it some more listens and love it now, along with the other movements.
> 
> Heheh..


See you can't go wrong with Beethoven, If you don't like first it its not the music's fault, it's your fault.


----------



## Ravndal

I'm one of those who can't stand it. The same goes for all of his symphonies, I'm afraid.


----------



## DavidA

Ravndal said:


> I'm one of those who can't stand it. The same goes for all of his symphonies, I'm afraid.


Each to his own. Sorry you are missing out on this wonderful music.


----------



## Ravndal

Yeah, it's too bad. Might have something to do with that the classical era has no emotional impact on me, except for some random works.


----------



## vertigo

I've been reading this thread for the past 15 minutes and I've learned many interesting facts:

a. Mahler sounds like an orchestra tuning
b. Whoever doesn't like the 9th is a filthy hipster
c. Some members' mothers are more interesting than Mahler's 9th
d. Wagner and Stravinsky are second rate composers whose opinions hold far less value than the members of TalkClassical
e. Writing good melodies is bad
f. Writing good melodies is good

All in all, an A+ thread with wonderful insights.

Did I mention WAGNER AND STRAVINSKY ARE SECOND RATE COMPOSERS?


----------



## Aries

GeneralOJB said:


> Who actually likes this? Just curious..


I like the final movement, but the first movement is the best movement of this symphony and even the best of all Beethoven-symphonys.


----------



## Bone

vertigo said:


> I've been reading this thread for the past 15 minutes and I've learned many interesting facts:
> 
> a. Mahler sounds like an orchestra tuning
> b. Whoever doesn't like the 9th is a filthy hipster
> c. Some members' mothers are more interesting than Mahler's 9th
> d. Wagner and Stravinsky are second rate composers whose opinions hold far less value than the members of TalkClassical
> e. Writing good melodies is bad
> f. Writing good melodies is good
> 
> All in all, an A+ thread with wonderful insights.
> 
> Did I mention WAGNER AND STRAVINSKY ARE SECOND RATE COMPOSERS?


Possibly the greatest post I've read on this forum. Hilarious/observant, sir or ma'am!

I love the finale and every student I've taught in 8th grade general music has been exposed to my personal opinion - this is the only work I spend time analyzing.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

vertigo said:


> I've been reading this thread for the past 15 minutes and I've learned many interesting facts:
> 
> a. Mahler sounds like an orchestra tuning
> b. Whoever doesn't like the 9th is a filthy hipster
> c. Some members' mothers are more interesting than Mahler's 9th
> d. Wagner and Stravinsky are second rate composers whose opinions hold far less value than the members of TalkClassical
> e. Writing good melodies is bad
> f. Writing good melodies is good
> 
> All in all, an A+ thread with wonderful insights.
> 
> *Did I mention WAGNER AND STRAVINSKY ARE SECOND RATE COMPOSERS?*


Yes you did, and which member said that? I would like to congratulate them. ut:

That was a great post by the way. :lol:


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Oh by the way, I love the last movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony.


----------



## TinyTim

I love Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. For me, the fourth movement loses some of its power and beauty if heard independent of the three movements preceding it, the way Beethoven wrote it. The number of recordings I've listened to is limited, but my favorite is the 1984 recording by the Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Von Karajan.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I love Beethoven's 9th finale more than the rest of the symphony....but it would be better as a standalone choral work (@Beethoven, rewrite the opening section before the main theme starts. The instrumental recitative style is good, well done on that, but including those excerpts from the first three movements makes the recitative section too long and boring, none of the material is developing and the music seems to go nowhere.) 

The first three movements would be so much better with an instrumental finale.


----------



## arpeggio

*Greatest Post*



vertigo said:


> I've been reading this thread for the past 15 minutes and I've learned many interesting facts:
> 
> a. Mahler sounds like an orchestra tuning
> b. Whoever doesn't like the 9th is a filthy hipster
> c. Some members' mothers are more interesting than Mahler's 9th
> d. Wagner and Stravinsky are second rate composers whose opinions hold far less value than the members of TalkClassical
> e. Writing good melodies is bad
> f. Writing good melodies is good
> 
> All in all, an A+ thread with wonderful insights.
> 
> Did I mention WAGNER AND STRAVINSKY ARE SECOND RATE COMPOSERS?


Concur that this is one of the greatest posts I've read on this forum or any other.


----------



## DavidA

TinyTim said:


> I love Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. For me, the fourth movement loses some of its power and beauty if heard independent of the three movements preceding it, the way Beethoven wrote it. The number of recordings I've listened to is limited, but my favorite is the 1984 recording by the Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Von Karajan.


The 1977 Karajan version is maybe the best of his four versions.


----------



## vertigo

MaestroViolinist said:


> Yes you did, and which member said that? I would like to congratulate them. ut:
> 
> That was a great post by the way. :lol:


Haha..thanks

It was in response to Verdi's, Wagner's and Stravinsky's less than stellar opinions on the 4th movement of the 9th.

Here it is: "I don't give a frak what those 2nd rate composers had to say about the 4th movement. I don't admit to listening to it in entirety all the time, but I do snatch a piece here and there. It's easy with digital files."

Which reminds me, this thread taught me another life-changing fact: It's easy to listen to parts of records with digital media, as opposed to analogue media like vinyl.


----------



## GGluek

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I love Beethoven's 9th finale more than the rest of the symphony....but it would be better as a standalone choral work (@Beethoven, rewrite the opening section before the main theme starts. The instrumental recitative style is good, well done on that, but including those excerpts from the first three movements makes the recitative section too long and boring, none of the material is developing and the music seems to go nowhere.)
> 
> The first three movements would be so much better with an instrumental finale.


As I mentioned to a novice listener some months ago, the orchestral recitative is Beethoven's prosaic way of introducing and explaining the chorus. Development isn't the point. 

george


----------



## jani

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I love Beethoven's 9th finale more than the rest of the symphony....but it would be better as a standalone choral work (@Beethoven, rewrite the opening section before the main theme starts. The instrumental recitative style is good, well done on that, but including those excerpts from the first three movements makes the recitative section too long and boring, none of the material is developing and the music seems to go nowhere.)
> 
> The first three movements would be so much better with an instrumental finale.


The schilers ( yes i may spelled his name completely wrong) poem was very important for him, he wanted to put the poem into music so he had to use singers etc...
Also i think that he wanted to use singers because its the human voice, and he really believed to human spirit.


----------



## DavidA

GGluek said:


> As I mentioned to a novice listener some months ago, the orchestral recitative is Beethoven's prosaic way of introducing and explaining the chorus. Development isn't the point.
> 
> george


Beethoven prosaic? Hmmmmmm!!

And you say the OTHER guy is the novice?


----------



## jani

DavidA said:


> Beethoven prosaic? Hmmmmmm!!
> 
> And you say the OTHER guy is the novice?


When you compare anyone to Beethoven, even JS.Bach is a novice.


----------



## KenOC

jani said:


> When you compare anyone to Beethoven, even JS.Bach is a novice.


Now that's going a bit far...


----------



## Art Rock

jani said:


> When you compare anyone to Beethoven, even JS.Bach is a novice.


Thanks! I needed a good laugh!


----------



## jani

Art Rock said:


> Thanks! I needed a good laugh!


No it's not a joke.


----------



## GGluek

DavidA said:


> Beethoven prosaic? Hmmmmmm!!
> 
> And you say the OTHER guy is the novice?


I didn't say it was bad, or even that it wasn't a work of genius -- only that the recitative was an integral part of the movement, it served a purpose that was partly musical, partly literary -- and yes, recitative is almost by definition prosaic. 

cheers --


----------



## DavidA

jani said:


> When you compare anyone to Beethoven, even JS.Bach is a novice.


One person who would have strongly disagreed with that statement would have been LvB himself!


----------



## DavidA

GGluek said:


> I didn't say it was bad, or even that it wasn't a work of genius -- only that the recitative was an integral part of the movement, it served a purpose that was partly musical, partly literary -- and yes, recitative is almost by definition prosaic.
> 
> cheers --


You saying the recites in Mozart's operas are prosaic?


----------



## GGluek

DavidA said:


> You saying the recites in Mozart's operas are prosaic?


In terms of the primary definition of the word ("of or related to prose -- as opposed to poetry"), yes.


----------



## Art Rock

jani said:


> No it's not a joke.


From your point of view.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

jani said:


> The schilers ( yes i may spelled his name completely wrong) poem was very important for him, he wanted to put the poem into music so he had to use singers etc...
> Also i think that he wanted to use singers because its the human voice, and he really believed to human spirit.


That's why I say it should be a standalone work. Like a sequel to the choral fantasy.


----------



## Novelette

It makes a perfect follow-up to the Missa Solemnis.

The Agnus Dei movement of the latter was extremely unusual in that following the plea for peace, the sounds of war begin after which the singers revive their pleas for mercy. It calms down back into the "give us peace" sections but the menacing fanfares of war still loom in the background. It seems a statement that true prosperity comes both from within and by bond of fellowship. The "Ode to Joy" goes on to celebrate the common kinship that, hopefully, will triumph over belligerence. Brotherhood would dissolve those menacing war sounds in the Missa Solemnis. Thereby full peace isn't "bestowed" by god, but is secured by the humanist sentiment of brotherhood. Perhaps I read too much into it, but it's a touching message.

Considering the works that preceded it, it is a monumental work. A milestone in the history of music.

As much as I idolize Beethoven, I couldn't honestly say that Bach was inconsequential by comparison. I idolize Bach too. :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

GGluek said:


> In terms of the primary definition of the word ("of or related to prose -- as opposed to poetry"), yes.


Yes but the current use of the word has derogatory overtones!


----------



## Petwhac

DavidMahler said:


> Beethoven was a horrible melodist


Tell that to Billy Joel!


----------



## GGluek

DavidA said:


> Yes but the current use of the word has derogatory overtones!


No need to be combative. I explained what I meant.

cheers --


----------



## arts

I love it! I went to see the live performance for my 8 year old birthday.


----------



## TinyTim

DavidA said:


> The 1977 Karajan version is maybe the best of his four versions.


I haven't heard that version, but will try to soon. Thanks!


----------



## DavidA

GGluek said:


> No need to be combative. I explained what I meant.
> 
> cheers --


I'm not being combative. Just pointing out the modern implication of the word, especially when used in musical criticism.


----------



## GGluek

DavidA said:


> I'm not being combative. Just pointing out the modern implication of the word, especially when used in musical criticism.


No problem.

g


----------



## oogabooha

Webernite said:


> But not Stravinsky or Gustav Leonhardt, apparently.


i'm curious; what did stravinsky say about beethoven 9?


----------



## Mahlerian

oogabooha said:


> i'm curious; what did stravinsky say about beethoven 9?


Among other things, that the opening of the finale was as bad as wind band music and that the variations in the 3rd movement were banal and uninspired.


----------

