# Beethoven Vs. Mozart



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Me and my friend on Friday morning were discussing the works of Beethoven and Mozart. Thus came the question who has more of a global impact and who was the bigger "genius?" Beethoven in my opinion has made far superior music to Mozart while he was deaf, yet Mozart never wrote second drafts of his music. It was perfect the first time. Here are my questions to see others opinions.

1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
3.) Who has had more of a global impact?

P.S. No arguing in this thread. This is to hear others opinions. I can name a specific thread where arguing opinions has happened too much, and it was getting rather annoying.


----------



## Weston

My opinion has always been that Beethoven has more far reaching impact than Mozart. Mozart may have gotten his music perfect the first time, but that is irrelevant if it doesn't speak to me (although much of it does.) 

1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
Beethoven's genius and influence extends far outside his own time, whereas I feel that Mozart was pretty much of his own time, however sublime his works.

2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
Beethoven, because it makes me feel in profound ways.

3.) Who has had more of a global impact?
See above. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by global impact, but I find Beethoven's music of slightly more universal appeal. Popularity is not necessarily an indication of superiority however, so I will leave it at that.

and 4. I just enjoy the legends surrounding Beethoven -- his being one of the first brooding artist as hero types.

None of this is to say I dismiss Mozart. I do enjoy his music also.


----------



## Tapkaara

Beethoven is my answer to questions 1, 2 and 3.

Beethoven was a greater genius because he took the "classical" idiom and basically single-handedly reinvented it and ushered in a completely new movement. Because of Beethoven, music evolved.

Beethoven's music is superior because it has all of the structural perfection of a Mozart or Haydn, but also fiery emotion that has more direct impact than either. Thus, his music is more emotionally complex while structural brilliant...his music has it all.

Beethoven had more global impact. Everyone knows the opening chords of the 5th symphony, everyone knows the big "Ode to Joy" tune, and most know the music from the Moonlight Sonata. But the real impact comes from his "invention" or Romantic music. So great was Beethoven's genius that a new type of musical expression had to be born. When you are the catalyst for a new style of music, I'd say your impact is pretty big.

I really hope the Mozartians don't rip me a new one here. Please respect my opinion.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> Beethoven was a greater genius because he took the "classical" idiom and basically single-handedly reinvented it and ushered in a completely new movement. Because of Beethoven, music evolved.
> 
> Beethoven's music is superior because it has all of the structural perfection of a Mozart or Haydn, but also fiery emotion that has more direct impact than either. Thus, *his music is more emotionally complex while structural brilliant*...his music has it all.


I am not a Mozartian, I don't prefer either composer, but much of what you say about Beethoven being a revolutionary, etc. can be applied to Mozart (especially his late works: _Symphonies Nos. 39-41, Don Giovanni & the Requiem_). After these pieces, classical music would never be the same. It became more subjective, more about emotions, and much more autobiographical. Mozart was just 'warming up' to producing more masterpieces, if he would not have died so young, he would have composed many more. Needless to say, Mozart's music is just as well known as Beethoven's eg. _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik_, _Rondo alla Turca, Piano Concerto No. 21 'Elvira Madigan_,' and so on.

So, basically, I don't think either was greater, really. Both were pretty influential, but I think that Beethoven was like a demigod who dominated his age, and kind of overshadowed much that went before him, and much that came after. Both composers redefined so many genres. In particular, they elevated music from being a mere accompaniment to other things into being the main event in itself. Look at the length of their instrumental works, for example - they made people develop their attention spans. Music was no longer something light served as an entree to something else, it was something you sat down to for half an hour or longer to enjoy & concentrate on in itself. I think Mozart (& Haydn, to a degree) started off this process & Beethoven continued. To some extent, Beethoven would not have become the composer he did if not for the teaching of Haydn, & the contribution to music of Mozart.


----------



## Mirror Image

My assessment of this question is very simple: they were both influential and neither one of them were better than the other. In terms of person taste, however, I prefer Beethoven.

I don't think its' fair to really put them against each other like it's some kind of competition.

This discussion is just like comparing Ravel to Debussy. Ravel borrowed ideas from Debussy, especially in terms of color and texture, but ultimately Ravel became an influential composer who developed his own highly personal style. Debussy was a revolutionary who forged his own path in music, which, in turn, influenced many composers ever since.


----------



## Bach

Beethoven is the greater composer, perhaps Mozart was a greater musician..


----------



## Rasa

I think it's safe to say that in general Mozart perfected the style, and Beethoven advanced it.


----------



## PostMinimalist

Mozart Vs. Beethoven? In a poker game, Mozart, In the boxing ring, Beethoven. Probably a draw at chess but Mozart again for tiddly winks easily! Bowling and darts my money goes on Mozart but arm wrestling and ludo (not Judo but I guess he'd win at that too!) I would advise odds on Beethoven. 

B has the clout but M has fancy footwork!

Whadya think, Rocky!


----------



## jhar26

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Me and my friend on Friday morning were discussing the works of Beethoven and Mozart. Thus came the question who has more of a global impact and who was the bigger "genius?" Beethoven in my opinion has made far superior music to Mozart while he was deaf, yet Mozart never wrote second drafts of his music. It was perfect the first time. Here are my questions to see others opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are equals really. If music were a competition (which in my modest opinion it isn't supposed to be) both could lay claim to be 'the greatest of all time' and only Bach could object to any such notion. I think that considering the preferences of many members here that Beethoven will come out the winner with most people, but I think that has mostly to do with the fact that he was the later composer. He's more of a transitional figure towards the romantic era which is many members favorite period here. But it's not Mozart's fault that he was a late 18th century composer. Take a listen to Mozart's early works and the works that other composers were producing at the time and compare them with his later works and you will realize that Mozart's artistic journey from his early works to his late works was just as impressive as Beethoven's. And keep in mind that Mozart had to make that journey in a much shorter life than Beethoven, Bach, Wagner, Haydn, Handel or any of the other all time greats (except for Schubert).
> 
> 
> 
> 2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, they are equals. Both have produced masterpieces in almost any genre. Even so, when we feel inclined to split hairs it's maybe correct to say that Beethoven was arguably the greater composer of string quartets, symphonies and piano sonatas while Mozart was the better opera composer and his piano concertos are maybe the most impressive string of instrumental works of any composer in any field. Wolfie was also in a league of his own when it comes to writing for wind instruments in my modest opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.) Who has had more of a global impact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both. Again, some will say Beethoven, but Beethoven couldn't have happened without Mozart. Beethoven had for example Mozart's G minor symphony and the _Jupiter_ as examples of what was possible with the symphony. Imagine that there had been no Mozart and that Vanhal's, Boccherini's or even fellow genius Haydn's symphonies had been Ludwig's starting point. Does anyone think that Beethoven would have composed the, say, _Eroica_ without Mozart raising the bar before him?
Click to expand...


----------



## nefigah

post-minimalist said:


> Mozart Vs. Beethoven? In a poker game, Mozart, In the boxing ring, Beethoven. Probably a draw at chess but Mozart again for tiddly winks easily! Bowling and darts my money goes on Mozart but arm wrestling and ludo (not Judo but I guess he'd win at that too!) I would advise odds on Beethoven.
> 
> B has the clout but M has fancy footwork!
> 
> Whadya think, Rocky!


Don't forget Professional Wrestling -- I maintain Beethoven would have won if Haydn hadn't unexpectedly appeared in the ring with the mask on and the folding chair!


----------



## Tapkaara

Haydn and those folding chairs...you really have to watch him!


----------



## handlebar

When I first saw the thread subject matter, i thought: Oh boy. Talk about a loaded question!
So after thinking about it for a long time here are my dull and nonsensical answers:


1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why? They were equal IMHO. One had more natural talent and the other had to work his rear off to do so. If one can be born with such talent and genius, it was Mozart. I might not admire ALL of his works, but they are all masterpieces to somebody. He never seemed to be at a loss for composing.Beethoven had periods of thematic forgetfulness. He had the drive but the music didn't come to him as easily as Mozart. And look at the output over the comparative life spans: Mozart far outdid Beethoven in that respect.

2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?Again, equal. Both are superb in their compositions.I know I'm supposed to pick but i cannot.

3.) Who has had more of a global impact?I would say Mozart has penetrated the world at large in a bigger way. In terms of vast numbers of recordings and literature. Now influence in later art might be a tougher question.I will defer by saying I plead the 5th.

Jim


----------



## nickgray

1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?

Pointless question.

2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?

Beethoven.

3.) Who has had more of a global impact?

Beethoven.


Getting a bit more serious now... I'm not a big fan of either of them, but I like Beethoven's music much more than Mozart's (which I'm not a big fan of, only some of his late works and a bit middle). I also don't think that you can measure the amount of talent in two extremely talented persons, therefore you can't compare the "genius level". I also hate the word genius... As for the global impact - Beethoven, of course. I'm quite sure most classical fans would agree.


----------



## Lisztfreak

1) Beethoven perhaps. But, as nickgray says, a pointless question.

2) Beethoven

3) Beethoven


----------



## PostMinimalist

I never realised Haydn had such developed biceps!


----------



## Lisztfreak

post-minimalist said:


> I never realised Haydn had such developed biceps!


Of course, you think count Esterházy did not have a gym and a swimming pool on his estate?


----------



## JustAFan

Beethoven wrote stunningly great and sometimes beautiful music, Mozart wrote stunningly beautiful and sometimes great music.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

There are times where I cannot really exactly respect Mozart's work at times because he barely tries when he is writing, he does not really put his heart and soul into it as much as other composers like Beethoven. With Beethoven I hear pure thick emotion, happiness, depression, pain, just pure expression. With Mozart, I hear a teen trying to have fun and being playful. His music is brilliant, but I cannot connect to it nearly as much as I do with Beethoven's music.


----------



## Tapkaara

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> There are times where I cannot really exactly respect Mozart's work at times because he barely tries when he is writing, he does not really put his heart and soul into it as much as other composers like Beethoven. With Beethoven I hear pure thick emotion, happiness, depression, pain, just pure expression. With Mozart, I hear a teen trying to have fun and being playful. His music is brilliant, but I cannot connect to it nearly as much as I do with Beethoven's music.


Them fighting words!


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Tapkaara said:


> Them fighting words!


Lol, I knew I was going to get something like that. Sometimes a good idea to keep opinions to yourself lol


----------



## World Violist

1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
I agree that this is, on the whole, a pointless question, but if pressed I would say Mozart. Why? You try writing all he wrote in the span of 30 years and you'll see.

2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
Beethoven. Nobody is more stimulating. Simple as that. Mentally, emotionally, spiritually--Beethoven has it all.

3.) Who has had more of a global impact?
Beethoven. 'Nuff said.


----------



## jhar26

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> There are times where I cannot really exactly respect Mozart's work at times because he barely tries when he is writing, he does not really put his heart and soul into it as much as other composers like Beethoven. With Beethoven I hear pure thick emotion, happiness, depression, pain, just pure expression. With Mozart, I hear a teen trying to have fun and being playful. His music is brilliant, but I cannot connect to it nearly as much as I do with Beethoven's music.


Mozart's genius is such that the works of most other great composers sound clumsy in comparison.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> There are times where I cannot really exactly respect Mozart's work at times because he barely tries when he is writing, he does not really put his heart and soul into it as much as other composers like Beethoven. With Beethoven I hear pure thick emotion, happiness, depression, pain, just pure expression. With Mozart, I hear a teen trying to have fun and being playful. His music is brilliant, but I cannot connect to it nearly as much as I do with Beethoven's music.


Mozart spent three years writing the Haydn quartets. That's six months per quartet. Hardly someone who 'barely tries' or a 'teen trying to have fun'.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Sometimes a good idea to keep opinions to yourself lol


Especially when they're ill-informed and inelegantly expressed.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

1. Beethoven IMO
2. Beethoven
3. Beethoven IMO


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> Especially when they're ill-informed and inelegantly expressed.


My, my. Even outside of the thread you are still arguing.  And besides, sure, he has some pieces he may have worked hard on, but too much (most) of his work was written out of the top of his head.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> Especially when they're ill-informed and inelegantly expressed.


 
Shhhhhhhhh, time to hush now.


----------



## Tapkaara

Ooooh, the sanctimony!


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Tapkaara said:


> Ooooh, the sanctimony!


Sometimes the best approach to an ongoing armument.


----------



## Aramis

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> And besides, sure, he has some pieces he may have worked hard on, but too much (most) of his work was written out of the top of his head.


I don't see how his "hasty" way of composing music could have any negative impact on his works. If there is idea, translating it intro notes doesn't have to take too much time. And if we are talking about emotions - isn't music wrote under some impuls more emotional than work finished couple of months after composer forgot what he was trying to express?


----------



## Mirror Image

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> And besides, sure, he has some pieces he may have worked hard on, but too much (most) of his work was written out of the top of his head.


And your point is...? Mozart wrote beautiful music and HE WAS A GENIUS.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Aramis said:


> I don't see how his "hasty" way of composing music could have any negative impact on his works. If there is idea, translating it intro notes doesn't have to take too much time. And if we are talking about emotions - isn't music wrote under some impuls more emotional than work finished couple of months after composer forgot what he was trying to express?


Most of the time if you write music so quickly with one draft the music is not translated correctly, or could use polishing in some areas. I believe composers should take their time with writing their music, making necessary changes or corrections. Mozart has great ideas the first time that he came up with them, I just believe he could have done better if he made other drafts and made alterations.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Mirror Image said:


> And your point is...? Mozart wrote beautiful music and HE WAS A GENIUS.


No doubt he was a genius, I am just stating why I don't exactly respect him as much as my other favorite composers. I still adore Mozart's work, I just feel like he could have done even better if he put more time into it.


----------



## Mirror Image

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> No doubt he was a genius, I am just stating why I don't exactly respect him as much as my other favorite composers. I still adore Mozart's work, I just feel like he could have done even better if he put more time into it.


I see what you're saying, but I still feel that him being a spontaneous composer doesn't have anything to do with whether the music is good or not, so I think your point is totally irrelevant to the actual music being heard by the listener.

There are composers that have spent years working on a piece, but my point is this whole conception of time being spent on a composition doesn't have anything to do with the actual music and whether it's good or not, this is purely subjective.

Sometimes agonizing over a piece is a rather pointless pursuit, because when you first write the notes down on the paper that is where all of that passion is coming from and it's natural. When you gasp when you're writing a piece, cry, or laugh out loud, something truly magical is happening and this is the way Mozart composed with that freewheeling intensity and this, to me, doesn't make his music inferior because he could write so naturally.


----------



## jhar26

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> No doubt he was a genius, I am just stating why I don't exactly respect him as much as my other favorite composers. I still adore Mozart's work, I just feel like he could have done even better if he put more time into it.


Pre-19th century composers couldn't afford to work for long periods of time on each work as later composers could. They needed to produce new works constantly - if not they wouldn't have been able to make ends meet. Having said that, it's hard to imagine how the music from his Vienna years especially could have been better than it is. People who don't like Mozart's music usually don't like music from the classical period in general, but that's not Mozart's fault.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Mirror Image said:


> I see what you're saying, but I still feel that him being a spontaneous composer doesn't have anything to do with whether the music is good or not, so I think your point is totally irrelevant to the actual music being heard by the listener.
> 
> There are composers that have spent years working on a piece, but my point is this whole conception of time being spent on a composition doesn't have anything to do with the actual music and whether it's good or not, this is purely subjective.
> 
> Sometimes agonizing over a piece is a rather pointless pursuit, because when you first write the notes down on the paper that is where all of that passion is coming from and it's natural. When you gasp when you're writing a piece, cry, or laugh out loud, something truly magical is happening and this is the way Mozart composed with that freewheeling intensity and this, to me, doesn't make his music inferior because he could write so naturally.





jhar26 said:


> Pre-19th century composers couldn't afford to work for long periods of time on each work as later composers could. They needed to produce new works constantly - if not they wouldn't have been able to make ends meet. Having said that, it's hard to imagine how the music from his Vienna years especially could have been better than it is. People who don't like Mozart's music usually don't like music from the classical period in general, but that's not Mozart's fault.


Both of you are making me rethink, lol, Mirror Image has good points, and jhar26 just told me something I didn't know. Hmm


----------



## Artemis

1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
3.) Who has had more of a global impact?

A big difficulty in answering any of these questions is that many of the major composers, Mozart and Beethoven especially, died at significantly different ages and therefore enjoyed completely different opportunities. Beethoven lived for some 22 years longer than Mozart, but on the other hand was deaf or nearly deaf for a significant part of it. Had Mozart lived even another 10 years the outcome would have been very different, as too would the outcome if Beethoven had died at the same age as Mozart (35), or had actually packed up after writing his Heiligenstadt Testament in 1802 (age 32). Any such comparison of "genius" is therefore unfair and not well grounded.

Leaving all that aside and focusing purely on their actual legacies, I would agree that Mozart and Beethoven are the two greatest composers, with Bach in third place. On balance Mozart is my preferred composer, and I consider him to be slightly the greater composer. Below is my more detailed assessment:

Mozart had the bigger *output*. In general, Mozart is often accused of writing lots of lightweight music. So he did, but it sounds fantastic to me, and is often just what I often like listening to as opposed to the more heavyweight material associated with Beethoven. Mozart also wrote a good deal of more profound music, e.g. the Masonic funeral material (K 471, K 477), and many of Mozart's minor key works are brilliant.

Mozart's biggest superiority over Beethoven is in *choral/operatic works*. Don Giovanni, The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute are three of the greatest operas ever. The most famous Requiem is Mozart's. Many of Mozart's concert arias are also really splendid. By comparison, Beethoven could not write so well for voice. His output is limited and he struggled to complete it. What little he wrote was however very good.

In terms of *chamber music* I would say that it was pretty much a draw. Beethoven's mid/late period string quartets are superb, as too are several piano trios. But Mozart wrote some equally impressive material too. Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, String Quintet K 516, and "Dissonance" String Quartet and are second to none in quality.

Mozart wrote some fantastic *divertimenti and serenades*. Even the very early ones contain some gems (e.g. K 113, K 116, K 166). There are some stunningly fantastic later pieces among them, my favourites including Serenades 10 ("Gran Partita") and, of course, the famous No 13 ("Eine Kleine Nachtmusik"). These works among my very favourites. Beethoven wrote relatively little to compare with them, and what he did write was not so good (e.g. Op 16 quintet for piano and winds).

Among *other types of work for orchestra,* Mozart wrote some very impressive pieces, including Sinfonia concertante for violin and viola and orchestra (K 364), Rondo for Violin & orchestra (K 269 and K 373), and Rondo for Piano & Orchestra (K 382 and K 386).

Possibly Beethoven had a slight edge on *symphonies* but Mozart's achievements from S25 onwards are considerable. Overall I prefer Mozart's works. Symphony numbers 39-41 are his crowning achievements and every bit as good as any of Beethoven's, but there are some earlier gems, and I particularly like Symphonies No 25 and 29. On the other hand, the more simplistic melody, motif-driven, and strongly dynamic Beethoven symphonic style is fine for a while, but in my case I found that I rather tired of it as they became so predictable and almost cliche. I prefer the more flowing Mozartian melodic lines which are so beautifully knitted together, apparently effortlessly. In the case of Beethoven, however, I must say that I am finding more interest in some of the recent period instrument/HIP performances, and maybe Rod Corkin has a good point that it's time for a change from the stodgy Klemperer/Karajan style. Certainly, I have found that modern recordings by the likes of the Ivan Fischer/Budadest Festival Orchestra (S 7) to be a revelation.

Mozart's *concerto* output was more prolific and varied with respect to different instruments. Piano Concertos 20, 21, 23 and 24 are every bit as good if not better than Beethoven's. Mozart's various wind concertos have deservedly long been major features of the concert scene.

For *keyboard work*s, possibly Beethoven might arguably just have the edge. Individually, there is little doubt that some of Beethoven's piano sonatas are greater than Mozart's, but there are several of Beethoven's which in my view are lack-lustre. I still greatly like Mozart's many efforts in this area. Unlike Beethoven, he wrote quite a lot for organ, and I especially consider many of Mozart's piano sonatas both a joy to listen to and play.

.


----------



## Herzeleide

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Most of the time if you write music so quickly with one draft the music is not translated correctly, or could use polishing in some areas. I believe composers should take their time with writing their music, making necessary changes or corrections. Mozart has great ideas the first time that he came up with them, I just believe he could have done better if he made other drafts and made alterations.


What alterations would these include? In which areas does Mozart's music need polishing? What are the particular failings of Mozart's music? What on earth do you mean by 'the music is not translated correctly'? Why is it that plenty of composers have spent ages writing each piece but not reached the stratospheric artistic heights of Mozart?


----------



## Herzeleide

Tapkaara said:


> Ooooh, the sanctimony!


----------



## sam richards

1. Mozart 
2. Beethoven
3. Beethoven

Mozart had talent but his music is too boring and cliche for me. It's unfortunate that he died young.


----------



## Herzeleide

sam richards said:


> Mozart had talent but his music is too boring and cliche for me.


Try K. 465. Try the great operas.

'Too boring' is a crass and crude evaluation of one of the most revered composers in the world. My suggestion is that you listen to a large selection of his music, read about it, and reconsider your opinion.


----------



## sam richards

I have listened to that. The only Mozart work I like is his Requiem.


----------



## Mirror Image

sam richards said:


> I have listened to that. The only Mozart work I like is his Requiem.


I think you're kind of being unfair Sam Richards. I mean you're certainly entitled to your opinions as we all are, but I think you're being pretty unreasonable with some of your comments above.

Mozart was a world class composer. His works need to be examined and listened to carefully. You have to also be aware of the time frame they're written in. I used to share many negative views of Mozart. I think I've even called him a complete hack on this very forum a few months ago, but that was a idiotic thing for me say considering I didn't even know the half of what I was talking about.

Like you, the "Requiem" really floored me with its emotion, but I think a close examination to all the compositions he has written have emotion too, perhaps not the heart on your sleeve emotion we hear in the "Requiem," but it's there, no doubt about it.

My classical listening has a strong lean on the Romantic period. Most of my favorite composers are from this period, so only natural I would feel that way towards Mozart, but as time went on and I listened to more Beethoven, another composer I didn't enjoy at the time, I started to realize the parallels between the two composers. It's remarkable to think about really. Both are geniuses in the truest sense. Beethoven may affect you more with his music and that's fine, because I enjoy Beethoven more, but I think you should give Mozart another try and listen with an open-mind, but also realize the time frame and the circumstances in which these pieces were written under.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Herzeleide said:


> What alterations would these include? In which areas does Mozart's music need polishing? What are the particular failings of Mozart's music? What on earth do you mean by 'the music is not translated correctly'? Why is it that plenty of composers have spent ages writing each piece but not reached the stratospheric artistic heights of Mozart?


So you are saying that first drafts of anything are always the best? Great writers always go over their work and add something else that they think would be a great addition. Music is no exception.


----------



## Artemis

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> So you are saying that first drafts of anything are always the best? Great writers always go over their work and add something else that they think would be a great addition. Music is no exception.


It is part of classical music folklore that Mozart was such a musical genius that he had the music already mapped out fully in his head before he put pen to paper, and then merely had to write it all down without need for any major subsequent revision. Schubert was another such composer in broadly the same mould, and his output was even larger than Mozart's.

Beethoven, on the other hand, is well known to have fiddled around a great deal before he felt happy with the final result. Brahms was another extremely fussy composer who spent much time refining his works, and this very much shows in the results, namely his frequent complete rejection of material which he judged was inadequate and a very high state of polish of what was actually finalised and published.

In the case of those composers like Mozart and Schubert who rattled off works quickly, with little or no amendment after first draft stage, it is very unlikely that any significant benefit would have been gained had they been tempted to tinker a great deal after the music was first written down. In the case of Schubert, only minor editing was all that was necessary from the accounts we have. Rather, such efforts may have actually made the outcome worse.

In other words, the point of "diminishing returns" varies from composer to composer, and in the case of Mozart it was probably pretty close to the time of inception of the music he produced. Hence, I do not think your comment is valid in the case of all the greatest composers, and it seems inappropriate in the case of Mozart.


----------



## Herzeleide

Artemis said:


> It is part of classical music folklore that Mozart was such a musical genius that he had the music already mapped out fully in his head before he put pen to paper, and then merely had to write it all down without need for any major subsequent revision. Schubert was another such composer in broadly the same mould, and his output was even larger than Mozart's.
> 
> Beethoven, on the other hand, is well known to have fiddled around a great deal before he felt happy with the final result. Brahms was another extremely fussy composer who spent much time refining his works, and this very much shows in the results, namely his frequent complete rejection of material which he judged was inadequate and a very high state of polish of what was actually finalised and published.
> 
> In the case of those composers like Mozart and Schubert who rattled off works quickly, with little or no amendment after first draft stage, it is very unlikely that any significant benefit would have been gained had they been tempted to tinker a great deal after the music was first written down. In the case of Schubert, only minor editing was all that was necessary from the accounts we have. Rather, such efforts may have actually made the outcome worse.
> 
> In other words, the point of "diminishing returns" varies from composer to composer, and in the case of Mozart it was probably pretty close to the time of inception of the music he produced. Hence, I do not think your comment is valid in the case of all the greatest composers, and it seems inappropriate in the case of Mozart.


I emphatically concur.


----------



## Mirror Image

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> So you are saying that first drafts of anything are always the best? Great writers always go over their work and add something else that they think would be a great addition. Music is no exception.


I think it all depends on who is writing the music in the first place. There are many composers throughout history who were known for their meticulous nature and yet this seemed to work for them. Like Ravel for example, and I'm sure people are saying to themselves "Oh here goes Mirror Image with the Ravel again," anyway, Ravel was a perfectionist. He wrote music very slowly and when he finally finished a piece he spent probably more time refining it, then actually writing it But this worked for him, he wasn't a spontaneous composer like Mozart was, he was only comfortable composing at his own pace. Does this make his music better because he took more time composing than Mozart? Absolutely not. As I mentioned in a few posts back, time has nothing to do with whether a piece of music is good or not. The point is if you don't like him, then that's fine, but I think it's important to look at a composer's music from all angles. I mean this is one of the most influential composers of all time we're talking about here.

Not every composer was a mad genius like Mozart was. There hasn't been a composer like Mozart since and there never will be another one of his kind or at least that's my own view.


----------



## wolf

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> ...1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
> 2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
> 3.) Who has had more of a global impact?


1. Mozart, because he wrote music of such beauty, style, perfection, humour, and did it from an early age. He could 'compose it in his head and then write out all the instruments score in abreathtaking speed, days later. Although Beethoven is bigger in works for piano solo, have written more fantastsic symponies than Mzt (Mzts were only 4 well 5 then), less works of inferior quality, he had it made financially much better, he could write what suited him, while Mzt had always to keep an eye out for 'the long ears'.

2. Mozart. Perfection is the only word that comes to mind. Yeah he wrote a lot of trash, mostly in his younger years, but the list of outstanding works is long enough! He smiled through tears in his music, but the tears never fell, Mzt don't let us in as Beethoven does, bwtf?

3. Beethoven, as from the start almost he was hailed as a genius, and after his death he was by far considered the greatest. In the beginning of the 20thC Bach and Mzt started to catch in on him, they passed him in the 50s, as our time do not crave the overdramatic but the more subtle. But if you mean impact on composers and influence in musical history, it's still Beethoven.


----------



## jhar26

wolf said:


> Yeah he wrote a lot of trash, mostly in his younger years


They may not have been masterpieces, but they were hardly trash. He progressed not only as he got older, but he also progressed as the classical style itself matured. The works from the young Mozart don't pale in comparison with the works of those that most older composers were writing at the same time.


----------



## Aramis

Have you heard his very first symphonies? AFAiR, he wrote them when he was about six-eight years old. I wouldn't call them trash, but they sound... funny.


----------



## jhar26

Aramis said:


> Have you heard his very first symphonies? AFAiR, he wrote them when he was about six-eight years old. I wouldn't call them trash, but they sound... funny.


Yes, but the symphony was still in it's infancy at that time. The symphony would soon become the most important genre of orchestral music, but this was not yet the case. They were intended as overtures - introductions to concerts, developing from the operatic overture. In fact, the two were more or less interchangeable. The first opera overture that Mozart didn't recycle as a concert symphony was that for 'Idomeneo.' It isn't fair to compare Mozart's 'symphonies' from his youth with his mature ones because they didn't serve the same purpose and weren't supposed to carry the same weight. If anything, they were closer in spirit to divertimentos.


----------



## wolf

Aramis said:


> Have you heard his very first symphonies? AFAiR, he wrote them when he was about six-eight years old. I wouldn't call them trash, but they sound... funny.


Not K19, it's a wonder! But with trash I meant the uninteresting pieces - trash with amadeus-glasses used you might say - and he continued to write uninteresting things, but if he had to do as later composers could, just lay back AND WRITE WHAT PLEASED HIM? He could never do that, he even had to change arias according to the wishes of coloratura queens!


----------



## johnnyx

I prefer Mozart. His music makes me happy. I wonder what Beethoven's music would have sounded like if it were not for Mozart.


----------



## starry

I like some of Mozart's earlier symphonies. Of course they aren't all as good but judge a composer by how much good music they produce rather than by how much weak.


----------



## kiffiffer

I feel I must stick up for Mozart here. It is a stimulating discussion for sure and often while listening to Beethoven think he may have topped Mozart, You go back and listen to all of Mozart's music, it is an injustice to Mozart to ever say Beethoven was better, especially dissmissively. Without Mozart's genious, Beethoven would not have been Beethoven. Almost everything he did w3as gotten from Mozart and was just a (in some of my estimations) just a mortals interpretation of the supreme musical "AMADEAUS".When he did surpass him in grandeur, he had the benefit of surpassing hime chronologically. I think Mozart . if he lived to an older age, would have trounced him in any aspect.


----------



## Lisztian

^While I agree neither should be considered greater than the other...I disagree with some other stuff. I'm no expert but Beethoven was as original and innovative composer as there was, and would have been if Mozart didn't exist. Beethoven also does not seem to take much from Mozart, but rather other composers. His earlier style personally reminds me of someone like CPE Bach rather than Mozart. Beethoven basically thought Handel was god, too. Past Beethoven's earlier efforts he started expanding and altering forms in a way that guys like Mozart obviously had nothing to do with. 

Also, you can't go against Beethoven for having lived longer...There is no question Mozart was an incredible prodegy, but what happened, happened and that's what we must go by.


----------



## science

It's interesting that being a child prodigy does not mean that you will be a great composer. Mendelssohn, Saint-Saëns, and Enescu were some of the great prodigies since Mozart. They're all exceptional composers, all of them arguably under-appreciated, but perhaps not with the range, depth, or innovation of Mozart.


----------



## poconoron

We are talking here about my favorite 2 composers of all time. 

1. There is no question in my mind that Mozart was the greater natural genius of music. It's pretty well known that Mozart's composing was, for the most part, effortless in comparison to Beethoven. Mozart's facility in writing for virtually any music genre was greater than Beethoven's (who painstakingly wrote and re-wrote , and had trouble with Opera). I believe a key difference was that Beethoven was trying always to compose something ground-breaking - I'm not sure Mozart was. But here's the bottom line:
Does anyone really believe that Beethoven could have tossed off a Marriage of Figaro in about 6 weeks time? I doubt it.

2. As to who made superior music, this I consider to be too close to call. We are comparing here Mozart's Don Giovanni, Figaro, Magic Flute, Cosi fan tutte, Requiem, Mass in C Minor, Symphonies -29,31,38,39,40,41, Piano Concertos 9,17, 20-27, magnificent chamber works like K563, clarinet quintet and concerto, wonderful quartets and quintets, and many other masterpieces in other genres on the one hand. 
Against Beethoven's symphonies 3-9, piano concertos 3-5, Missa Solemnis, wonderful quartets and chamber music, tremendous piano sonatas, many other masterpieces and his sole opera Fidelio.

Although when I am listening to a Don Giovanni, or Figaro, or symphony 41, or piano concerto 25 - and I believe nothing could be any better........... and then upon listening to Beethoven's symphony 7, or piano concerto 4, or piano sonata Pathetique.......guess what - nothing could be any better. 
For me this category is a toss-up - although I find that I gravitate more (slightly) towards Mozart's great works.

3. Greater global impact? To me this boils down to: on the one hand - the magnificent lofty, ground-breaking music of Beethoven............ vs. the more humanistic music for the common man of Mozart (i.e. Magic Flute). Beethoven had great influence on others down the line,, especially with the Symphony genre, while Mozart's Operas and Piano Concertos did the same. 
For me, this category is another draw.......take your pick............ Mozart's 153,000 "hits" vs. Beethoven's 113,000 "hits" on an Amazon search (or 142 million hits on Google vs. Beethoven's 97 millon) vs. Beethoven's Ode to Joy being played around the world celebrating especially momentous events.

Bottom line............for me, the M'ster slightly edges out the B'ster overall in a photo finish.


----------



## smoledman

To the idea that Mozart was just a flighty easy genius:



> It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied.


Also keep in mind that Beethoven was not as accomplished at 35 as Mozart was. Had Mozart lived to 50 I doubt we would be having this conversation.


----------



## Juan

Is it true that (a pretty young) Beethoven met Mozart once?


----------



## smoledman

Juan said:


> Is it true that (a pretty young) Beethoven met Mozart once?


Just a myth.


----------



## Eviticus

Just listening to a couple of pieces by Mozart that has themes that were later echoed by Beethoven.

The first is the captivating Misericordias Domini K.222 (note the similarity to Ode to Joy around the 59 second mark on this recording i found on youtube).






Mozart seems to only use the theme as an interval and doesn't really develop it. However, it is possible Beethoven could have been familiar with this work.

Another is an old Mozart overture i have on a Mozart overtures cd (Naxo's 8.550185 - i wouldn't really recommend as a whole) called Bastien und Bastienne k.50 which uses the same thematic material as the first movement of the famous Eroica. Again Mozart does not appear to develop the theme.






Interesting nonetheless.


----------



## violadude

Eviticus said:


> Just listening to a couple of pieces by Mozart that has themes that were later echoed by Beethoven.
> 
> The first is the captivating Misericordias Domini K.222 (note the similarity to Ode to Joy around the 59 second mark on this recording i found on youtube).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozart seems to only use the theme as an interval and doesn't really develop it. However, it is possible Beethoven could have been familiar with this work.
> 
> Another is an old Mozart overture i have on a Mozart overtures cd (Naxo's 8.550185 - i wouldn't really recommend as a whole) called Bastien und Bastienne k.50 which uses the same thematic material as the first movement of the famous Eroica. Again Mozart does not appear to develop the theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting nonetheless.


I'm getting Deja Vu.


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> I'm getting Deja Vu.


http://www.talkclassical.com/15013-musical-coincidences-both-suspicious.html


----------



## Eviticus

Dodecaplex said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/15013-musical-coincidences-both-suspicious.html


Ah thought these comparisons must have been mentioned before but couldn't see them.

Before my time...

Whups - my bad! Not just musical themes that get echoed...


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/15013-musical-coincidences-both-suspicious.html


I know haha that Deja Vu comment was my snide yet subtle way of saying been there done that! :devil:


----------



## Eviticus

I picked up the snide but it was hardly subtle...


----------



## violadude

Eviticus said:


> I picked up the snide but it was hardly subtle...


Yes but apparently you didn't pick up the fact that what I said before was my subtle way of saying that I am not subtle at all.


----------



## Eviticus

violadude said:


> Yes but apparently you didn't pick up the fact that what I said before was my subtle way of saying that I am not subtle at all.


I usually ignore unhelpful posts in general...


----------



## violadude

Eviticus said:


> I usually ignore unhelpful posts in general...


Wait...then why did you respond in the first place? Did you make an exception because I seem like such a nice guy?


----------



## Eviticus

I said 'usually'. I would have answered your second question but have decided to ignore it


----------



## violadude

In other news, I think Beethoven would definitely beat Mozart....

















....in a fist fight


----------



## Eviticus

violadude said:


> In other news, I think Beethoven would definitely beat Mozart......in a fist fight


I agree but only because they are different weights.

Mozart was a lightweight... and i am not just talking about his music.


----------



## violadude

Eviticus said:


> I agree but only because they are different weights.
> 
> Mozart was a lightweight... and i am not just talking about his music.


Well he was certainly a sickly guy. Plus he was coddled as a child, while Beethoven was beaten making him more suitable to win fist fights I think.

As for Mozart's music being lightweight, I think that is still up for debate.


----------



## moody

Eviticus said:


> I agree but only because they are different weights.
> 
> Mozart was a lightweight... and i am not just talking about his music.


I hope you two are enjoying yourselves !


----------



## poconoron

violadude said:


> As for Mozart's music being lightweight, I think that is still up for debate.


No debate there...........just ask all of the composers who followed Mozart and idolized him. Oops, I forgot they're not around any more. Just read their quotes about him!


----------



## violadude

poconoron said:


> No debate there...........just ask all of the composers who followed Mozart and idolized him. Oops, I forgot they're not around any more. Just read their quotes about him!


Well...I was trying to be civil


----------



## regressivetransphobe

poconoron said:


> No debate there...........just ask all of the composers who followed Mozart and idolized him. Oops, I forgot they're not around any more. Just read their quotes about him!


This isn't a shot at you, but it's interesting how Mozart supporters in these types of threads always appeal to authority. Do you (in general) like the music, or were you told to?


----------



## poconoron

regressivetransphobe said:


> This isn't a shot at you, but it's interesting how Mozart supporters in these types of threads always appeal to authority. Do you (in general) like the music, or were you told to?


A bit of an insulting question (who told _you_ to like what _you_ like), but I'll take it in good fun and answer as follows:

More precisely, I_* love*_ the music of Mozart more than that of any other composer.

I have found over the years that there is no other _single composer_ I can go to in order to listen to _great_ piano concertos, symphonies, operas, concert arias, religious music, string quartets and quintets, serenades and divertimentos, dances, songs, other concertos, solo piano music, and various other chamber music. There is so much variety in form and mood (often within the same work) that I never tire of it. There is no other single composer, IMHO, who _could do it all._

To be clear, I am biased toward the classical period of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert.......... and those are the composers I listen to primarily. The later Romantic and Modern periods don't quite do it for me (Brahms, Dvorak, Rossini and Tchaikovsky excepted).

Now that I've told you my opinion, I'd like to ask you a question ............ do YOU think Mozart was a Lightweight in comparison to other top composers? If so, how would you explain the adoration that these other composers express towards Amadeus as well as his total mastery of virtually all composition types?


----------



## Eviticus

To be fair the above posts seem to stem from my frivolous comment to violadude about Mozart and Beethoven in a fight.

Of course the only thing i think light about Mozart's music are his arrangements. I was trying to amuse myself and violadude which was detracting from our previous 'banter'. I could have actually avoided the whole thing and used violadude's less subtle and more snide approach by saying:

Deja Vu.... (followed by this)

http://www.talkclassical.com/13832-composer-would-win-fight-4.html

But then i wanted to be equally civil... :devil:


----------



## smoledman

*cue Star Trek fight music*

FIGHT!


----------



## poconoron

smoledman said:


> *cue Star Trek fight music*
> 
> FIGHT!


That's a wonderful contribution to the subject at hand. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## violadude

Eviticus said:


> To be fair the above posts seem to stem from my frivolous comment to violadude about Mozart and Beethoven in a fight.
> 
> Of course the only thing i think light about Mozart's music are his arrangements. I was trying to amuse myself and violadude which was detracting from our previous 'banter'. I could have actually avoided the whole thing and used violadude's less subtle and more snide approach by saying:
> 
> Deja Vu.... (followed by this)
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/13832-composer-would-win-fight-4.html
> 
> But then i wanted to be equally civil... :devil:


hahahaha! you should have typed that. I definitely would have found it amusing.


----------



## NightHawk

1.	Who is the bigger genius? I don’t think this can be answered – they were both staggeringly gifted in music and produced immortal works through their particular gifts – i.e We know that Mozart worked in many situations at a dazzling speed re composition, and Beethoven would work, revise, rewrite and even recall before he allowed publication. Does this make Mozart greater? I don’t think so. The flower of Mozart’s art came at the perfection of the high classic style – he is not considered an innovator though he invested all his works with an operatic quality, and his great operas were intensely ‘psychological’ though I’m sure that is not a word he would have used, or anyone else of the time, for that matter. Beethoven, on the other hand, forged an art that was fairly stupefying for the musical community of Europe and America. 
2.	Who has made superior music and why? Assuming you mean who has made the most superior music, M or B, I don’t think this can be answered in a definitive way either – except to say that Mozart’s greatest works have often been called ‘perfect’. Tolstoy, on the other hand, commented that Beethoven was “an inferior composer because he sought to surprise.” Hmmm. 
3.	Who has made more of a global impact? This I can answer: Beethoven ‘was the Patron Saint’ of all artists of whatever discipline in the 19th century, ‘his shadow loomed large over the entire century’ etc., etc. In ‘Beethoven’s Shadow’, American concert pianist Jonathan Biss asserts that ‘all western music culminated in Beethoven and all music since has been a reaction to it’ – I’m not sure I would go that far, but I think it could be argued. I don’t believe any composers other than Bach and Wagner have had as much impact on cultures throughout the world as Beethoven. Just my opinion. Interesting subject to think about!


----------



## lucy

For me, 1) not sure, 2) Beethoven and 3) Beethoven.
Beethoven's music touches me in a profound way that awakens all my senses. I like Mozart's music very much (pretty) but I LOVE Beethoven's music (gorgeous). Beethoven's sonatas like Waldstein, Apassionata and Moonlight are simply amazing. Some had commented that there would be no Beethoven had there not been Mozart, so by default, Mozart is greater. Others mentioned age. I completely disagree on both accounts. As to the first point, there is no end to that reasoning. No Newton, no Einstein? As to the second point. A greater age does not guarantee greater capability/improvements. In fact, Mozart was a known gambler and an alcoholic who was spiraling downward. So, conclusions based on what could have been seem irrelevant. The first question I answered not sure because I'm not sure that the legends of Mozart often cited for his genius are without exaggeration.


----------



## JCarmel

From _an entirely personal point of view_....I hardly ever bother with Beethoven (maybe because I started listening to his symphonies and piano concertos when I was 4....though I did Mozart's, too!) ....but I'm still listening to Mozart. 
I think that says 'something'... as I believe that I am not prejudiced against any composer whose music I am able to enjoy.
My daily life accommodates itself around Mozart's music and vice versa...and I can choose the degree of concentration that is appropriate to my needs at the time of listening, whilst still deriving a lot of pleasure from listening. But Beethoven just _isn't_ so accommodating. His music is more _obviously_ serious in it's character more of the time than Mozart's but Mozart's music is the more profound to my mind because it accommodates my many moods and so better reflects my own character. And when I want to concentrate on the profound, Wolfgang's music has all the profundity I need!
I can sum it up by saying that what I particularly appreciate in a person's character is that little bit of personal charm...it makes all the difference to how well we all rub-along-together in life. And so it is with Mozart's music...it just has 'charm' that Beethoven's lacks.


----------



## deggial

JCarmel said:


> From _an entirely personal point of view_....I hardly ever bother with Beethoven (maybe because I started listening to his symphonies and piano concertos when I was 4....though I did Mozart's, too!) ....but I'm still listening to Mozart.


I had the same experience as you. Funny, when I was a young teen I listened to Beethoven a lot more than I did to Mozart and if you asked me then who was my favourite I would have said Beethoven without a moment's hesitation. Now it's the other way around... Also agreed on the charm vs. earnestness bit. Beethoven seems to try really hard, Mozart to just run with it. It's probably quite as easy to fudge things if you try too hard as it is if you don't try hard enough, so good on them for achieving what they did through their very different methods.


----------



## IBMchicago

I agree with your assessment of Beethoven's composing. It didn't come as easily to him and you can actually sense this challenge in his music. Though, I also believe that this (among other things) is what Beethoven fans love about him and are, therefore, willing to overlook the occasional awkwardness found in his music. As for me, I have great respect for innovators, but will always settle down with the perfector. The Xerox mouse and CERN touchscreen were fascinating innovations, but I would settle with Apple's perfection of these technologies. Loved observing one of the early solar-powered cars at the Chicago autoshow 25 years ago, but am patiently waiting for improvements to this fantastic innovation (alas, to no avail).


----------



## violadude

I love both. I don't know why you would have to pick. I just detest to to statements like Mozart's music is just pretty or not as passionate as Beethoven. These statements are *OBJECTIVELY* false.


----------



## Minona

It's even more rediculous when you consider how much Beethoven admired Mozart's music, wrote a cadenza for his piano concerto/s, and so on.


----------



## trazom

It's kind of interesting that for the past couple of weeks there have been a couple newly-registered members who've been bumping up these ancient Mozart-centered threads.


----------



## Guest

Not me! I mean, I'm a newbie, but I haven't been bumping up Mozart. 
I'm really quite into Beethoven, a bit less so with Mozart, and anyway I don't see the need to make such comparisons.
I really like this forum (apart from a little recent hiccup, say-no-more), but it too full of "Who's the best ..." and so on.


----------



## Minona

People expect randomness to be even, that's why random shuffle programs for mp3s aren't actually random -they split genres up to avoid bunching up of tracks. True randomness involves bunching up. Throw a dice, see what happens. 

I joined to ask questions about music theory, counterpoint, harmony. Most people who appreciate counterpoint appreciate Mozart, since he was a true master of that art.


----------



## Minona

Another explanation might be the mention of this forum on the Mozartforum. That said, "a couple" isn't extraordinary really is it?


----------



## neoshredder

I'm really into Mozart lately. If based on my current listening, it would be Mozart.


----------



## Minona

Again, I think 'ableness' is different to 'originality'. I can't imagine Mozart being unable to compete in either respect. His imagination and craftsmanship were so flexible, but Beethoven had guts and strength of mind to push himself and his audience further. I think instead of thinking about A vs B, it more interesting to think what might had been had Mozart lived.


----------



## Novelette

Gotta be Beethoven, in my reckoning.

However, Mozart's operas are unimpeachably brilliant!


----------



## netcontj

And I agree, The 5th symphony is admissible evidence.


----------



## Garlic

A few months ago I would have said Beethoven. I was wrong, it's Mozart.


----------



## Kieran

Garlic said:


> A few months ago I would have said Beethoven. I was wrong, it's Mozart.


Can I ask, why the change of heart? :tiphat:


----------



## Garlic

Kieran said:


> Can I ask, why the change of heart? :tiphat:


I listened to the piano concertos


----------



## Kieran

Garlic said:


> I listened to the piano concertos


You like the operas? These are Wolfie in his purest form. The PC's are so varied and great though, glad you're enjoying them...


----------



## Schumann

I love Mozart more because of his enthralling piano concertos, masses and opera's. Most exhilarating!
But I also love Beethoven's music very much!


----------



## starry

They complement each other in a way. So you almost say the existence of the one enhances the other even. Haydn on the other hand perhaps fell into the shadow of Beethoven for a while, though that is being redressed now.


----------



## Garlic

Kieran said:


> You like the operas? These are Wolfie in his purest form. The PC's are so varied and great though, glad you're enjoying them...


I've seen The Marriage of Figaro which was great. Don't know the others yet - I'm looking forward to listening to Don Giovanni next, I love the overture.


----------



## Cosmos

1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
I believe that they are both on equal levels of genius. Mozart was a brilliant melodist and craftsmen, and Beethoven was brilliant at painting emotions onto a score.

2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
Beethoven, because I like his music more than Mozart. Only my opinion, I'm not a fan of most classical composers, with Beethoven being the only exception. His music moves me more and is more interesting than Mozart's.

3.) Who has had more of a global impact?
Tough to say without doing some kind of research, but I would guess the answer be Beethoven.


----------



## starry

If they are equal levels of genius how can one of them make superior music to the other?


----------



## deggial

^ one of them geniuses was also a slacker!


----------



## ssdei

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> 1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
> 2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?


There can be no questioning about it. 
Off course, Mozart!


----------



## gellio

These are my two favorite composers. I'd have to say Mozart was the bigger genius because he excelled at every genre. Mozart's music sets my soul afire, Beethoven's breaks my heart. His music just evokes this passionate longing that goes unfulfilled. I love them both so much, and my life is so much richer for having them in it.


----------



## shangoyal

Let's say: when I get too heady in my love for Beethoven - I go listen to Le Nozze di Figaro.

One part of me knows the answer surely, but another part of me wants to say the competition is close, because, you know, the composers we are talking about were those whose weaknesses themselves lent them a new shiny edge, whose fallacies turn into minor masterpieces at the touch of their golden hands - and so any pinpointing to their perceived deficiencies will be futile - in simple words, both these composers are utterly _*indispensable*_, and whoever holds the dearer spot in your heart, losing the other will decidedly cause you serious pain.


----------



## DeepR

When I hear the brilliance of the last movement of the Jupiter symphony and realize he composed his last 3 symphonies in a matter of weeks, I can't help but think that Mozart was on another level of genius.


----------



## DaDirkNL

1. M. and B. were equal geniuses in their own right. Mozart was a melodical and theoretical genius, while Beethoven sought to share his soul with others through music. Not that Mozart did not do that(for example:late symphonies, Don Giovanni), but Beethoven did this in nearly every work of his.
2. When I listen to the Eroica, afterwards, I think: Beethoven was the greatest composer. After listening to the Jupiter Symphony, I think: Mozart was the greatest composer. Great pieces of music are the ones people listen to. And they are greater at the moment of listening to them.
3. I think Beethoven wins here. Mozart's impact came later, I think.


----------



## Fridajj01

> Me and my friend on Friday morning were discussing the works of Beethoven and Mozart. Thus came the question who has more of a global impact and who was the bigger "genius?" Beethoven in my opinion has made far superior music to Mozart while he was deaf, yet Mozart never wrote second drafts of his music. It was perfect the first time. Here are my questions to see others opinions.
> 
> 1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
> 2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
> 3.) Who has had more of a global impact?


#1) In my opinion, the term "genius" when it refers to the musical talent of a composer is very ambiguous. I say this because, while Mozart might have been a better musician, Beethoven was a better composer.
#2) They're equals. They both helped develop many different genres of music.
#3) Once again, I have to say that they are equals.


----------



## Fridajj01

They are both incredible composers and musicians though.


----------



## EdwardBast

Fridajj01 said:


> #1) In my opinion, the term "genius" when it refers to the musical talent of a composer is very ambiguous. I say this because, while Mozart might have been a better musician, Beethoven was a better composer.
> #2) They're equals. They both helped develop many different genres of music.
> #3) Once again, I have to say that they are equals.


Welcome to the forum Fridaj. You quoted this from an earlier post:

"Me and my friend on Friday morning were discussing the works of Beethoven and Mozart. Thus came the question who has more of a global impact and who was the bigger "genius?" Beethoven in my opinion has made far superior music to Mozart while he was deaf, *yet Mozart never wrote second drafts of his music. It was perfect the first time*. Here are my questions to see others opinions."

This is a myth that has long been debunked. Mozart sketched and revised his works.


----------



## TxllxT

EdwardBast said:


> Welcome to the forum Fridaj. You quoted this from an earlier post:
> 
> "Me and my friend on Friday morning were discussing the works of Beethoven and Mozart. Thus came the question who has more of a global impact and who was the bigger "genius?" Beethoven in my opinion has made far superior music to Mozart while he was deaf, *yet Mozart never wrote second drafts of his music. It was perfect the first time*. Here are my questions to see others opinions."
> 
> This is a myth that has long been debunked. Mozart sketched and revised his works.


https://designforservice.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mozarts-sketches.pdf


----------



## TxllxT

Mozart's compositions leave on me the impression of effortlessness, even though he might have laboured hard on them.

Beethoven's compositions seem the product of long struggling & heavy battling. 

In short: Mozart = David; Beethoven = Goliath.


----------



## EdwardBast

TxllxT said:


> https://designforservice.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mozarts-sketches.pdf


Thanks! Excellent source.


----------



## jdec

TxllxT said:


> https://designforservice.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mozarts-sketches.pdf


Last paragraph:

"_We may well be astonished to discover to what extent *Mozart's method of composing combined a high degree of conscious skill with an equally assured instinctiveness of approach, both of which qualities express a consummate musical intelligence*. In no way does it detract from Mozart's genius to suggest that, notwithstanding the popular myth, he must have worked hard in order to achieve his artistic ends. Not every work he wrote was, like his Haydn Quartets, 'il frutto di una lunga, e laboriosa fatica';* many of them may have been tossed off with ease*. But, in either case, Mozart's sketches are an integral part of his compositional method. Their existence should be a permanent part of our picture of the composer, a picture in which, 200 years after Mozart's death, historical truth is finally being granted precedence over myth._"

Yep, and even if Mozart did some sketching while composing, it's a fact that he nonetheless was able to toss off a lot of great music at incredible speed. An example of this, the 3 last symphonies he composed in only 6-8 weeks at the same time he was also composing his piano trios in E and C major (K. 542 and K. 548), his piano sonata K. 545 and the violin sonatina K. 547.


----------



## TxllxT

jdec said:


> Last paragraph:
> 
> "_We may well be astonished to discover to what extent *Mozart's method of composing combined a high degree of conscious skill with an equally assured instinctiveness of approach, both of which qualities express a consummate musical intelligence*. In no way does it detract from Mozart's genius to suggest that, notwithstanding the popular myth, he must have worked hard in order to achieve his artistic ends. Not every work he wrote was, like his Haydn Quartets, 'il frutto di una lunga, e laboriosa fatica';* many of them may have been tossed off with ease*. But, in either case, Mozart's sketches are an integral part of his compositional method. Their existence should be a permanent part of our picture of the composer, a picture in which, 200 years after Mozart's death, historical truth is finally being granted precedence over myth._"
> 
> Yep, and even if Mozart did some sketching while composing, it's a fact that he nonetheless was able to toss off a lot of great music at incredible speed. An example of this, the 3 last symphonies he composed in only 6-8 weeks at the same time he was also composing his piano trios in E and C major (K. 542 and K. 548), his piano sonata K. 545 and the violin sonatina K. 547.


Still the romantic dream imagination of Mozart getting a instantaneously complete composition in his head holds against Beethoven starting with a white paper from scratch, building up his composition note after note out of a void. Mozart's sketches do not show this 'In the beginning there was nothing'. Sketches were just helping him to accelerate the already present workflow, not to initiate a non-existent workflow. Basically Mozart's compositions hardly show any trouble, hardship or writer's blocks, whereas Beethoven's compositions are typically the product of _per aspera ad astra_. Beethoven just couldn't do without hard & long time labouring. This difference doesn't imply that one composer is 'better' or 'a greater genius' in comparison with the other. This whole game of comparing apples & pears is unfruitful.


----------



## EdwardBast

TxllxT said:


> Still the romantic dream imagination of Mozart getting a instantaneously complete composition in his head holds against Beethoven starting with a white paper from scratch, building up his composition note after note out of a void. Mozart's sketches do not show this 'In the beginning there was nothing'. Sketches were just helping him to accelerate the already present workflow, not to initiate a non-existent workflow. *Basically Mozart's compositions hardly show any trouble, hardship or writer's blocks, whereas Beethoven's compositions are typically the product of per aspera ad astra. Beethoven just couldn't do without hard & long time labouring.* This difference doesn't imply that one composer is 'better' or 'a greater genius' in comparison with the other. This whole game of comparing apples & pears is unfruitful.


Beethoven could toss off works quickly too - or just improvise them, according to contemporary accounts. When composing seriously he usually chose not to. Instead he invented whole new principles of musical organization and wrote numerous works of unprecedented originality. When one takes on tasks of unprecedented ambition, one has to work harder.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Beethoven could toss off works quickly too - or just improvise them, according to contemporary accounts. When composing seriously he usually chose not to. Instead he invented whole new principles of musical organization and wrote numerous works of unprecedented originality. When one takes on tasks of unprecedented ambition, *one has to work harder.*


Yep, a LOT harder in Beethoven's case.


----------



## jdec

For example in the case of the 5th symphony, Beethoven left pages and pages of discarded material, similar to these below, in his own writing, enough to fill a sizable book. He rejected, rewrote, scratched out, tore up, and sometimes altered a passage as many as twenty times. It took him 4 years to complete this symphony.


















A more original work than Mozart's Jupiter (which was composed in only 2-3 weeks)? Definitely. A better work? That is up to you.


----------



## TxllxT

jdec said:


> For example in the case of the 5th symphony, Beethoven left pages and pages of discarded material, similar to these below, in his own writing, enough to fill a sizable book. He rejected, rewrote, scratched out, tore up, and sometimes altered a passage as many as twenty times. It took him 4 years *to complete *this symphony.
> 
> View attachment 99080
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more original work than Mozart's Jupiter (which was composed in only 2-3 weeks)? Definitely. A better work? That is up to you.


What interests me is *the completion* of Beethoven's compositions. Can one really state that he completed a work, or that he arbitrarily just halted/cut off the continuously ongoing reject-rewrite-scratch&tear up process, leaving the composition all of a sudden untouched as it was in that in-between state, so that this version _de facto_ became the final version? If he would have had seas of time at his disposal, how 'final' would the composition have been?

With Mozart I assume the complete Jupiter symphony was 'there' from the very beginning of the composition process; he just had to write it down (with or without the help of sketches). With Beethoven the composition process seemed not at all that targeted as it went through many stages of crisis. Again I do not want to dishonour the genius of either composer. Just to get a deeper understanding...


----------



## KenOC

TxllxT said:


> What interests me is *the completion* of Beethoven's compositions. Can one really state that he completed a work, or that he arbitrarily just halted/cut off the continuously ongoing reject-rewrite-scratch&tear up process, leaving the composition all of a sudden untouched as it was in that in-between state, so that this version _de facto_ became the final version? If he would have had seas of time at his disposal, how 'final' would the composition have been?


From what I understand, when LvB was done, he was in most cases done. He seldom revised or revisited after the fact, though there are exceptions. He might add a detail or two during reviews in the publication process, but even that seems rare.

Admittedly we may not know of some changes. Grove speaks of a surviving tympani part from the premier of the 8th Symphony that shows one movement, the finale I think, as being quite a few bars longer than it is now. Of course the change to its current form was made prior to publication, which in those days often followed orchestral premieres by a year or two.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> What interests me is *the completion* of Beethoven's compositions. *Can one really state that he completed a work, or that he arbitrarily just halted/cut off the continuously ongoing reject-rewrite-scratch&tear up process*, leaving the composition all of a sudden untouched as it was in that in-between state, so that this version _de facto_ became the final version? If he would have had seas of time at his disposal, how 'final' would the composition have been?
> 
> With Mozart I assume the complete Jupiter symphony was 'there' from the very beginning of the composition process; he just had to write it down (with or without the help of sketches). With Beethoven the composition process seemed not at all that targeted as it went through many stages of crisis. Again I do not want to dishonour the genius of either composer. Just to get a deeper understanding...


Whether the moment an artist chooses to stop work on a piece is "arbitrary" is something only he can know for sure, but what matters is that the result make an arbitrary decision seem unlikely. It may have taken a long time to get the Fifth Symphony to a point where Beethoven felt satisfied with it, but the finished product gives (to me at least) the distinct feeling that he knew when he'd gotten it right.

Leonard Bernstein gave a talk on this back in the '50s, in which he inserts some of Beethoven's discarded sketches into the Fifth where he imagines they would have been used, and has the NY Philharmonic play the final and speculative versions side by side, illustrating the rightness of Beethoven's decisions.


----------



## chrish

From my observations, Bach is considered to be greatest composer on here by general consensus. Beethoven comes next by a hair's width and both of them are above Mozart who comes 3rd by an inch. And all three are considered above everyone else by a mile.


----------



## PlaySalieri

jdec said:


> For example in the case of the 5th symphony, Beethoven left pages and pages of discarded material, similar to these below, in his own writing, enough to fill a sizable book. He rejected, rewrote, scratched out, tore up, and sometimes altered a passage as many as twenty times. It took him 4 years to complete this symphony.
> 
> View attachment 99080
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more original work than Mozart's Jupiter (which was composed in only 2-3 weeks)? Definitely. A better work? That is up to you.


Beethoven's 5th is certainly a stunning work - originality? Top marks - but then there are features of the jupiter that must have surprised listeners of the late 18thc - not least the finale which is quite unlike anything before and perhaps - after.


----------



## jdec

stomanek said:


> Beethoven's 5th is certainly a stunning work - originality? Top marks - but then there are features of the jupiter that must have surprised listeners of the late 18thc - *not least the finale which is quite unlike anything before and perhaps - after.*


Absolutely, there is a reason why the Jupiter was ranked 3rd place (after Beethoven's 3rd and 9th) in the Top 10 Symphonies list in the survey of 151 living conductors by BBC Music magazine. (Beethoven's 5th did not make this top 10)


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Whether the moment an artist chooses to stop work on a piece is "arbitrary" is something only he can know for sure, but what matters is that the result make an arbitrary decision seem unlikely. It may have taken a long time to get the Fifth Symphony to a point where Beethoven felt satisfied with it, but the finished product gives (to me at least) the distinct feeling that he knew when he'd gotten it right.
> 
> Leonard Bernstein gave a talk on this back in the '50s, in which he inserts some of Beethoven's discarded sketches into the Fifth where he imagines they would have been used, and has the NY Philharmonic play the final and speculative versions side by side, illustrating the rightness of Beethoven's decisions.


How do you assess the 'arbitrary decisions' in Mozart's compositions?


----------



## DavidA

chrish said:


> From my observations, *Bach is considered to be greatest composer on here by general consensus. *Beethoven comes next by a hair's width and both of them are above Mozart who comes 3rd by an inch. And all three are considered above everyone else by a mile.


Depends on the consensus. We know these three are generally reckoned to be a cut above everyone else. Who I think is the greatest depends which one I am listening to at the time. I heard the Mass in B minor the other day and came away thinking it must be JSB. Then I hear Figaro and wonder...........


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> How do you assess the 'arbitrary decisions' in Mozart's compositions?


Are there any? ........


----------



## KenOC

If Mozart's decisions weren't arbitrary, I suspect his music would be incredibly boring.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> If Mozart's decisions weren't arbitrary, I suspect his music would be incredibly boring.


But if Cage's decisions weren't arbitrary, his music might be more interesting.

Well, maybe not.


----------



## TxllxT

KenOC said:


> If Mozart's decisions weren't arbitrary, I suspect his music would be incredibly boring.


I suspect boredom to be a 19th century invention.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> I suspect boredom to be a 19th century invention.


It does require a certain amount of leisure time.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> It does require a certain amount of leisure time.


Well, to be bored used to be the privilege of the 'leisure class', for sure. It is a phenomenon that can be traced back into ancient Rome's richest upper class, but after 1800 it became a popular pastime for more than 'the happy few'. 'Spleen' poets like Pushkin & Baudelaire propagated it as a life style.

Beethoven used to be bored; Mozart didn't have an inkling about it.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

KenOC said:


> If Mozart's decisions weren't arbitrary, I suspect his music would be incredibly boring.


Ditto for any composer who ever put pen to paper, surely.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> For example in the case of the 5th symphony, Beethoven left pages and pages of discarded material, similar to these below, in his own writing, enough to fill a sizable book. He rejected, rewrote, scratched out, tore up, and sometimes altered a passage as many as twenty times. It took him 4 years to complete this symphony.
> 
> View attachment 99080
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A more original work than Mozart's Jupiter (which was composed in only 2-3 weeks)? Definitely. A better work? That is up to you.


Beethoven's Fifth is probably the most influential symphony ever composed. After it, the majority of symphonies (along with sonatas and string quartets) beginning in the minor mode ended in the major mode. That isn't an accident! The Fifth is also the work that established cyclic construction as a standard practice in symphonies. Along with a few other masterworks of Beethoven, the opening movement of the Fifth established the template for textbook sonata form. It also inspired a revolution in criticism focused on the symphony as a vehicle for psychological-dramatic content.

The question of whether it is better than Mozart's Jupiter is meaningless. The two works occupy different worlds and have very different aesthetic goals.


----------



## KenOC

TxllxT said:


> Well, to be bored used to be the privilege of the 'leisure class', for sure.


I'm sure that a dirt-poor farmer in SE Asia, trudging through muddy fields all day looking at the wrong end of a water buffalo, gets plenty bored. Of course he may not write poems about it.


----------



## TxllxT

KenOC said:


> I'm sure that a dirt-poor farmer in SE Asia, trudging through muddy fields all day looking at the wrong end of a water buffalo, gets plenty bored. Of course he may not write poems about it.


You mean, he's not a buddhist? Well, I'm pretty sure he never listened to Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> Beethoven's Fifth is probably the most influential symphony ever composed. After it, the majority of symphonies (along with sonatas and string quartets) beginning in the minor mode ended in the major mode. That isn't an accident! The Fifth is also the work that established cyclic construction as a standard practice in symphonies. Along with a few other masterworks of Beethoven, the opening movement of the Fifth established the template for textbook sonata form. It also inspired a revolution in criticism focused on the symphony as a vehicle for psychological-dramatic content.


Not to mention that the opening motif which corresponds to the Morse Code for 'V' became associated with Churchill's making a 'V' with his fingers during the 2nd World War. Virtually everyone knew about Beethoven's 5th Symohony over any other during those years.


----------



## Guillet81

1. Mozart -- IMO, he was clearly the greater genius.

2. Mozart -- See above. His compositions are consistently as fine an expression of perfection as any man has ever produced, in any field, let alone music. In fact, I can almost understand people disliking Mozart on those grounds: His works can seem "too perfect", especially as they frequently have the effect of revealing the imperfections in others' works when they are juxtaposed. As others have pointed to in the past (and our relative present), Mozart's music somewhat spoils one's ear.

3. Beethoven -- Credit where it is due. While for me Mozart is clearly the superior composer, there can be no argument as to which of the two has been more influential over time. While it *may* be the case that without Mozart, we would have had no Beethoven, it is certain that without Beethoven, there would have been no Romantic era in music such as we know it, or consequently a recognizable Modern era in music.

NB. On some level, this is regrettable to me, as I find Western music has, for the most part, been on a long slow decline since Mozart's death (with the occasional re-improvement, from time to time), but there is no denying Beethoven's greater influence. To be clear, I still love many of Beethoven's works, and I don't fault him for what followed in his wake. His music demonstrated extraordinary quality when compared to most composers through history, and from a strictly emotional perspective, his works more frequently and vibrantly "stir the heart" than do Mozart's. I suspect that, in the end, it was this aspect of Beethoven's music that others sought to emulate after his passing. Unfortunately, this pursuit of ever more "emotion" would eventually come at the detriment of structure, sophistication, and, ultimately, by the time we get to the moderns, much of beauty itself.


----------



## Woodduck

Guillet81 said:


> 1. Mozart -- IMO, he was clearly the greater genius.
> 
> 2. Mozart -- See above. *His compositions are consistently as fine an expression of perfection as any man has ever produced, in any field, let alone music.* In fact, *I can almost understand people disliking Mozart on those grounds: His works can seem "too perfect", especially as they frequently have the effect of revealing the imperfections in others' works when they are juxtaposed.* As others have pointed to in the past (and our relative present), Mozart's music somewhat spoils one's ear.
> 
> 3. Beethoven -- Credit where it is due. While for me Mozart is clearly the superior composer, there can be no argument as to which of the two has been more influential over time. While it *may* be the case that without Mozart, we would have had no Beethoven, it is certain that without Beethoven, there would have been no Romantic era in music such as we know it, or consequently a recognizable Modern era in music.
> 
> NB. On some level, this is regrettable to me, as *I find Western music has, for the most part, been on a long slow decline since Mozart's death *(with the occasional re-improvement, from time to time), but there is no denying Beethoven's greater influence. To be clear, I still love many of Beethoven's works, and I don't fault him for what followed in his wake. His music demonstrated extraordinary quality when compared to most composers through history, and from a strictly emotional perspective, his works more frequently and vibrantly "stir the heart" than do Mozart's. I suspect that, in the end, it was this aspect of Beethoven's music that others sought to emulate after his passing. Unfortunately, *this pursuit of ever more "emotion" would eventually come at the detriment of structure, sophistication, and, ultimately, by the time we get to the moderns, much of beauty itself.*


Whenever someone holds up Mozart's "perfection" as proof of his supremacy over all other composers, I recall a terse statement by Maria Callas: "Art is more than beauty."

A friend of mine, who respects Mozart's music but doesn't love it, makes exactly the observation you mention: "He's too perfect." I believe I understand this, and I don't take it as an objection to compositional excellence (which is after all a property of much of the music by many of the composers we enjoy). I'm sure, too, that it doesn't indicate any resentment toward Mozart for supposedly exposing the inferiority of the next composer on the program! Knowing my friend, I take his remark as pointing to a difficulty he has in identifying with a music which presents life's experiences as so exquisitely balanced, with all events and emotions completely reconciled in reason, all deviations from perfect equipoise resolved into beauty. It's music that conveys, through all its variety of expression, a metaphysical optimism - a sense that "whatever is, is right" - which may lead those who love Mozart to call him "divine," but might leave somewhat cooler those who prefer music which explores more frankly those aspects of life which never seem mutually reconcilable, and to which we can never reconcile ourselves.

Speaking for myself, I don't judge music which conveys an image of human existence as profoundly imperfect - music which may not be purely beautiful to the ear and mind - to be inferior. The growth of music's "lexicon" - the enrichment of harmony and orchestration, and the development of new forms in order to communicate new things - necessarily continued after Mozart; and given what a number of extraordinary creative geniuses went on to do with these resources, I can't agree that the work of Mozart, "perfect" though it may be, represents the pinnacle of achievement in Western music. As I survey the incredible landscape of the art, looking both backward and forward from Mozart, I see too many splendid summits, with multitudes of scarcely less magnificent peaks crowded around them, to point confidently to an Everest, much less to complain of the view from the others.


----------



## KenOC

A friend of mine played me some Mozart. I said, yeah, that sure is perfect. Got any Beethoven?


----------



## Larkenfield

Beethoven repeatedly returned throughout his life to the study of Mozart's scores. The question is whether Mozart would have studied Beethoven's scores if they'd been contemporaries? -- and of course, there's no answer to that. I think he would have been interested in Beethoven's development without abandoning his own, and Beethoven would have undoubtedly deferred to Mozart rather than the other way around. Hypothetical situation.

I hold both in high esteem and unless one is planning to chose one over the other permanently for the rest of one's life, there's no reason to compare them unless it's to marvel at both. Mozart often lived without a financial net under him (and gambled) and Beethoven had his deafness to contend with it. How some of these composers made it through life under such difficult circumstances creating something miraculous out of nothing is one reason why I hold them in such high regard. 

While I'm not a fan of everything they wrote, boredom is not one of the qualities I would attribute to either one of them. But I'd certainly attribute it to certain performances. For me, these two composers are at the very heart of the music, and I've often marveled at those who are into CM and yet have expressed a sublime indifference, lack of interest or appreciation of their music. To do so doesn't preclude liking the modern and contemporary scene more. 

So perhaps their era is when the entire lineage of the music peaked in its more than 1000 year history -- not that those who came after them are any less worth hearing, and the same for those composers of today, without comparing them to composers of another era who set the bar very high as sublime creators so obedient to their inner muse.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> Beethoven repeatedly returned throughout his life to the study of Mozart's scores. The question is whether Mozart would have studied Beethoven's scores if they'd been contemporaries? -- and of course, there's no answer to that. I think he would have been interested in Beethoven's development without abandoning his own, and Beethoven would have undoubtedly deferred to Mozart rather than the other way around. Hypothetical situation.
> 
> I hold both in high esteem and unless one is planning to chose one over the other permanently for the rest of one's life, there's no reason to compare them unless it's to marvel at both. Mozart often lived without a financial net under him (and gambled) and Beethoven had his deafness to contend with it. How some of these composers made it through life under such difficult circumstances creating something miraculous out of nothing is one reason why I hold them in such high regard.
> 
> While I'm not a fan of everything they wrote, boredom is not one of the qualities I would attribute to either one of them. But I'd certainly attribute it to certain performances. For me, these two composers are at the very heart of the music, and I've often marveled at those who are into CM and yet have expressed a sublime indifference, lack of interest or appreciation of their music. To do so doesn't preclude liking the modern and contemporary scene more.
> 
> So perhaps their era is when the entire lineage of the music peaked in its more than 1000 year history -- not that those who came after them are any less worth hearing, and the same for those composers of today, without comparing them to composers of another era who set the bar very high as sublime creators so obedient to their inner muse.


Mozart studied Haydn scores - he even studied scores by much lesser composers than Haydn and I am quite certain he would have been very interested in Beethoven had he developed in the same way had Mozart lived. But I doubt if he would as Mozart's inevitable innovations would have impacted upon Beethoven and of course musical history as we know it would be entirely different to what it is today.

Sadly - that did not happen.


----------



## Guillet81

A lovely response. Thank you. It certainly presents to me many of the aspects I dislike of modern music in a new light.


----------



## EdwardBast

Guillet81 said:


> 1. Mozart -- IMO, he was clearly the greater genius.
> 
> 2. Mozart -- See above. His compositions are consistently as fine an expression of *perfection* as any man has ever produced, in any field, let alone music. In fact, I can almost understand people disliking Mozart on those grounds: His works can seem "too perfect", especially as they frequently have the effect of revealing the imperfections in others' works when they are juxtaposed. As others have pointed to in the past (and our relative present), Mozart's music somewhat spoils one's ear.
> 
> 3. Beethoven -- Credit where it is due. While for me Mozart is clearly the superior composer, there can be no argument as to which of the two has been more influential over time. While *it *may* be the case that without Mozart, we would have had no Beethoven, it is certain that without Beethoven, there would have been no Romantic era in music such as we know it, or consequently a recognizable Modern era in music.*
> 
> NB. On some level, this is regrettable to me, as I find *Western music has, for the most part, been on a long slow decline since Mozart's death* (with the occasional re-improvement, from time to time), but there is no denying Beethoven's greater influence. To be clear, I still love many of Beethoven's works, and I don't fault him for what followed in his wake. His music demonstrated extraordinary quality when compared to most composers through history, and from a strictly emotional perspective, his works more frequently and vibrantly "stir the heart" than do Mozart's. I suspect that, in the end, it was this aspect of Beethoven's music that others sought to emulate after his passing. Unfortunately, this pursuit of ever more "emotion" would eventually come at the detriment of structure, sophistication, and, ultimately, by the time we get to the moderns, much of beauty itself.


Perfection, being without fault, is a very uninteresting aesthetic goal. Art works can be perfect and utterly trivial. One hopes any artist will have higher goals than perfection.

None of these things is the case. We would have had Beethoven without Mozart - Haydn was more influential on his work by far. Romanticism does not depend much on Beethoven - its new forms, character pieces, piano cycles, song cycles, and the tone poem don't depend at all on his example. His influence on symphonic composition in the Romantic Era is a mixed bag at best. Those who imitated rarely surpassed, many were cowed. Modernism would still have had all of the excesses of Romanticism and Post-Romanticism to grow from and react to in the absence of Beethoven.

Mozart as the high point followed by eternal decline? Strange notion. The era of Mozart was classical music's nadir in the pantheon of the arts.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Perfection, being without fault, is a very uninteresting aesthetic goal. Art works can be perfect and utterly trivial. One hopes any artist will have higher goals than perfection.
> 
> None of these things is the case. We would have had Beethoven without Mozart - Haydn was more influential on his work by far. Romanticism does not depend much on Beethoven - its new forms, character pieces, piano cycles, song cycles, and the tone poem don't depend at all on his example. His influence on symphonic composition in the Romantic Era is a mixed bag at best. Those who imitated rarely surpassed, many were cowed. Modernism would still have had all of the excesses of Romanticism and Post-Romanticism to grow from and react to in the absence of Beethoven.
> 
> *Mozart as the high point followed by eternal decline?* Strange notion. The era of Mozart was classical music's nadir in the pantheon of the arts.


In his book on the daponte trilogy Andrew Steptoe clearly holds this view and makes a case for it.


----------



## Guillet81

You are correct that perfection with nothing else is rather shallow. A scale is "perfect"... but still simple.

With Mozart (and with Bach as well, of course), we have perfection that is anything but simple. The music is beautiful, complex, moving, and yet that quality of perfection, which is much more easily attained through simplicity, remains, and is thus in fact enhanced for the listener.


----------



## beetzart

Beethoven every time. I love Mozart, especially his rare minor key pieces but Beethoven is the master of all. I am listening to Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata at the moment and you have to admit it is particularly special; very special!!


----------



## Michael Diemer

OK, I guess I'll wade into these treacherous waters. I have always felt (along with most of the known Universe) that JSB, LVB and WAM are the three greatest composers of all time (or should I say, spacetime). I also have always felt that it makes little sense to compare them, as they each worked in different periods. Each, it follows, was the greatest master of their period. I have often thought that only the Deity could answer the question of who was the greatest.

I do think it makes sense to talk about influence. Here LVB is the obvious choice. Although I think it's a mistake to say that WAM somehow is confined to the 1700's. His music continues to influence composers to this day. If you want to see how to make everything hook up right, not too many notes, or too few; all the right sounds in all the right places, on all the right instruments (in their best registers); at all the right times, you want Mozart. That is the famous perfection we all talk about. He didn't just make a piece as good as he could make it, he made it as good as anyone could have made it. For sheer musical genius, I do think he is unmatched. The real miracle is that, with such overwhelming gifts, he was able to create not just perfect music, but music of the most sublime emotional power. 

JSB? The giant upon whose shoulders the other two stood, along with everyone else. The source, the wellspring, the fountainhead. 

I hope these Three Amigos have somehow met in some alternate Universe, to compare notes. What else?


----------



## clavichorder

The answer is Schubert.


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> In his book on the daponte trilogy Andrew Steptoe clearly holds this view and makes a case for it.


Nobody has yet lived up to Pérotin, I'm still waiting...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What no Bach? ......................


----------



## Pugg

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Me and my friend on Friday morning were discussing the works of Beethoven and Mozart. Thus came the question who has more of a global impact and who was the bigger "genius?" Beethoven in my opinion has made far superior music to Mozart while he was deaf, yet Mozart never wrote second drafts of his music. It was perfect the first time. Here are my questions to see others opinions.
> 
> 1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?
> 2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?
> 3.) Who has had more of a global impact?
> 
> P.S. No arguing in this thread. This is to hear others opinions. I can name a specific thread where arguing opinions has happened too much, and it was getting rather annoying.


That gives food for thoughts .


----------



## Gwithian

It's a question that I often wonder about. Instinctively, I prefer Beethoven most of the time. But then Beethoven had the advantage of following Mozart...

I think Beethoven's work has the more interesting musical ideas, but if Mozart had not made the great leaps forward that he did, presumably Beethoven wouldn't have been the composer he was. It's a mistake, I guess, to think that great composers composed in a vacuum. They were self-consciously part of an unfolding musical tradition.

When I compare Mozart to Haydn, I find Mozart much more interesting, most of the time. But... if Haydn hadn't made the great strides that he did... etc. etc.!


----------



## EdwardBast

Gwithian said:


> It's a question that I often wonder about. Instinctively, I prefer Beethoven most of the time. But then Beethoven had the advantage of following Mozart...
> 
> I think Beethoven's work has the more interesting musical ideas, but if Mozart had not made the great leaps forward that he did, presumably Beethoven wouldn't have been the composer he was. It's a mistake, I guess, to think that great composers composed in a vacuum. They were self-consciously part of an unfolding musical tradition.
> 
> When I compare Mozart to Haydn, I find Mozart much more interesting, most of the time. But... if Haydn hadn't made the great strides that he did... etc. etc.!


Once again, Haydn was a much more important influence on Beethoven than Mozart, along with the Bachs. Do you have any particular reason for stressing the importance of Mozart?


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Once again, Haydn was a much more important influence on Beethoven than Mozart, along with the Bachs. *Do you have any particular reason for stressing the importance of Mozart?*


Are you kidding!??

Actually Mozart had a powerful influence on the work of Beethoven. Beethoven obviously knew much of Mozart's work, and modeled a number of his own compositions on works of Mozart. For example, Beethoven copied a passage from Mozart's 40th Symphony into the sketchbook he was using when he composed his Fifth Symphony, the third movement of which opens with a theme similar to one from the Mozart.

Charles Rosen sees Mozart's C minor Piano Concerto, K. 491, as a model for Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto in the same key, the Quintet for Piano and Winds, K. 452, for Beethoven's quintet for the same instruments, Op. 16, and the A major String Quartet, K. 464, for Beethoven's A major String Quartet Op. 18 No. 5.

Robert Marshall sees Mozart's C minor piano sonata, Piano Sonata No. 14 in C minor, K. 457, as the model for Beethoven's "Pathétique" sonata, Op. 13, in the same key.

The first movement of Beethoven's First Piano Concerto in C major references Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony in C major, K. 551. Also, Beethoven's third piano concerto took a small inspiration from Mozart's sonata No. 14. You can also clearly find bits in Beethoven's Appassionata very similar to Mozart's Fantasy in C minor for piano K. 475, almost like quoting it.

And those are just a few of the many...

Beethoven also wrote cadenzas (WoO 58) to the first and third movements of Mozart's D minor piano concerto, K. 466, and four sets of variations on themes by Mozart:

on "Se vuol ballare" from The Marriage of Figaro, for piano and violin, WoO 40
on "Là ci darem la mano" from Don Giovanni, for two oboes and cor anglais, WoO 28
on "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen" from The Magic Flute, for piano and cello, Op. 66
on "Bei Männern welche Liebe fühlen" from the same opera, for piano and cello, WoO 46

Quite late in his career Beethoven paid homage to Mozart by making a quotation from Don Giovanni (the opening notes of Leporello's aria 'Notte e giorno faticar') the basis of the 22nd of the Diabelli Variations.

"_*I have always counted myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart and shall remain so until my last breath.*_"
*- Ludwig van Beethoven*


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> Are you kidding!??
> 
> Actually Mozart had a powerful influence on the work of Beethoven. Beethoven obviously knew much of Mozart's work, and modeled a number of his own compositions on works of Mozart. For example, Beethoven copied a passage from Mozart's 40th Symphony into the sketchbook he was using when he composed his Fifth Symphony, the third movement of which opens with a theme similar to one from the Mozart.
> 
> Charles Rosen sees Mozart's C minor Piano Concerto, K. 491, as a model for Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto in the same key, the Quintet for Piano and Winds, K. 452, for Beethoven's quintet for the same instruments, Op. 16, and the A major String Quartet, K. 464, for Beethoven's A major String Quartet Op. 18 No. 5.
> 
> Robert Marshall sees Mozart's C minor piano sonata, Piano Sonata No. 14 in C minor, K. 457, as the model for Beethoven's "Pathétique" sonata, Op. 13, in the same key.
> 
> The first movement of Beethoven's First Piano Concerto in C major references Mozart's "Jupiter" Symphony in C major, K. 551. Also, Beethoven's third piano concerto took a small inspiration from Mozart's sonata No. 14. You can also clearly find bits in Beethoven's Appassionata very similar to Mozart's Fantasy in C minor for piano K. 475, almost like quoting it.
> 
> And those are just a few of the many...
> 
> Beethoven also wrote cadenzas (WoO 58) to the first and third movements of Mozart's D minor piano concerto, K. 466, and four sets of variations on themes by Mozart:
> 
> on "Se vuol ballare" from The Marriage of Figaro, for piano and violin, WoO 40
> on "Là ci darem la mano" from Don Giovanni, for two oboes and cor anglais, WoO 28
> on "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen" from The Magic Flute, for piano and cello, Op. 66
> on "Bei Männern welche Liebe fühlen" from the same opera, for piano and cello, WoO 46
> 
> "_*I have always counted myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart and shall remain so until my last breath.*_"
> *- Ludwig van Beethoven*


Stressing him over Haydn.

The list of "references," not quite quotations, and dubious "modeling" claims are not impressive, particularly as nearly all are from early works of Beethoven (or WoOs). Mozart wrote nothing remotely like any of Beethoven's major innovative works, including all of the middle and late sonatas, all of the middle and late quartets, and all of the middle and late symphonies.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Stressing him over Haydn.
> 
> The list of "references," not quite quotations, and dubious "modeling" claims are not impressive, particularly as nearly all are from early works of Beethoven (or WoOs). Mozart wrote nothing remotely like any of Beethoven's major innovative works, including all of the middle and late sonatas, all of the middle and late quartets, and all of the middle and late symphonies.


Beethoven wrote no opera remotely like any of Mozart's best. Beethoven had no output in quantity and quality remotely like that of Mozart at the age of 35 (at which Mozart died).

You have not explained either how is that Haydn was a much greater influence on Beethoven than Mozart.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Stressing him over Haydn.
> 
> The list of "references," not quite quotations, and dubious "modeling" claims are not impressive, particularly as nearly all are from early works of Beethoven (or WoOs). *Mozart wrote nothing remotely like any of Beethoven's major innovative works, including all of the middle and late sonatas, all of the middle and late quartets, and all of the middle and late symphonies.*


And by the way, most of those Beethoven's works you mention were composed at an older age than Mozart's when he died, and also with more favorable circumstances that allowed him to be more innovative, like the benefit of having patronage which provided Beethoven tranquility to think, and rethink, and rethink, and rethink these works with no time pressure. Had Mozart had that, and lived much longer...


----------



## Kieran

jdec said:


> And by the way, most of those Beethoven's works you mention were composed at an older age than Mozart's when he died, and also with more favorable circumstances that allowed him to be more innovative, like the benefit of having patronage which provided Beethoven tranquility to think, and rethink, and rethink, and rethink these works with no time pressure. Had Mozart had that, and lived much longer...


You left several "rethinks" out of it, as we know that Beethoven needed a lot of time to figure things out, compared to Mozart, who, as a "working stiff" was pushed to rely solely upon his immaculate instincts, and ability to compose flawless stuff of all hues in ridiculously confined spaces of time.

The Beethoven-Mozart debates usually devolve to this: Beethoven composed tough innovative stuff in his middle/later years, then went deaf, therefore, he's greater.

All this happened at an age after Mozart died. Therefore. Mozart is greater.

It gets a bit odd to see it acted out as if they both were given the same test, and they both were equally versatile, had equal facility to compose for all forms and all instruments, and they did this all in the same short space of time.

They didn't. Only one of them did...


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> Once again, Haydn was a much more important influence on Beethoven than Mozart, along with the Bachs. Do you have any particular reason for stressing the importance of Mozart?


Both WAM and LVB were influenced heavily by Haydn, who was instrumental in the development of the forms, even though Beethoven denied learning anything from Haydn. Mozart had a faster turnaround time in his music, because his output, compared to Beethoven is more derivative. But I believe Mozart headed in the direction as Beethoven already in the enlargement of the form for a few works. It's really impossible to compare the two, when one came after another. If they were both real contemporaries, like Mozart and Salieri, it would be easier.


----------



## Guest

This is a funny diversion:


----------



## Enthusiast

I find the greatness of Beethoven is easily encapsulated. In fact, I find the same for all great composers (even Haydn). But with Mozart it seems to me almost magical that he achieves so much with my brain cells and neurotransmitters without my really being able to reduce what he means to me to a simple set of "ideas". Why does the first movement of, say, the Haffner make me feel the way it does? For this reason I revere Mozart a little differently to all the others. I also think that great Mozart can be a lot more elusive for performers - some seem to have it but many are merely efficient.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> And by the way, most of those Beethoven's works you mention were composed at an older age than Mozart's when he died, and also with more favorable circumstances that allowed him to be more innovative, like the benefit of having patronage which provided Beethoven tranquility to think, and rethink, and rethink, and rethink these works with no time pressure. Had Mozart had that, and lived much longer...


Yeah, yeah. Woulda, coulda, shoulda …

More favorable circumstances? Like being deaf, socially isolated, perennially unfulfilled in love and subject to debilitating health problems?

Please remember, I am not making any argument about which composer is better. I never have. I think it's a fundamentally stupid debate because the aesthetic premises underlying Beethoven's mature work are different enough from those of Mozart to make the comparison meaningless.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Yeah, yeah. Woulda, coulda, shoulda …
> 
> More favorable circumstances? Like being deaf, socially isolated, perennially unfulfilled in love and subject to debilitating health problems?


Well, he was not completely deaf when he composed most of the middle period works you refer to, but until his late decade, and then some theorize that his deafness boosted his creative powers in terms of depth. Socially isolated and perennially unfulfilled love? that actually left him even more time to compose!! Debilitating health problems? yeah, Mozart never suffered of that in his life.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> I find the greatness of Beethoven is easily encapsulated. In fact, I find the same for all great composers (even Haydn). But with Mozart it seems to me almost magical that he achieves so much with my brain cells and neurotransmitters without my really being able to reduce what he means to me to a simple set of "ideas". Why does the first movement of, say, the Haffner make me feel the way it does? For this reason I revere Mozart a little differently to all the others. I also think that great Mozart can be a lot more elusive for performers - some seem to have it but many are merely efficient.


I can't easily encapsulate, or reduce to a simple set of ideas, the accomplishments of any great composer. And the more I know of music, the less I can do that.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Please remember, I am not making any argument about which composer is better. I never have. I think it's a fundamentally stupid debate because *the aesthetic premises underlying Beethoven's mature work are different enough from those of Mozart to make the comparison meaningless.*


On this, I completely agree with you.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Well, he was not completely deaf when he composed most of the middle period works you refer to, but until his late decade, and then some theorize that his deafness boosted his creative powers in terms of depth. Socially isolated and perennially unfulfilled love? that actually left him even more time to compose!! Debilitating health problems? yeah, Mozart never suffered of that in his life.


This seems rather heartless. Why try to minimize Beethoven's difficulties? EB didn't even mention his childhood: 7 siblings, an abusive, alcoholic father, false accusations of illegitimacy, the death of his mother at 17, having to take over as breadwinner at 19 when his father became completely irresponsible... Mozart, by contrast, was born of a composer father into a household saturated with music and given every opportunity a budding genius could hope for.

Beethoven succeeded despite odds of a sort that have certainly destroyed many talented people. Mozart? He had to cope with the usual problem of keeping up a decent income. Don't we all?


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> This seems rather heartless. Why try to minimize Beethoven's difficulties? EB didn't even mention his childhood: 7 siblings, an abusive, alcoholic father, false accusations of illegitimacy, the death of his mother at 17, having to take over as breadwinner at 19 when his father became completely irresponsible...


Don't be heartbroken, all of that you mention did nothing but strengthening Beethoven's spirit.


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> This seems rather heartless. Why try to minimize Beethoven's difficulties? EB didn't even mention his childhood: 7 siblings, an abusive, alcoholic father, false accusations of illegitimacy, the death of his mother at 17, having to take over as breadwinner at 19 when his father became completely irresponsible... Mozart, by contrast, was born of a composer father into a household saturated with music and given every opportunity a budding genius could hope for.
> 
> Beethoven succeeded despite odds of a sort that have certainly destroyed many talented people. Mozart? He had to cope with the usual problem of keeping up a decent income. Don't we all?


It's kinda like, when these discussion get tight, Beethoven people (of which I consider myself one, because I love his music too, but I'm talking here about the partisans who can't love Beethoven without having a pop at Wolfie) wheel onto stage from behind a curtain his deafness. I've even seen elsewhere somebody compare Beethoven composing while deaf to being akin to Michaelangelo going completely blind and still painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel . As if. Try getting up there first, right? Without spilling a drop of paint, etc.

Anyway, of course it was tragic that Beethoven became deaf. Nobody would dispute this, even though arguments have been made that say it may have aided his composing in some way, this doesn't make up for the awfulness of not hearing birds sing, not hearing voices of people you're fond of, all the other problems and heartaches and anxieties of being deaf.

Against this of course, we Mozart nuts wheel a coffin out from behind a different curtain and say, "oh if only Mozart had had the luxury of living long enough to go deaf! It's problematical composing while you're deaf, but isn't it also very difficult - if not more so! - to compose music while you're actually decomposing in the grave at the same time, if you get my drift."

Okay so, I see the catalogue of woes Luigi faced, lined out above. To Mozart's defence we spring and say his mother died when he was young and traveling with her to Paris. He suffered bad health through his childhood. He almost died many times. His children did die. His missus was lazy and decamped to posh bourgeois spas to soak in the balming fluids.

They all had it hard back then. It was "back then". They all struggled. If we keep wheeling out stuff from behind the curtain to show that Beethoven's third symph is better than the Jupiter because his daddy stunk of booze and then the Wolfie gang wheel out Leopold and denounce him as a bully who commodified his kids, we end up having to ask - would Beethoven have been better if his dad was Leopold? Would Mozart have been worse if his daddy was a drunk?

Maybe neither of them would have become composers, in that case...


----------



## Phil loves classical

I admit maybe it’s from autosuggestion, but I feel Beethoven’s late period music “suffered” somewhat from his hearing loss, like Missa Solemnis, 2nd movement of his last Sonata. Although washing the ears of the listener with sound maybe viewed as a function of Absolute music, I feel Beethoven would have shaped the phrasing differently, with hearing intact. I have his middle period in mind, and feel it is too much of a departure from the middle period aesthetic.


----------



## EdwardBast

Kieran said:


> *It's kinda like, when these discussion get tight, Beethoven people (of which I consider myself one, because I love his music too, but I'm talking here about the partisans who can't love Beethoven without having a pop at Wolfie) wheel onto stage from behind a curtain his deafness. *


I'm calling shenanigans on this right now! This issue came up not because the discussion was getting tight, whatever that means, it came up because jdec was specifically making hardship claims for Mozart. He claimed Beethoven's greater innovation was possible because he had it so much easier than Mozart. That invites the airing of contrary evidence, don't you think? And I had no pop at Mozart whatever. You just made that up.


----------



## Kieran

EdwardBast said:


> I'm calling shenanigans on this right now! This issue came up not because the discussion was getting tight, whatever that means, it came up because jdec was specifically making hardship claims for Mozart. He claimed Beethoven's greater innovation was possible because he had it so much easier than Mozart. That invites the airing of contrary evidence, don't you think? And I had no pop at Mozart whatever. You just made that up.


No, I made nothing up. I'm talking in general, as a person who has witnessed these Mozart-Beethoven scraps between fans for literally decades. Which is why I said when these types of discussions get tight, these things get wheeled out.  It always heads towards these directions, because musically to compare them is so much more difficult. I've often seen posters like the one who started the Beethoven Sonata thread insult and denigrate Mozart, in order to big Beethoven up, by comparison. There's absolutely no reason to do that, unless you have an agenda. That thread quickly of course degenerated into a nice scrap.

I don't mind nice scraps. They add a bit of something. It's okay with me, I'll join in. But do the discussions always go this route? Yes sir, they do...


----------



## EdwardBast

Kieran said:


> No, I made nothing up. I'm talking in general, as a person who has witnessed these Mozart-Beethoven scraps between fans for literally decades. Which is why I said when these types of discussions get tight, these things get wheeled out.  It always heads towards these directions, because musically to compare them is so much more difficult. I've often seen posters like the one who started the Beethoven Sonata thread insult and denigrate Mozart, in order to big Beethoven up, by comparison. There's absolutely no reason to do that, unless you have an agenda. That thread quickly of course degenerated into a nice scrap.
> 
> I don't mind nice scraps. They add a bit of something. It's okay with me, I'll join in. But do the discussions always go this route? Yes sir, they do...


I agree with much of the above. But you were characterizing the present discussion as a specific instance of a general tendency: Beethoven fans tearing down Mozart to build up their hero. This was incorrect. You got it backwards.

I don't have any trouble contrasting the two composers in musical terms and I tend to stick to that. Unless someone makes what I consider to be counterfactual assertions in need of correction.


----------



## Kieran

EdwardBast said:


> I agree with much of the above. But you were characterizing the present discussion as a specific instance of a general tendency: Beethoven fans tearing down Mozart to build up their hero. This was incorrect. You got it backwards.
> 
> I don't have any trouble contrasting the two composers in musical terms and I tend to stick to that. Unless someone makes what I consider to be counterfactual assertions in need of correction.


I agree, and possibly i was shuffling two threads in together, but I don't mind to do that, in order to make the point I was making. But in general, I agree. A discussion on the musical comparison is more interesting. I think, however, comparisons based upon false premises, are doomed to fail. Example: Mozart isn't as great a composer as Beethoven because he didn't innovate like Beethoven did in his middle period.

Possibly he didn't innovate as much, but so what? That doesn't make a composer better, or worse.

Possibly he didn't innovate because he was too busy feeding his brats and the missus. And possibly his innovations are overlooked. Again, so what. None of this makes a composer better, or worse.

I think to compare the two is instructive mainly in showing how music slid along the timeline. Mozart did this, and then the next stage was necessary and listen to what Beethoven did. It's not like Beethoven arrived before him, and Mozart's music was a retro move, right? They were both necessary stages along the timeline. Both had different approaches to music, and wanted to achieve different things through music. I watched an interesting video today of Dame Mitsuko discussing Mozart's 25th and Beethoven's 4th piano concertos, for comparison purposes. I didn't hear her denigrate either, but instead she made good points on the music. Not one, at the expense of the other. Not using one, to promote the other.

Now, opposed to this, I actually appreciate strong opinion, and don't mind partisan fan views on either side. It's a form of passion for the music. This is good, and debate is good too. Like I say, when they come for Wolfie, I'll join in. This is because his music stirs me in ways that other music doesn't, and when I hear bland cliches about how light and airy-fairy he is, I'm glad to help. Occasionally people listen, and grow to love his music. Other times, it winds down in stalemate. It's all part of the reason why forums like this are a pleasure to be part of...


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> *I don't have any trouble contrasting the two composers in musical terms and I tend to stick to that.* Unless someone makes what I consider to be counterfactual assertions in need of correction.


Yeah, that's been evident, of course always with a clear bias towards Beethoven.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Without looking at their backgrounds, who came first, etc. Beethoven was definitely more daring, and pushed the form to the limits. There is nothing by Mozart that compares with the 9th Symphony, Violin Concerto, middle period Piano Sonatas, and Violin Sonatas, and string quartets in this department. But nothing Beethoven wrote can compare with Mozart’s operas, Piano Concertos either. Mozart was a greater melodist, regardless of era. They were both capable of writing harrowingly sad and beautiful music. Mozart branched out and overcame the straight jacket his more conservative clients put on him eventually, while Beethoven from being in Haydn and Mozart’s shadow. They were both extraordinary in their respective circumstances. Anyone can prefer Mozart’s purer melodies or Beethoven’s more extensive development over the other. But more important is to recognize what they each achieved.


----------



## poconoron

Phil loves classical said:


> Without looking at their backgrounds, who came first, etc. Beethoven was definitely more daring, and pushed the form to the limits. There is nothing by Mozart that compares with the 9th Symphony, Violin Concerto, middle period Piano Sonatas, and Violin Sonatas, and string quartets in this department. But nothing Beethoven wrote can compare with Mozart's operas, Piano Concertos either. Mozart was a greater melodist, regardless of era. They were both capable of writing harrowingly sad and beautiful music. Mozart branched out and overcame the straight jacket his more conservative clients put on him eventually, while Beethoven from being in Haydn and Mozart's shadow. They were both extraordinary in their respective circumstances. Anyone can prefer Mozart's purer melodies or Beethoven's more extensive development over the other. But more important is to recognize what they each achieved.


Very well put, indeed.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Phil loves classical said:


> Without looking at their backgrounds, who came first, etc. Beethoven was definitely more daring, and pushed the form to the limits. There is nothing by Mozart that compares with the 9th Symphony, Violin Concerto, middle period Piano Sonatas, and Violin Sonatas, and string quartets in this department. But nothing Beethoven wrote can compare with Mozart's operas, Piano Concertos either. Mozart was a greater melodist, regardless of era. They were both capable of writing harrowingly sad and beautiful music. Mozart branched out and overcame the straight jacket his more conservative clients put on him eventually, while Beethoven from being in Haydn and Mozart's shadow. They were both extraordinary in their respective circumstances. Anyone can prefer Mozart's purer melodies or Beethoven's more extensive development over the other. But more important is to recognize what they each achieved.


More daring? and what is the music in on Giovanni then? Vanilla for the classical period? That's just one example. The piano quartet in g minor? pc in d minor? as daring I would suggest in the era in which he composed. Apart from Haydn - no other composer as far as I am aware composed symphonies lasting 30 minutes in that ear - check out CPE - a great symphonist - fine works but each symphony lasts about 12 minutes - the 1st movement of the prague lasts that alone, without the repeat and with repeat 15 minutes.


----------



## Genoveva

I think that talk about Beethoven being more "innovative" and/or more "daring" than Mozart is not very useful.

As has been pointed, innovation per se is not relevant to assessing the quality of a composer's output. It is much more to do with whether or not the music that is produced is any good, and if there is a significant amount of it. Of course, Beethoven met both of these criteria in abundance, so there is no doubt about his greatness, but his innovative skills don't add to that greatness, as to do so would be double-counting.

This doesn't mean that Beethoven wasn't more innovative than Mozart was. He may have been, but even if this is correct it's possible that this was partly because he realised that he couldn't produce anything significantly better, or even as good, than what Mozart had already achieved many years previously. To this extent, he may have felt that, rather than try to compete with Mozart (and Haydn), he needed to experiment with into newer forms and modifications of existing forms.

Whilst that is a possibility, I think it more likely, that Beethoven may have realised by the early 1800s (when he began his "middle period") that musical audiences/customers wanted something slightly different from what had gone on before. By that time, Mozart had been dead for about 10 years, and Haydn was an old man. In other words, he may have been responding in part or in main to what the market wanted, rather than spontaneously creating new styles, or changing characteristics of some existing styles, simply in the hope that that whatever he created might supplant the older forms.


----------



## Phil loves classical

stomanek said:


> More daring? and what is the music in on Giovanni then? Vanilla for the classical period? That's just one example. The piano quartet in g minor? pc in d minor? as daring I would suggest in the era in which he composed. Apart from Haydn - no other composer as far as I am aware composed symphonies lasting 30 minutes in that ear - check out CPE - a great symphonist - fine works but each symphony lasts about 12 minutes - the 1st movement of the prague lasts that alone, without the repeat and with repeat 15 minutes.


I meant Beethoven is technically more daring in general. As I said here or elsewhere I see Mozart's Don Giovanni as inspiring Beethoven's darker side.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> Yeah, that's been evident, of course always with a clear bias towards Beethoven.


No, it's just a matter of where the misinformation is coming from.


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> I meant Beethoven is technically more daring in general. As I said here or elsewhere I see Mozart's Don Giovanni as inspiring Beethoven's darker side.


Could be, though Beethoven was critical of Don Giovanni. "_Die Zauberflote_ will always remain Mozart's greatest work, for in it he for the first time showed himself to be a German musician. _Don Juan_ still has the complete Italian cut; besides our sacred art ought never permit itself to be degraded to the level of a foil for so scandalous a subject."


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> This doesn't mean that Beethoven wasn't more innovative than Mozart was. He may have been, but even if this is correct it's possible that this was partly because he realised that he couldn't produce anything significantly better, or even as good, than what Mozart had already achieved many years previously. To this extent, he may have felt that, rather than try to compete with Mozart (and Haydn), he needed to experiment with into newer forms and modifications of existing forms.
> 
> Whilst that is a possibility, I think it more likely, that Beethoven may have realised by the early 1800s (when he began his "middle period") that musical audiences/customers wanted something slightly different from what had gone on before. By that time, Mozart had been dead for about 10 years, and Haydn was an old man. In other words, he may have been responding in part or in main to what the market wanted, rather than spontaneously creating new styles, or changing characteristics of some existing styles, simply in the hope that that whatever he created might supplant the older forms.


This view of history ^ ^ ^ is … odd. Why on earth do you think a mature Beethoven would want to write like Mozart? The High Classical was the most shackled the art of music had been for centuries. The advancements in piano technology and technique alone make this notion untenable. Beethoven had whole worlds to explore that no one in the 18thc had envisioned. It was a new age and a new generation created its art, just as one would expect. The audiences didn't know what they wanted until Beethoven showed them.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> ...The audiences didn't know what they wanted until Beethoven showed them.


Probably true, although it makes me think, uncontrollably, of the invention and marketing of deodorant.


----------



## Genoveva

EdwardBast said:


> This view of history ^ ^ ^ is … odd. Why on earth do you think a mature Beethoven would want to write like Mozart? The High Classical was the most shackled the art of music had been for centuries. The advancements in piano technology and technique alone make this notion untenable. Beethoven had whole worlds to explore that no one in the 18thc had envisioned. It was a new age and a new generation created its art, just as one would expect. The audiences didn't know what they wanted until Beethoven showed them.


I'm not sure what you are arguing about.

As I said, there are two main possibilities why Beethoven was more "innovative" than Mozart, assuming this is the case for the moment just for argument's sake. One is that he couldn't simply continue in the tradition of Mozart because Mozart's quality was so high, and it would be difficult to emulate it. He therefore needed to move things forward in order to differentiate himself from Mozart.

The other possibility, which I said is more likely, is that Beethoven realised by the early 1800s that musical audiences wanted something different from the high classical style as perfected by Mozart and Haydn, so therefore Beethoven's efforts in this direction were in part market led.

You say that audiences didn't know what they wanted until Beethoven showed them. I hardly think it likely that Beethoven sat down one day and decided all on his own, with no external influences having any effect, to write music that was completely different in form from what had been written before.

Rather, "romanticism" in the arts and literature had already been around for a couple decades by the time it reached music. It's most likely that there was a desire for less rigid forms of expression, allowing for a greater range of emotions, in music too. To this extent Beethoven was responding to what was required.

In any case, there is no settled opinion on just how far Beethoven did change things in terms of style. Yes of course he made some changes, and his music sounds different to that of his predecessors, but some musicologists, e.g. Charles Rosen, argue that he remained largely classical in style.


----------



## KenOC

Genoveva said:


> ...Yes of course he made some changes, and his music sounds different to that of his predecessors, but some musicologists, e.g. Charles Rosen, argue that he remained largely classical in style.


Similar bottles, yes, but very different wine. I doubt Rosen would argue with that.


----------



## Genoveva

KenOC said:


> Similar bottles, yes, but very different wine. I doubt Rosen would argue with that.


Whilst the main musical building blocks ("bottles") that Beethoven used are much the same as those used by Mozart, it's obviously different "wine" to some extent, and this is not surprising given the age difference of the compositions. The only composer that Mozart can be really compared with in terms of both style and quality is "Papa" Haydn, but we all know who'd win that comparison, so people don't bother.

If we take Mozart's "mature" output as dating from 1775-1791 (i.e. from the age 19), the mid point was roughly 1782/3. Beethoven began churning out noteworthy works from around 1792 (i.e. age 22), with a mid point of about 1810. That's a 27-28 year average time difference. I realise there are other ways of calculating "mid-points" in musical careers, but this will do for present purposes, as I wouldn't wish to argue about possibly no more than a couple of years either way.

The trouble with a lot of Beethoven fan-boys is that they're still boys, and haven't yet learned to appreciate the advantages of adopting a less blinkered outlook on the best in classical music. Some of them sometimes appear a little "drunk" in their claims about Beethoven's alleged superiority over Mozart. I trust you might agree.


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> You say that audiences didn't know what they wanted until Beethoven showed them. I hardly think it likely that Beethoven sat down one day and decided all on his own, with no external influences having any effect, to write music that was completely different in form from what had been written before.
> 
> Rather, "romanticism" in the arts and literature had already been around for a couple decades by the time it reached music. It's most likely that there was a desire for less rigid forms of expression, allowing for a greater range of emotions, in music too. To this extent Beethoven was responding to what was required.
> 
> In any case, there is no settled opinion on just how far Beethoven did change things in terms of style. Yes of course he made some changes, and his music sounds different to that of his predecessors, but some musicologists, e.g. Charles Rosen, argue that he remained largely classical in style.


Charles Rosen had a somewhat myopic view because he had a specific theory and historiography to push. The very title of his most important book, _The Classical Style_, more or less foreordained that he view Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven through the same lens, as proponents of the same style. Thus his argument that the main driver of classical structure in the work of all three composers is in the tonal/harmonic domain, specifically, tonic-dominant polarity. But, alas, this is one of the things Beethoven had begun to overthrow. Have you noticed that Beethoven's second theme groups often don't go to the dominant? That he was perfectly happy using mediant and submediant keys as the secondary areas? More important still, the Romantic Era, looking at Beethoven's sonata cycles, began to define structure thematically and dramatically rather than in terms of tonal structure, hence textbook sonata form. The rising centrality of thematic processes is also seen in his tendency to thematically unify entire cycles.

The idea that he poured different wine into the same bottles also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Beethoven fundamentally transformed the bottles. If one compares the proportions of Haydn and Mozart movements in sonata form to those of mature Beethoven, particularly to Beethoven's most influential works, one finds that the unstable developmental sections (development and coda) of H & M are a relatively small fraction of the whole. In Beethoven these sections are often significantly longer than his expositions and recaps. Then of course, he wrote scherzos rather than dance movements and end weighted the finales to provide a climactic conclusion. And the fact that the same material was often shared among different movements sort of pokes holes (ha ha) in the bottle theory.

If what you write is true, that it is "hardly … likely that Beethoven sat down one day and decided all on his own, with no external influences having any effect, to write music that was completely different in form from what had been written before," that should be pretty easy to establish. You could start by showing us the precedents for the _Eroica_, "Apassionata," Fifth Symphony, and late quartets.


----------



## Woodduck

_Genoveva writes:_

I think that talk about Beethoven being more "innovative" and/or more "daring" than Mozart is not very useful. 

If it's true, why isn't it useful to say so? What's this thread about, anyway?

As has been pointed, innovation per se is not relevant to assessing the quality of a composer's output. It is much more to do with whether or not the music that is produced is any good, and if there is a significant amount of it.

Innovativeness isn't necessarily a mark of an individual work's excellence, but as a characteristic of an artist's whole oeuvre, or even his principal works, it's commonly considered a mark of distinction, especially if by "innovation" we mean not mere novelty in form but also the opening up of previously unexplored expressive territory. Beethoven's music was innovative in both ways, to an unprecedented degree.

This doesn't mean that Beethoven wasn't more innovative than Mozart was. He may have been, but even if this is correct it's possible that this was partly because he realised that he couldn't produce anything significantly better, or even as good, than what Mozart had already achieved many years previously. To this extent, he may have felt that, rather than try to compete with Mozart (and Haydn), he needed to experiment with into newer forms and modifications of existing forms. Whilst that is a possibility, I think it more likely, that Beethoven may have realised by the early 1800s (when he began his "middle period") that musical audiences/customers wanted something slightly different from what had gone on before. In other words, he may have been responding in part or in main to what the market wanted, rather than spontaneously creating new styles, or changing characteristics of some existing styles, simply in the hope that that whatever he created might supplant the older forms.

I think it's pretty obvious that Beethoven was motivated primarily by what most real artists are motivated by: creative necessity. He wasn't interested in being a better version of Mozart or of anyone else, he wasn't thinking of "supplanting" older styles, and no one in his "customer base" was tired of Haydn and "wanted" something as "slightly different" as, say, the "Eroica."

This is not to say that he didn't feel challenged by the excellence of his predecessors, or that he took no notice whatever of the tastes of his audience. But these were certainly not determining factors in the development of his style.

I hardly think it likely that Beethoven sat down one day and decided all on his own, with no external influences having any effect, to write music that was completely different in form from what had been written before.

Of course he didn't. That completely mistakes the psychological processes involved in artistic creation and the production of art that's new and significant.

In any case, there is no settled opinion on just how far Beethoven did change things in terms of style. Yes of course he made some changes, and his music sounds different to that of his predecessors, but some musicologists, e.g. Charles Rosen, argue that he remained largely classical in style.

It isn't difficult for a knowledgeable person to identify what was new in Beethoven's music, nor for many a less knowledgeable person to hear how extraordinarily different some of it is from music in high Classical style as represented by Mozart and Haydn. Whether we still classify Beethoven as a "Classical" composer is a matter of what aspects of his style we're talking about, and of how we define "Classical." This is for academics to worry about. The music is what it is.

Whilst the main musical building blocks ("bottles") that Beethoven used are much the same as those used by Mozart, it's obviously different "wine" to some extent.

Music isn't made by filling "bottles" (forms) with "wine" (content). It _can_ be, and we call the result "academicism." For the artist who creates from inner necessity, structure and meaning are not separate things but arise as an integrated entity. Formal analysis comes afterward, and artists are usually content to leave that to us as they get on to their next work.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Genoveva said:


> I'm not sure what you are arguing about.
> 
> As I said, there are two main possibilities why Beethoven was more "innovative" than Mozart, assuming this is the case for the moment just for argument's sake. One is that he couldn't simply continue in the tradition of Mozart because Mozart's quality was so high, and it would be difficult to emulate it. He therefore needed to move things forward in order to differentiate himself from Mozart.
> 
> The other possibility, which I said is more likely, is that Beethoven realised by the early 1800s that musical audiences wanted something different from the high classical style as perfected by Mozart and Haydn, so therefore Beethoven's efforts in this direction were in part market led.
> 
> You say that audiences didn't know what they wanted until Beethoven showed them. I hardly think it likely that Beethoven sat down one day and decided all on his own, with no external influences having any effect, to write music that was completely different in form from what had been written before.
> 
> Rather, "romanticism" in the arts and literature had already been around for a couple decades by the time it reached music. It's most likely that there was a desire for less rigid forms of expression, allowing for a greater range of emotions, in music too. To this extent Beethoven was responding to what was required.
> 
> In any case, there is no settled opinion on just how far Beethoven did change things in terms of style. Yes of course he made some changes, and his music sounds different to that of his predecessors, but some musicologists, e.g. Charles Rosen, argue that he remained largely classical in style.


I think this is a good post and I agree with it. If we want to have an objective discussion, we must derive a set of criteria by which to evaluate the composers to derive a winner. Even if we are able to do this, it doesn't make one composer definitely better than the other, it means they meet said criteria the best. If we could do this, it would be important to keep in mind that we could arrive at different criteria where the other composer would win.

I believe creating criteria would bring direction and guidance to an otherwise overly open discussion.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> _Genoveva writes:_
> 
> I think that talk about Beethoven being more "innovative" and/or more "daring" than Mozart is not very useful.
> 
> If it's true, why isn't it useful to say so? What's this thread about, anyway?
> 
> As has been pointed, innovation per se is not relevant to assessing the quality of a composer's output. It is much more to do with whether or not the music that is produced is any good, and if there is a significant amount of it.
> 
> Innovativeness isn't necessarily a mark of an individual work's excellence, but as a characteristic of an artist's whole oeuvre, or even his principal works, it's commonly considered a mark of distinction, especially if by "innovation" we mean not mere novelty in form but also the opening up of previously unexplored expressive territory. Beethoven's music was innovative in both ways, to an unprecedented degree.
> 
> This doesn't mean that Beethoven wasn't more innovative than Mozart was. He may have been, but even if this is correct it's possible that this was partly because he realised that he couldn't produce anything significantly better, or even as good, than what Mozart had already achieved many years previously. To this extent, he may have felt that, rather than try to compete with Mozart (and Haydn), he needed to experiment with into newer forms and modifications of existing forms. Whilst that is a possibility, I think it more likely, that Beethoven may have realised by the early 1800s (when he began his "middle period") that musical audiences/customers wanted something slightly different from what had gone on before. In other words, he may have been responding in part or in main to what the market wanted, rather than spontaneously creating new styles, or changing characteristics of some existing styles, simply in the hope that that whatever he created might supplant the older forms.
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that Beethoven was motivated primarily by what most real artists are motivated by: creative necessity. He wasn't interested in being a better version of Mozart or of anyone else, he wasn't thinking of "supplanting" older styles, and no one in his "customer base" was tired of Haydn and "wanted" something as "slightly different" as, say, the "Eroica."
> 
> This is not to say that he didn't feel challenged by the excellence of his predecessors, or that he took no notice whatever of the tastes of his audience. But these were certainly not determining factors in the development of his style.
> 
> I hardly think it likely that Beethoven sat down one day and decided all on his own, with no external influences having any effect, to write music that was completely different in form from what had been written before.
> 
> Of course he didn't. That completely mistakes the psychological processes involved in artistic creation and the production of art that's new and significant.
> 
> In any case, there is no settled opinion on just how far Beethoven did change things in terms of style. Yes of course he made some changes, and his music sounds different to that of his predecessors, but some musicologists, e.g. Charles Rosen, argue that he remained largely classical in style.
> 
> It isn't difficult for a knowledgeable person to identify what was new in Beethoven's music, nor for many a less knowledgeable person to hear how extraordinarily different some of it is from music in high Classical style as represented by Mozart and Haydn. Whether we still classify Beethoven as a "Classical" composer is a matter of what aspects of his style we're talking about, and of how we define "Classical." This is for academics to worry about. The music is what it is.
> 
> Whilst the main musical building blocks ("bottles") that Beethoven used are much the same as those used by Mozart, it's obviously different "wine" to some extent.
> 
> Music isn't made by filling "bottles" (forms) with "wine" (content). It _can_ be, and we call the result "academicism." For the artist who creates from inner necessity, structure and meaning are not separate things but arise as an integrated entity. Formal analysis comes afterward, and artists are usually content to leave that to us as they get on to their next work.


.........

Well thanks for all that. It's quite feisty stuff, colourful too. I'll deal with your main points insofar that I think they're worth answering.



Woodduck said:


> If it's true, why isn't it useful to say so? What's this thread about, anyway?


I have already answered that. It's not useful because some people are fond of arguing that being innovative as a composer adds to that composer's excellence. The fact is that being an innovative composer is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient condition for being an excellent composer. That's because an innovative composer may have produced material that is either not liked by many, or may lack sufficient quantity produced. Only if an innovative composer has produced a lot of work that is generally liked down the ages can it be said that he/she has any claim to excellence. The greatness of a composer is not enhanced by the fact that the works are based on innovations of some kind. This is because listeners are mainly interested in the finished results, not whether they contain any innovations, which for most people go straight over their heads. 



Woodduck said:


> Innovativeness isn't necessarily a mark of an individual work's excellence, but as a characteristic of an artist's whole oeuvre, or even his principal works, it's commonly considered a mark of distinction, especially if by "innovation" we mean not mere novelty in form but also the opening up of previously unexplored expressive territory. Beethoven's music was innovative in both ways, to an unprecedented degree.


What you say here seems to be self-contradictory. If it isn't a mark of excellence how can it be a mark of distinction? Innovation is no more than a possible feature of a composer's output, and is not a reason to give that composer any special credit. To show how silly the argument is, recall that some well-known composers went in the opposite direction to innovation in harking back to older musical forms. One major example was the "neoclassical" movement in the 20th C (like Prokofiev) that saw composers returning to forms associated with the classical school composers. That was prompted by a kind of reaction to the over-emotionalism that had crept into some forms of romantic music by that time. Given that these composers went backwards, on your argument they ought to be given a "discredit". 



Woodduck said:


> I think it's pretty obvious that Beethoven was motivated primarily by what most real artists are motivated by: creative necessity. He wasn't interested in being a better version of Mozart or of anyone else, he wasn't thinking of "supplanting" older styles, and no one in his "customer base" was tired of Haydn and "wanted" something as "slightly different" as, say, the "Eroica."


I think you are probably wrong here. It's quite well known that the music of Mozart and Haydn et al went through a period of falling appeal in the early part of the 19th C. Beethoven suffered this malaise partly too. The public had gained a big interest in the style of Rossini, and that's why the likes of Scubert began to write orchestral pieces like _Overure in the Italian Style_ when he wasn't busy writing operas. Beethoven's attempt to write an opera was a long and drawn out process, one to which he never returned. All of these composers had to earn a crust or two to keep going, and couldn't afford to ignore the market and just do their own thing. It would be naive to think otherwise.



Woodduck said:


> It isn't difficult for a knowledgeable person to identify what was new in Beethoven's music, nor for many a less knowledgeable person to hear how extraordinarily different some of it is from music in high Classical style as represented by Mozart and Haydn. Whether we still classify Beethoven as a "Classical" composer is a matter of what aspects of his style we're talking about, and of how we define "Classical." This is for academics to worry about. The music is what it is.


I acknowledged that Beethoven made a number of innovations, mostly in refining and extendiing the existing building blocks of the classical style. I also agreed that he made some progress in moving things forward into the Romantic sphere, but it was nothing like the scale of advances that some people seem to believe. 



Woodduck said:


> Music isn't made by filling "bottles" (forms) with "wine" (content). It can be, and we call the result "academicism." For the artist who creates from inner necessity, structure and meaning are not separate things but arise as an integrated entity. Formal analysis comes afterward, and artists are usually content to leave that to us as they get on to their next work.


I agree it's not a very good analogy. Now let me think, where did I get this one from? Just go back a few posts and I do declare I think you'll find the answer.


----------



## Genoveva

EdwardBast said:


> Charles Rosen had a somewhat myopic view because he had a specific theory and historiography to push. The very title of his most important book, _The Classical Style_, more or less foreordained that he view Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven through the same lens, as proponents of the same style. Thus his argument that the main driver of classical structure in the work of all three composers is in the tonal/harmonic domain, specifically, tonic-dominant polarity. But, alas, this is one of the things Beethoven had begun to overthrow. Have you noticed that Beethoven's second theme groups often don't go to the dominant? That he was perfectly happy using mediant and submediant keys as the secondary areas? More important still, the Romantic Era, looking at Beethoven's sonata cycles, began to define structure thematically and dramatically rather than in terms of tonal structure, hence textbook sonata form. The rising centrality of thematic processes is also seen in his tendency to thematically unify entire cycles.
> 
> The idea that he poured different wine into the same bottles also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Beethoven fundamentally transformed the bottles. If one compares the proportions of Haydn and Mozart movements in sonata form to those of mature Beethoven, particularly to Beethoven's most influential works, one finds that the unstable developmental sections (development and coda) of H & M are a relatively small fraction of the whole. In Beethoven these sections are often significantly longer than his expositions and recaps. Then of course, he wrote scherzos rather than dance movements and end weighted the finales to provide a climactic conclusion. And the fact that the same material was often shared among different movements sort of pokes holes (ha ha) in the bottle theory.
> 
> If what you write is true, that it is "hardly … likely that Beethoven sat down one day and decided all on his own, with no external influences having any effect, to write music that was completely different in form from what had been written before," that should be pretty easy to establish. You could start by showing us the precedents for the _Eroica_, "Apassionata," Fifth Symphony, and late quartets.


Interesting but I don't think it takes us very far. Rather it looks like a load of technical waffle that you could have dug out of some textbook: "dominants" and "mediants" "climatic conclusions" tonic-dominant polarity". I mean, who cares about all that kind of stuff, let alone understand it?

I'm not saying Beethoven wasn't inventive. On the contrary I don't doubt that he was probably very inventive and his work shows the benefit of it in some cases. I like the finished results greatly and very much admire Beethoven. But I'm not sure that he was significantly more inventive than was, say, Mozart or Haydn. The latter was particuarly inventive, creating new styles altogether, and Mozart made big strides in opera.

The area where Beethoven seems to have been credited with making big strides is into the romantic area. Now whilst I'm sure that Beethoven twiddled and fiddled a lot before being happy with the result, it would seem to be mostly in refining and extending the existing classical style. From my quite broad reading on the subject, he didn't move things forward all that far into the romantic sphere. In the early stages it had as much to do with, if not more so, with the likes of Weber, Field, Rossini and Schubert.


----------



## Jacck

Genoveva, Beethoven moved the music not only into the romantic era, but some of his works into the modern era. Die grosse Fuge is atonal and disonant 100 years before Schoenberg. Beethoven was a visionary, extremely original, constantly breaking new ground. I am not sure about Mozart, I like some of his stuff (Requiem, Operas), but a lot of his output I find a little boring.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think for me, as a whole, I prefer Beethoven as a composer to Mozart. Beethoven was constantly interesting in his mid-late years where Mozart seems to re-write the same pieces over and over again. However, the pieces by Mozart I enjoy, I adore. I do have much admiration for Mozart's ability to create instantly and put to paper what was in his head, even though he was rather repetitious.


----------



## Genoveva

Jacck said:


> Genoveva, Beethoven moved the music not only into the romantic era, but some of his works into the modern era. Die grosse Fuge is atonal and disonant 100 years before Schoenberg. Beethoven was a visionary, extremely original, constantly breaking new ground. I am not sure about Mozart, I like some of his stuff (Requiem, Operas), but a lot of his output I find a little boring.


Beethoven didn't invent "dissonance". It had been used previously in a number of baroque and classical works. For an obvious example, look no further than Mozart's String Quartet No 19 "Dissonance".

If you think that Beethoven "moved the music into the romantic era", do you believe that whatever he achieved in this area he did alone, or was he part of a wider trend of composers who were also moving in the same direction? If the latter, might not the move into the romantic era have happened anyway, regardless of Beethoven's efforts?


----------



## Woodduck

If [innovativeness] isn't a mark of excellence how can it be a mark of distinction? Innovation is no more than a possible feature of a composer's output, and is not a reason to give that composer any special credit. To show how silly the argument is, recall that some well-known composers went in the opposite direction to innovation in harking back to older musical forms. One major example was the "neoclassical" movement in the 20th C (like Prokofiev) that saw composers returning to forms associated with the classical school composers. That was prompted by a kind of reaction to the over-emotionalism that had crept into some forms of romantic music by that time. Given that these composers went backwards, on your argument they ought to be given a "discredit". 

I was making a distinction between originality as a specific measure of a work's excellence - not every fine work is markedly original - and innovativeness as a general characteristic of a first-rate creative mind.

Furthermore, there's a basic distinction between innovativeness or originality as the product of a fundamental creative impulse and the pursuit of mere novelty or superficial difference. A mass for barbershop quartet and kazoo ensemble would be startlingly novel, but if its melodic and harmonic materials were hackneyed, frivolous and forgettable we would dismiss it as a "stunt." That isn't the sort of thing we mean when we celebrate the innovativeness of, say, Beethoven's late sonatas, Wagner's _Tristan,_ Debussy's _Faune_ or Stravinsky's _Rite._ As for the intentional use of older styles, Stravinsky's neoclassicism may hark back to Classical models, but _The Rake's Progress_ is still highly original.

Innovativeness - as opposed to mere novelty - results when an artist with a unique vision that speaks to some significant aspect of human experience has the power to realize that vision. It expands the realm of what art can mean. It's one of the criteria of artistic greatness.

I think you are probably wrong here. It's quite well known that the music of Mozart and Haydn et al went through a period of falling appeal in the early part of the 19th C. Beethoven suffered this malaise partly too. The public had gained a big interest in the style of Rossini, and that's why the likes of Scubert began to write orchestral pieces like _Overure in the Italian Style_ when he wasn't busy writing operas. Beethoven's attempt to write an opera was a long and drawn out process, one to which he never returned. All of these composers had to earn a crust or two to keep going, and couldn't afford to ignore the market and just do their own thing. It would be naive to think otherwise.

No one is arguing that composers take no account of their audience. But great music is not created by psyching out imagined auditors, even if it's produced on commission. The artist may decide to work within established parameters, but if he's going to produce something of unusual interest or value he will have to tap into his own vision of what's possible and desirable. Great art - innovative art, not coincidentally - notably surpasses and enlarges the expectations of its audience. Beethoven's most emphatically did. The notion that his radical transformation of the symphony represents any sort of attempt to meet his audience's desire for "something different" is ridiculous.

I acknowledged that Beethoven made a number of innovations, mostly in refining and extendiing the existing building blocks of the classical style. I also agreed that he made some progress in moving things forward into the Romantic sphere, but it was nothing like the scale of advances that some people seem to believe.

I don't know or much care what some people seem to believe. Do you? Talk of "moving things forward into the Romantic sphere" is odd. Beethoven wasn't trying to "move things" anywhere. He was trying to write music meaningful to him and, hopefully, to others. Categories like "Romantic sphere" are applied after the fact.


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> Genoveva, Beethoven moved the music not only into the romantic era, but some of his works into the modern era. *Die grosse Fuge is atonal* and disonant 100 years before Schoenberg. Beethoven was a visionary, extremely original, constantly breaking new ground. I am not sure about Mozart, I like some of his stuff (Requiem, Operas), but a lot of his output I find a little boring.


It is NOT atonal. It's in the key of B-flat major.


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think for me, as a whole, I prefer Beethoven as a composer to Mozart. Beethoven was constantly interesting in his mid-late years* where Mozart seems to re-write the same pieces over and over again.* However, the pieces by Mozart I enjoy, I adore. I do have much admiration for Mozart's ability to create instantly and put to paper what was in his head, even though he was rather repetitious.


Could you give examples of the same pieces that Mozart re-wrote over and over again?


----------



## silentio

Genoveva said:


> *Beethoven didn't invent "dissonance". It had been used previously in a number of baroque and classical works. For an obvious example, look no further than Mozart's String Quartet No 19 "Dissonance".*
> 
> If you think that Beethoven "moved the music into the romantic era", do you believe whatever he achieved in this area he did alone, or was he part of a wider trend of composers who were also moving in the same direction? If the latter, might not the move into the romantic era have happened anyway, regardless of Beethoven's efforts?


Exactly. Mediaval, Renaissance and Baroque composers explored dissonance innovatively. Just check the works of Dufay, Josquin, Isaac, Palestrina, Gesualdo (!!!), Zelenka, and Bach.

In one of the conversations with Heuberger, Brahms stated that:

_"What, however, is much weaker in Beethoven, for example,* than in Mozart *and especially in Sebastian Bach is the use of dissonances. You don't find dissonances, true dissonances, used any longer in Beethoven as in Mozart. Just look at Idomeneo!... What splendid dissonances, what harmonies!!"_.

Mind you this was not from a Brahms in his cocky younger years. It was at the very end of his career, after he has spent a life time studying Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> Could you give examples of the same pieces that Mozart re-wrote over and over again?


Just listen to a lot of his early symphonies. They all have very similar peaks and conclusions; they just all sound the same.


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just listen to a lot of his early symphonies. They all have very similar peaks and conclusions; they just all sound the same.


Ok, yes, so when you say "_I think for me, as a whole, I prefer Beethoven as a composer to Mozart. Beethoven was constantly interesting in his mid-late years where Mozart seems to re-write the same pieces over and over again._ ", you are basically comparing Beethoven's works in his mid-late years with Mozart's juvenilia. In that case I can see why you would prefer Beethoven.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> Ok, yes, so when you say "_I think for me, as a whole, I prefer Beethoven as a composer to Mozart. Beethoven was constantly interesting in his mid-late years where Mozart seems to re-write the same pieces over and over again._ ", you are basically comparing Beethoven's works in his mid-late years with Mozart's juvenilia. In that case I can see why you would prefer Beethoven.


And also, Mozart died just when he was starting to mature, so what would have been his mid period, became his late period and further, there is not a whole lot of mature work from Mozart. Just imagine had he lived longer!

P.S. I'm judging based on their entire careers. And when doing that, Beethoven is more consistent in terms of putting out quality work.


----------



## Genoveva

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think this is a good post and I agree with it. If we want to *have an objective discussion*, we must derive a set of criteria by which to evaluate the composers to derive a winner. Even if we are able to do this, it doesn't make one composer definitely better than the other, it means they meet said criteria the best. If we could do this, it would be important to keep in mind that we could arrive at different criteria where the other composer would win.
> 
> I believe creating criteria would bring direction and guidance to an otherwise overly open discussion.


Thank you for your comment.

I don't know if you aware from your time at T-C but there have been many discussions in the past concerning the matter of evaluating composers based on objective criteria. They have usually been in the context of whether or not it is possible to rank composers in terms of "greatness" using objective that may be deemed to be relevant and measurable.

Suffice to say that these discussions never succeeded in arriving at any consensus on whether or not "greatness" is measurable. That's partly because there is a plethora of potential technical attributes of music and no way of agreeing which are the most important or how to measure them. That's why most composer (or works) comparisons are based simply on popularity contests, where people vote for their favourites and the results aggregated.

It so happens that there have been quite a few such contests at T-C over the years. Some of the more interesting ones have concerned the listing of classical pieces by voter preference. These have covered all the main genres (symphony, concerto, chamber works, etc) and the results are set out in the "T-C Recommended" section of the Forum.

I had a close look at these results a couple of months ago (over the Xmas break). I found them to be of interest in identifying some works that I was not familiar with that seemed worth looking into further. However, I was especially interested in the data for Mozart and Beethoven, as this topic of comparing the two frequent crops up quite frequently on this Forum.

First it may be noted that straightforward composer comparisons normally show Mozart in third place slightly behind Beethoven and Bach. However, based on the voting that went into the individual genres referred to above, I was pleased to find some very interesting results that seemed to show that Mozart's overall performance (including all the genres) was slightly ahead of Beethoven, based on reasonable assumptions of weights attached to each of the genres. Obviously, if operas are excluded from the results then Mozart's rating fell back somewhat compared with Beethoven, but the gap was not that large and Mozart's performance was still very creditable.


----------



## Jacck

Captainnumber36 said:


> And also, Mozart died just when he was starting to mature, so what would have been his mid period, became his late period and further, there is not a whole lot of mature work from Mozart. Just imagine had he lived longer!


yes, but the same could be said about many, for example Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Gerschwin. Schubert died when he was 31! and listen to his 9th symphony or to his string quartet 15.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Genoveva said:


> Thank you for your comment.
> 
> I don't know if you aware from your time at T-C but there have been many discussions in the past concerning the matter of evaluating composers based on objective criteria. They have usually been in the context of whether or not it is possible to rank composers in terms of "greatness" using objective that may be deemed to be relevant and measurable.
> 
> Suffice to say that these discussions never succeeded in arriving at any consensus on whether or not "greatness" is measurable. That's partly because there is a plethora of potential technical attributes of music and no way of agreeing which are the most important or how to measure them. That's why most composer (or works) comparisons are based simply on popularity contests, where people vote for their favourites and the results aggregated.
> 
> It so happens that there have been quite a few such contests at T-C over the years. Some of the more interesting ones have concerned the listing of classical pieces by voter preference. These have covered all the main genres (symphony, concerto, chamber works, etc) and the results are set out in the "T-C Recommended" section of the Forum.
> 
> I had a close look at these results a couple of months ago (over the Xmas break). I found them to be some interest in identifying some works that I was not familiar with that seemed worth looking into further. However, I was especially interested in the data for Mozart and Beethoven, as this topic of comparing the two frequent crops up on this Forum.
> 
> First it may be noted that straightforward composer comparisons normally show Mozart in third place slightly behind Beethoven and Bach. Howver, based on the voting that went into the individual genres referred to above, I was pleased to find some very interesting results that seemed to show that Mozart's overall performance (including all the genres) was slightly ahead of Beethoven, based on reasonable assumptions of weights attached to each of the genres. Obviously, if operas are excluded from the results then Mozart's rating fell back somewhat compared with Beethoven, but the gap was not that large and Mozart's performance was still very creditable.


I think the fundamental flaw is trying to find objective greatness rather than just accepting that it is great that a composer wins a particular match.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Jacck said:


> yes, but the same could be said about many, for example Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Gerschwin. Schubert died when he was 31! and listen to his 9th symphony or to his string quartet 15.


Having fewer pieces of greatness than another composer does put you behind in my book!


----------



## Jacck

Captainnumber36 said:


> Having fewer pieces of greatness than another composer does put you behind in my book!


I love all of Schubert symphonies. I cannot say the same about all of the Mozart symphonies.


----------



## Genoveva

Jacck said:


> Genoveva, Beethoven moved the music not only into the romantic era, but some of his works into the modern era. Die grosse Fuge is atonal and disonant 100 years before Schoenberg. Beethoven was a visionary, extremely original, constantly breaking new ground. I am not sure about Mozart, I like some of his stuff (Requiem, Operas), but a lot of his output I find a little boring.


As "jdec" has rightly pointed out, the grosse fugue is not atonal. It was originally written as the last movement of the String Quartet No. 13 in B♭ major (Op. 130). Beethoven's publisher thought that it would not be liked and asked for another version of the last movement. The grosse fugue was published separately.

There was nothing all that unusual about using a fugal final movement in string quartets around that time and earlier, as Mozart and Haydn had used this form. In the case of Beethoven's grosse fugue its main novelty was its complexity for inclusion in a classical work. But the fugal form itself dates back much further than the classical era well into the baroque, with for example J S Bach writing some very complex fugues.


----------



## Larkenfield

Comparisons do an injustice to both composers unless it's to highlight their individual genius. Beethoven studied Mozart's scores off and on through the end of his life. So how would he feel being compared to one of his idols? I consider them both giants and each had his own unique range of interests. Beethoven wrote virtually nothing for the organ unlike Mozart who wrote for some of the great organs in Europe, even if the works were generally not as impressive as Bach's.


----------



## Genoveva

Jacck said:


> I love all of Schubert symphonies. I cannot say the same about all of the Mozart symphonies.


Given that Mozart wrote at least 41 symphonies, some at a very tender young age, perhaps it's not surprising that you don't like all of Mozart's symphonies. I can't say that I do either, but all or most of his symphonies from No 25 upwards are very good, with some better than others as might be expected. The last three symphonies are especially outstanding works in many peoples' reckoining.


----------



## Jacck

sure, but the same can be said about Schubert and Mendelssohn. They were probably even bigger geniuses because at a younger age than Mozart they composed works superior to his. Mendelssohn composed his Violin concerto when he was 19


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Comparisons do an injustice to both composers unless it's to highlight their individual genius. Beethoven studied Mozart's scores off and on through the end of his life. So how would he feel being compared to one of his idols?


Around 1820-21 a visitor "asked Beethoven (in writing, of course) which of Mozart's operas he thought most of. '_Die Zauberflote'_ said Beethoven, and, suddenly clasping his hands and throwing up his eyes, exclaimed: 'Oh, Mozart!' "


----------



## Captainnumber36

Larkenfield said:


> Comparisons do an injustice to both composers unless it's to highlight their individual genius. Beethoven studied Mozart's scores off and on through the end of his life. So how would he feel being compared to one of his idols? I consider them both giants and each had his own unique range of interests. Beethoven wrote virtually nothing for the organ, unlike Mozart who wrote for some of the great organs in Europe even if the works were generally not as impressive as what Bach did.


I'm enjoying these organ works, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> there is not a whole lot of mature work from Mozart.


Not a lot of mature work from Mozart? There's seven mature operas, each great, each as different from each other as can be imagined. Six mature symphonies, and in these we see only an escalation of great ideas.

18 mature piano concertos, the first of which, according to Alfred Brendel, was "one of the greatest wonders of the world." The 20th was like a dramatic flash of Romantic music, about 30 years early, and of the 24th, Beethoven told a fellow composer, "we shall never be able to do anything like that."

How many mature string quartets? Violin sonatas? Concertos of all types, and most especially the Sinfonia Concertante, K364, a music so deliberate and beautiful and moving, it would seem not even to have been composed. I have a friend who knows more about these things than me and he told me that it's alnost as if this parting gift to Salzburg, and Leopold, no doubt performed by both father and son before he left for Vienna, was like a musical requiem for Mozart's mother, especially the slow movement.

The great string trio, K563. String quintets. Piano sonatas. Solo piano movements like the adagio in b-minor, K540. The rondo for piano in a-minor, K511. Piano duets. Piano trios. Piano quartets. The wonderfully innovative piano quintet. The clarinet quintet. The two great unfinished masses. Piano variations. The adagio and fugue in c-minor, K546. I know I'm leaving out a lot here, but mozart has a huge body of mature work, and the only repetitive feature they all contain is brilliance...

EDIT: oh and the organ music you're listening to above, I forgot that! :lol:

By the way, Mozart's younger music is no slouch either. He literally took it from the cradle to the grave. And I agree with you, it's both poignant and mind blowing to dream of what might have been had he been given the age span of Beethoven, or Haydn - but I think it's even more mind blowing to listen to his complete works - and marvel at just how complete it all is!


----------



## tdc

silentio said:


> In one of the conversations with Heuberger, Brahms stated that:
> 
> _"What, however, is much weaker in Beethoven, for example,* than in Mozart *and especially in Sebastian Bach is the use of dissonances. You don't find dissonances, true dissonances, used any longer in Beethoven as in Mozart. Just look at Idomeneo!... What splendid dissonances, what harmonies!!"_.
> 
> Mind you this was not from a Brahms in his cocky younger years. It was at the very end of his career, after he has spent a life time studying Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


Thanks for posting this. I wasn't aware Brahms made this comment, but it agrees with my impression as well.


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> As "jdec" has rightly pointed out, the grosse fugue is not atonal. It was originally written as the last movement of the String Quartet No. 13 in B♭ major (Op. 130). Beethoven's publisher thought that it would not be liked and asked for another version of the last movement. The grosse fugue was published separately.
> 
> *There was nothing all that unusual about using a fugal final movement in string quartets around that time and earlier, as Mozart and Haydn had used this form. In the case of Beethoven's grosse fugue its main novelty was its complexity for inclusion in a classical work.* But the fugal form itself dates back much further than the classical era well into the baroque, with for example J S Bach writing some very complex fugues.


People have been struggling to explain the extraordinary form, meaning and impact of the _Grosse Fuge_ for almost two centuries, and you can matter-of-factly put it down as novel mainly for being more complex than other fugues in Classical works? Would this be one of those examples where, as you suggest in an earlier post, Beethoven was aiming to satisfy those early 19th-century audiences tired of the Classical style? Is that why most early listeners considered it an incomprehensible monstrosity?

I'm sad for anyone whom this unique work has ceased to astonish, frighten and exalt. Stravinsky called it "an absolutely contemporary piece of music which will always remain contemporary" - which is only a part of what it is.

Are you on some sort of mission to shrink Beethoven in the eyes of posterity? If so, good luck!


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> People have been struggling to explain the extraordinary form, meaning and impact of the _Grosse Fuge_ for almost two centuries, and you can matter-of-factly put it down as novel mainly for being more complex than other fugues in Classical works? Would this be one of those examples where, as you suggest in an earlier post, Beethoven was aiming to satisfy those early 19th-century audiences tired of the Classical style? Is that why most early listeners considered it an incomprehensible monstrosity?
> 
> I'm sad for anyone whom this unique work has ceased to astonish, frighten and exalt. Stravinsky called it "an absolutely contemporary piece of music which will always remain contemporary" - which is only a part of what it is.
> 
> Are you on some sort of mission to shrink Beethoven in the eyes of posterity? If so, good luck!


Imagine hearing it in a concert back then, played not too well because it was misunderstood, on instruments which wouldn't impress us today.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Many of Mozart’s most popular works are not inventive at all like a few of his less popular and more controversial. The “fault” lies not with Mozart but the audience. His Fantasia K. 475 is way ahead of anything written up to that time. Brahms called it Modernist. Audiences then and even now still like his more tuneful, charming works. Beethoven was famous for his gutsiness, while Mozart had gutsiness, but was famous for his gentler, melodic side. Just watch Gary Oldman’s assessment of Mozart in the Leon the Professional, which sums up most negative views of Mozart.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> Having fewer pieces of greatness than another composer does put you behind in my book!


All a composer needs is one great, earth shattering work to make him great. Stravinsky did it with the Rite of Spring, but he is unfairly rated below Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and a lot of composers who wrote finely crafted stuff, but nothing in the same league as that. There is a tendency to elevate less gifted Romantic composers over Modern. :devil:


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> People have been struggling to explain the extraordinary form, meaning and impact of the _Grosse Fuge_ for almost two centuries, and you can matter-of-factly put it down as novel mainly for being more complex than other fugues in Classical works? Would this be one of those examples where, as you suggest in an earlier post, Beethoven was aiming to satisfy those early 19th-century audiences tired of the Classical style? Is that why most early listeners considered it an incomprehensible monstrosity?


There was a considerable "modern music" faction in those days. Beethoven's publisher talked him into separating the _Grosse Fuge _from the Op. 130 quartet by saying he wanted to publish a 4-hand version separately due to demand for a "study score." This seems to have been the case. Beethoven agreed, and when he was dissatisfied with the publisher's contracted transcription, sat down and made his own for a small fee. The "incomprehensible monstrosity" was certainly one critic's opinion, but there seems to have been much interest in the work, whether easily understood or not.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> There was a considerable "modern music" faction in those days. Beethoven's publisher talked him into separating the _Grosse Fuge _from the Op. 130 quartet by saying he wanted to publish a 4-hand version separately due to demand for a "study score." This seems to have been the case. Beethoven agreed, and when he was dissatisfied with the publisher's contracted transcription, sat down and made his own for a small fee. The "incomprehensible monstrosity" was certainly one critic's opinion, but there seems to have been much interest in the work, whether easily understood or not.


Good info to remind us that Beethoven was highly regarded even when he was difficult. There were always some who appreciated his genius even if they didn't quite get what he was up to. Weber and Spohr - not exactly musical illiterates - seemed not to be among these, however, and Beethoven's late works continued to baffle some distinguished musicians (Tchaikovsky, for example, who'd be voting for Mozart in this thread). The _Grosse Fuge_ is one of the tougher nuts to crack, not only because of its dissonance but because its form doesn't fit any established pattern. Taken by itself, it's quite a bit more than a fugue; taken as a finale to Op. 130, it presents yet another profile. And its principal subject is used in the next two of Beethoven's late quartets (Opp. 131 and 132), making these three quartets something of a triptych.


----------



## KenOC

I think a lot of people would agree that the Opp. 132, 130, and 131 (in the order composed) are something of triptych, sharing that odd 4-note motive that was later made so much of by Bartok and Shostakovich. In the same way, the last three piano sonatas (opp. 109-111) are often considered a triptych -- Beethoven had originally promised his publisher "an opus of three sonatas", though it didn't work out that way.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> Are you on some sort of mission to shrink Beethoven in the eyes of posterity? If so, good luck!


Not at all. I have always liked Beethoven and Mozart more or less equally. I have only been responding to some of the wilder claims made by some of the Beethoven fans, whose knowledge of Mozart seems to me to be quite seriously lacking.

I started out by stating that innovativeness doesn't add to quality, but may be an aspect of it. In doing so I was merely supporting a similar comment made by another member. You then came and queried what I had said by making what seemed like a self-contradictory statement, and from then on it would seems that you have simply made the situation more complex by throwing in all sorts of extraneous allegations that mis-represent what I said. For example. you have now suggested that I under-rate the "grosse fugue". I merely pointed out that it's not "atonal" as alleged, and it wasn't a novelty introduced by Beethoven.


----------



## Genoveva

Phil loves classical said:


> All a composer needs is one great, earth shattering work to make him great. Stravinsky did it with the Rite of Spring, but he is unfairly rated below Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and a lot of composers who wrote finely crafted stuff, but nothing in the same league as that. There is a tendency to elevate less gifted Romantic composers over Modern. :devil:


I'm not clear how you reckon there is anything unfair about the rating of Stravinsky if it's based on a fair cross section of opinion that doesn't place him in such a high position as Brahms and Schubert. Regards the other composers you mention, Mendelssohn and Schumann, I would have thought that Stravinsky is appropriately included among that group.


----------



## Genoveva

Kieran said:


> Not a lot of mature work from Mozart? There's seven mature operas, each great, each as different from each other as can be imagined. Six mature symphonies, and in these we see only an escalation of great ideas.
> 
> 18 mature piano concertos, the first of which, according to Alfred Brendel, was "one of the greatest wonders of the world." The 20th was like a dramatic flash of Romantic music, about 30 years early, and of the 24th, Beethoven told a fellow composer, "we shall never be able to do anything like that."
> 
> How many mature string quartets? Violin sonatas? Concertos of all types, and most especially the Sinfonia Concertante, K364, a music so deliberate and beautiful and moving, it would seem not even to have been composed. I have a friend who knows more about these things than me and he told me that it's alnost as if this parting gift to Salzburg, and Leopold, no doubt performed by both father and son before he left for Vienna, was like a musical requiem for Mozart's mother, especially the slow movement.
> 
> The great string trio, K563. String quintets. Piano sonatas. Solo piano movements like the adagio in b-minor, K540. The rondo for piano in a-minor, K511. Piano duets. Piano trios. Piano quartets. The wonderfully innovative piano quintet. The clarinet quintet. The two great unfinished masses. Piano variations. The adagio and fugue in c-minor, K546. I know I'm leaving out a lot here, but mozart has a huge body of mature work, and the only repetitive feature they all contain is brilliance...
> 
> EDIT: oh and the organ music you're listening to above, I forgot that! :lol:
> 
> By the way, Mozart's younger music is no slouch either. He literally took it from the cradle to the grave. And I agree with you, it's both poignant and mind blowing to dream of what might have been had he been given the age span of Beethoven, or Haydn - but I think it's even more mind blowing to listen to his complete works - and marvel at just how complete it all is!


Agreed. I made a similar post recently in another thread, in response to someone who alleged that Mozart was mainly a "theatre" composer. The more I see of such posts I genuinely wonder whether some of the Beethoven fans who come on here have anything like a reasonable understanding of what Mozart actually wrote. Especially, I get the impression that many of them haven't a clue about his many of his chamber works. They get "hooked" on Beethoven and then proceed to denigrate Mozart based on very little knowledge of both I suspect, but mainly Mozart.


----------



## KenOC

There may be some justification in calling Mozart a "theater composer" since so much of his purely instrumental music seems to arise from the opera buffa tradition. I seem to recall Rosen commenting on this -- it's purely a matter of style, which in Mozart's case worked out very well indeed. It gives his music a light and airy flavor, and an always-present melodic line similar to what you might expect in opera -- a perfect opera. Even the dissonant and anguished passages in his music almost sound as if they are vocal combinations, ranging from duets to sextets.


----------



## Kieran

Phil loves classical said:


> Many of Mozart's most popular works are not inventive at all like a few of his less popular and more controversial. The "fault" lies not with Mozart but the audience. His Fantasia K. 475 is way ahead of anything written up to that time. Brahms called it Modernist. Audiences then and even now still like his more tuneful, charming works. Beethoven was famous for his gutsiness, while Mozart had gutsiness, but was famous for his gentler, melodic side. Just watch Gary Oldman's assessment of Mozart in the Leon the Professional, which sums up most negative views of Mozart.


I'd love to see that piece of the film where Gary Oldman assesses Mozart. I'm sure it's going to be interesting.

I think we need to also remember why Mozart composed music. Strictly for the money, in virtually all cases. He had a family. He had mouths to feed. He had no major sponsor who would allow him to sit over a work for months and years, and bring it where he would. He tended to bring the music to places where the audience might follow, in order that he'd get more work from them. He was a working stiff, in Neal Sazlaw's great article about him, debunking the common myths about Wolfie.

Still, who had heard anything like K546, or K516, or the 20th piano concerto before? The piano quartet in g-minor was considered too complicated, as was a lot of his music. He might have made it virtually impossible for them, if he wasn't so reliant on commissions. If people think it something to hold it against him, that he wasn't so wildly innovative, they should probably wonder if the fault was his, or the circumstances he lived in. Mozart was the first great composer to strive for independence as an artist. I would suggest that there's a case to be made that Beethoven benefited from Mozart's efforts in this regard. According to many experts, Vienna most certainly treated Beethoven better, because it hadn't fully appreciated Mozart...


----------



## Genoveva

KenOC said:


> There may be some justification in calling Mozart a "theater composer" since so much of his purely instrumental music seems to arise from the opera buffa tradition. I seem to recall Rosen commenting on this -- it's purely a matter of style, which in Mozart's case worked out very well indeed. It gives his music a light and airy flavor, and an always-present melodic line similar to what you might expect in opera -- a perfect opera. Even the dissonant and anguished passages in his music almost sound as if they are vocal combinations, ranging from duets to sextets.


I'm not clear what you mean in saying that Mozart's instrumental music "seems to arise from the opera buffa tradition"?

Can you give a few examples of theatrical tradition in, say, PC 20, Symphony No 41, Clarinet Concerto, Clarinet Quintet, String Quartet No 19.

I can't say that it has ever occurred to me, but maybe I could learn something here.


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> Not at all. I have always liked Beethoven and Mozart more or less equally. I have only been responding to some of the wilder claims made by some of the Beethoven fans, whose knowledge of Mozart seems to me to be quite seriously lacking. I started out by stating that innovativeness doesn't add to quality, but may be an aspect of it. In doing so I was merely supporting a similar comment made by another member. You then came and queried what I had said by making what seemed like a self-contradictory statement, and from then on it would seems that you have simply made the situation even more complex by throwing in all sorts of extaneous allegations that mis-represent what I said. For example. you have now suggested that I under-rate the "grosse fugue". I merely pointed out that it's not "atonal" as alleged, and it wasn't a novelty introduced by Beethoven.


What is extraneous? I've only been questioning specific statements of yours, and in a very specific way. In particular, that matter of innovativeness as an aspect of artistic greatness seemed to need addressing. I hope you can see the distinction I was making between innovation as a criterion of excellence in a specific work and innovativeness as an indicator of creative power. Doing new things doesn't make an artist great, but great artists quite reliably do new things. They simply can't help themselves. And, all else being more or less equal, the more innovative artist is quite likely, and justly, to be judged the greater one.

There are examples of artists whose reputations far exceed what the quantity or consistency of their works would seem to justify, because the originality and power of their vision is so extraordinary. For example, by some common criteria - quantity of output, variety of genres, mastery of established forms - Wagner, whose reputation rests almost entirely on ten operas, might not seem to merit a place in the exalted pantheon of transcendent geniuses occupied by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and perhaps a few others. But, in the judgment of many (including me), he discovers in just a few (admittedly vast) works such unprecedented realms of sound and meaning - realms of such striking imaginativeness, depth, and power - that he has to be considered one of the greatest of musical creators. Like Beethoven, he opened up unimagined vistas in the art of music, and in a form that left listeners in a state of vertigo and other composers having to reassess the nature and value of their own work. If that isn't "genius" or "greatness" I don't know what is.

(I should add that I'm not attempting to judge Beethoven vs. Mozart. I'm neither capable of that nor interested in it.)

What you said about the _Grosse Fuge_ was that its novelty lay in its complexity as part of a Classical work. That is a "grosse" underestimation of what is innovative about it, and an example of the way you miss the significance of innovation in the work of great artists.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Phil loves classical said:


> *Many of Mozart's most popular works are not inventive at all* like a few of his less popular and more controversial. The "fault" lies not with Mozart but the audience. His Fantasia K. 475 is way ahead of anything written up to that time. Brahms called it Modernist. Audiences then and even now still like his more tuneful, charming works. Beethoven was famous for his gutsiness, while Mozart had gutsiness, but was famous for his gentler, melodic side. Just watch Gary Oldman's assessment of Mozart in the Leon the Professional, which sums up most negative views of Mozart.


what do you mean by this statement though?
Mozart's works are inventive if not revolutionary. If his works were not inventive - nobody would want to listen.

Ah ah - Leon - yes I recall gary Oldman in that film - Beethoven's music goes better with blasting innocent civilians in the back - agreed. Mozart is a little bit light for that - agreed.

but as the Oldman says about Beethoven -"to be honest, after his openings - he does get a bit effing boring"


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> What is extraneous? I've only been questioning specific statements of yours, and in a very specific way. In particular, that matter of innovativeness as an aspect of artistic greatness seemed to need addressing. I hope you can see the distinction I was making between innovation as a criterion of excellence in a specific work and innovativeness as an indicator of creative power. Doing new things doesn't make an artist great, but great artists quite reliably do new things. They simply can't help themselves. And, *all else being more or less equal, the more innovative artist is quite likely, and justly, to be judged the greater one.
> *
> There are examples of artists whose reputations far exceed what the quantity or consistency of their works would seem to justify, because the originality and power of their vision is so extraordinary. For example, by some common criteria - quantity of output, variety of genres, mastery of established forms - Wagner, whose reputation rests almost entirely on ten operas, might not seem to merit a place in the exalted pantheon of transcendent geniuses occupied by Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and perhaps a few others. But, in the judgment of many (including me), he discovers in just a few (admittedly vast) works such unprecedented realms of sound and meaning - realms of such striking imaginativeness, depth, and power - that he has to be considered one of the greatest of musical creators. Like Beethoven, he opened up unimagined vistas in the art of music, and in a form that left listeners in a state of vertigo and other composers having to reassess the nature and value of their own work. If that isn't "genius" or "greatness" I don't know what is.
> 
> (*I should add that I'm not attempting to judge Beethoven vs. Mozart. I'm neither capable of that nor interested in it.*)
> 
> What you said about the _Grosse Fuge_ was that its novelty lay in its complexity as part of a Classical work. That is a "grosse" underestimation of what is innovative about it, and an example of the way you miss the significance of innovation in the work of great artists.


hmmm, not sure about that last statement bolded. are you being honest - or hiding your Beethoven flag for politically correct reasons?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Kieran said:


> *I'd love to see that piece of the film where Gary Oldman assesses Mozart.* I'm sure it's going to be interesting.
> 
> I think we need to also remember why Mozart composed music. Strictly for the money, in virtually all cases. He had a family. He had mouths to feed. He had no major sponsor who would allow him to sit over a work for months and years, and bring it where he would. He tended to bring the music to places where the audience might follow, in order that he'd get more work from them. He was a working stiff, in Neal Sazlaw's great article about him, debunking the common myths about Wolfie.
> 
> Still, who had heard anything like K546, or K516, or the 20th piano concerto before? The piano quartet in g-minor was considered too complicated, as was a lot of his music. He might have made it virtually impossible for them, if he wasn't so reliant on commissions. If people think it something to hold it against him, that he wasn't so wildly innovative, they should probably wonder if the fault was his, or the circumstances he lived in. Mozart was the first great composer to strive for independence as an artist. I would suggest that there's a case to be made that Beethoven benefited from Mozart's efforts in this regard. According to many experts, Vienna most certainly treated Beethoven better, because it hadn't fully appreciated Mozart...


just for you


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> Agreed. I made a similar post recently in another thread, in response to someone who alleged that Mozart was mainly a "theatre" composer. The more I see of such posts I genuinely wonder whether some of the Beethoven fans who come on here have anything like a reasonable understanding of what Mozart actually wrote. Especially, I get the impression that many of them haven't a clue about his many of his chamber works. They get "hooked" on Beethoven and then proceed to denigrate Mozart based on very little knowledge of both I suspect, but mainly Mozart.


There's a lot of ignorance Im afraid - my own wife - who dismisses Mozart as a serious composer recently exclaimed, when I put a CD in and the intro to a symphony started - "ah, beethoven" - it wasnt - it was the prague. She also told me the famous anecdote about how Beethoven moved a dictator (Stalin) - the story about Yudina making a special rec for Stalin of a piano concerto - of course - only Beethoven could melt the heart of a dictator. Wrong! it was Mozart K488.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> There's a lot of ignorance Im afraid - my own wife - who dismisses Mozart as a serious composer recently exclaimed, when I put a CD in and the intro to a symphony started - "ah, beethoven" - it wasnt - it was the prague. She also told me the famous anecdote about how Beethoven moved a dictator (Stalin) - the story about Yudina making a special rec for Stalin of a piano concerto - of course - only Beethoven could melt the heart of a dictator. Wrong! it was Mozart K488.


Stalin, despite being a demon from hell, could appreciate arts. That is why he mostly spared artists from being killed or taken to a gulag. He spared Shostakovich, although he was angry about his opera which dealt with the poisoning of a dictator. And he also spared Bulgakov. The novel Master and Margarita is a satire of the evil of the stalinist regime and one of the best novels of the 20th century


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> ... I hope you can see the distinction I was making between innovation as a criterion of excellence in a specific work and innovativeness as an indicator of creative power. Doing new things doesn't make an artist great, but great artists quite reliably do new things. They simply can't help themselves. And, all else being more or less equal, the more innovative artist is quite likely, and justly, to be judged the greater one.


No, I do not necessarily accept this. Let's look further at the distinction you make between (i) innovation as a criterion of excellence in a specific work and (ii) innovativeness as an indicator of creative power.

What I stated originally was _"… innovation per se is not relevant to assessing the quality of a composer's output. It is much more to do with whether or not the music that is produced is any good, and if there is a significant amount of it"_.

By this I did not say, and nor did I mean, that if innovation is present in a specific work then it is irrelevant to assessing its quality. Any innovation there may be in a specific work could be a minor or a major feature, or something in between. If the work is considered "great" then innovation may be part of the reason, but on the other hand it may be due to primarily other factors even if some innovation was involved. The point is that innovation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for any work to be considered great. From what you say, you seem to agree with this, so let's move on ...

Concerning your view about innovativeness being an indicator of creative power, my view is that it depends largely on whether the innovativeness led to anything worthwhile by the composer who made the innovation, and whether or not it was taken up by other composers. Invention on its own is of little or no value. I accept that the innovations in music made by some composers clearly had an influence on other composers, but whether this fact justifies your assertion that, _"… all else being more or less equal, the more innovative artist is quite likely, and justly, to be judged the greater one"_ is debateable. The following are some of the diificulties:

Firstly, it depends on whether the innovations were actually adopted successfully by others. And if so, one would need to see how long those innovations remained of interest before being replaced by other possible developments by different composers. Secondly, it's very difficult if not impossible to unravel all of the influences on later composer's output and ascribe it to a particular previous composer, or their particular inventions. For example, Beethoven may have invented "x" but if "x" is small in relation to "y" (where "y" is the inherited stock of knowledge/technique from all previous generations of composers) then there is a danger of exaggerating the importance of Beethoven, simply by noting that Beethoven was responsible for "x". Third, it is possible that the innovations that were made by one composer and adopted by others might have been been made by other composers in due course.

For all these reason, I think it is naive simply to assume that all inventive composers deserve extra "medals" or some other form of credit, over and above their normal standing, merely for being inventive. Their "greatness" should depend primarily on the listening public's perceptions of the quality of work they produced, and leave out of it the possible impact they may have had on other composers.


----------



## Luchesi

Kieran said:


> Not a lot of mature work from Mozart? There's seven mature operas, each great, each as different from each other as can be imagined. Six mature symphonies, and in these we see only an escalation of great ideas.
> 
> 18 mature piano concertos, the first of which, according to Alfred Brendel, was "one of the greatest wonders of the world." The 20th was like a dramatic flash of Romantic music, about 30 years early, and of the 24th, Beethoven told a fellow composer, "we shall never be able to do anything like that."
> 
> How many mature string quartets? Violin sonatas? Concertos of all types, and most especially the Sinfonia Concertante, K364, a music so deliberate and beautiful and moving, it would seem not even to have been composed. I have a friend who knows more about these things than me and he told me that it's alnost as if this parting gift to Salzburg, and Leopold, no doubt performed by both father and son before he left for Vienna, was like a musical requiem for Mozart's mother, especially the slow movement.
> 
> The great string trio, K563. String quintets. Piano sonatas. Solo piano movements like the adagio in b-minor, K540. The rondo for piano in a-minor, K511. Piano duets. Piano trios. Piano quartets. The wonderfully innovative piano quintet. The clarinet quintet. The two great unfinished masses. Piano variations. The adagio and fugue in c-minor, K546. I know I'm leaving out a lot here, but mozart has a huge body of mature work, and the only repetitive feature they all contain is brilliance...
> 
> EDIT: oh and the organ music you're listening to above, I forgot that! :lol:
> 
> By the way, Mozart's younger music is no slouch either. He literally took it from the cradle to the grave. And I agree with you, it's both poignant and mind blowing to dream of what might have been had he been given the age span of Beethoven, or Haydn - but I think it's even more mind blowing to listen to his complete works - and marvel at just how complete it all is!


I think we say what a mature work is by musical analysis and objective criteria. Whether objective criteria can help us rank works and/or their creators, I've come to doubt it. Because music evaluation is so complex.

What if we reduced it all to numbers and then tabulated the most clever relationships of those numbers (the rise of dissonance down through music history). I used to have a book by a musicologist who did that. He had graphs with graphic devices which he invented to show the 'progress'. It's educational, but is it convincing? I'd guess, like everything else in life, it depends upon your experiences and subsequently what you personally find valuable in music. So, it all can be debated among like-minds, with shared experiences in musical analysis, performing and composing.


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> No, I do not necessarily accept this. Let's look further at the distinction you make between (i) innovation as a criterion of excellence in a specific work and (ii) innovativeness as an indicator of creative power.
> 
> What I stated originally was _"… innovation per se is not relevant to assessing the quality of a composer's output. It is much more to do with whether or not the music that is produced is any good, and if there is a significant amount of it"_.
> 
> By this I did not say, and nor did I mean, that if innovation is present in a specific work then it is irrelevant to assessing its quality. Any innovation there may be in a specific work could be a minor or a major feature, or something in between. If the work is considered "great" then innovation may be part of the reason, but on the other hand it may be due to primarily other factors even if some innovation was involved. The point is that innovation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for any work to be considered great. From what you say, you seem to agree with this, so let's move on ...
> 
> Concerning your view about innovativeness being an indicator of creative power, my view is that it depends largely on whether the innovativeness led to anything worthwhile by the composer who made the innovation, and whether or not it was taken up by other composers. Invention on its own is of little or no value. I accept that the innovations in music made by some composers clearly had an influence on other composers, but whether this fact justifies your assertion that, _"… all else being more or less equal, the more innovative artist is quite likely, and justly, to be judged the greater one"_ is debateable. The following are some of the diificulties:
> 
> Firstly, it depends on whether the innovations were actually adopted successfully by others. And if so, one would need to see how long those innovations remained of interest before being replaced by other possible developments by different composers. Secondly, it's very difficult if not impossible to unravel all of the influences on later composer's output and ascribe it to a particular previous composer, or their particular inventions. For example, Beethoven may have invented "x" but if "x" is small in relation to "y" (where "y" is the inherited stock of knowledge/technique from all previous generations of composers) then there is a danger of exaggerating the importance of Beethoven, simply by noting that Beethoven was responsible for "x". Third, it is possible that the innovations that were made by one composer and adopted by others might have been been made by other composers in due course.
> 
> For all these reason, I think it is naive simply to assume that *all inventive composers* deserve extra "medals" or some other form of credit, over and above their *normal standing,* merely for being inventive. Their *"greatness" should depend primarily on the listening public's perceptions of the quality of work they produced*, and leave out of it the possible impact they may have had on other composers.


My statement was: "Doing new things doesn't make an artist great, but great artists quite reliably do new things. They simply can't help themselves. And, all else being more or less equal, the more innovative artist is quite likely, and justly, to be judged the greater one."

Nothing you said in response to this refutes it, despite your attempt to explain your disagreement. Your view seems to be encapsulated in your final paragraph:

"I think it is naive simply to assume that all inventive composers deserve extra "medals" or some other form of credit, over and above their normal standing, merely for being inventive. Their "greatness" should depend primarily on the listening public's perceptions of the quality of work they produced, and leave out of it the possible impact they may have had on other composers."

This is not a contradiction, much less a refutation, of my statement, by reason of the weasel words it contains. I didn't talk about "all inventive composers" deserving credit, but was careful to differentiate significant innovation from mere novelty, a distinction you don't acknowledge. Novelty, I repeat (again), is worthless as a criterion of value; but innovation representing genuine creative vision is commonly recognized as a mark of distinction. You aren't obligated to recognize it or give anyone a "medal" for it, but most people do so. And since they do, your reference to an artist's "normal standing" is curious. If you exclude an artist's ability to break new creative ground from his "standing," you seem to be left with either simple popularity or some form of technical "expertise" as a criterion of value, with the great artist being a mere craftsman who has mastered specific skills and simply deploys them better than other people. I accept neither of these criteria as definitive. My view is that artistic greatness is primarily a matter of vision - of having something unique and compelling to say. Having the skills by which to say it is obviously necessary, but skill won't make art of the highest quality. Great art, art which the world cares about over time, is art which is in some significant way unique, and the greatest artists have by and large been the most distinctive and inimitable, and have in consequence provoked the greatest changes in the way other artists view the possibilities inherent in their media, and in the way humanity in general views the world. That is the real significance of innovation. It isn't some trivial add-on. It's something that great artists normally do, and that people who appreciate art admire.


----------



## Luchesi

I like the vision idea when trying to talk about and even explain (in psychological terms from science) music appreciation. Instead of saying a work is great we can say it has vision. And then we have to explain what that means.. which is subjective, but the conclusion that it has vision results from the arrangement of its basic elements objectively appreciated. 

A performer must do this every time, to some degree, in order to understand and memorize (make it his own) a piece.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> My statement was: "Doing new things doesn't make an artist great, but great artists quite reliably do new things. They simply can't help themselves. And, all else being more or less equal, the more innovative artist is quite likely, and justly, to be judged the greater one."
> 
> Nothing you said in response to this refutes it, despite your attempt to explain your disagreement. Your view seems to be encapsulated in your final paragraph:
> 
> "I think it is naive simply to assume that all inventive composers deserve extra "medals" or some other form of credit, over and above their normal standing, merely for being inventive. Their "greatness" should depend primarily on the listening public's perceptions of the quality of work they produced, and leave out of it the possible impact they may have had on other composers."
> 
> This is not a contradiction, much less a refutation, of my statement, by reason of the weasel words it contains. I didn't talk about "all inventive composers" deserving credit, but was careful to differentiate significant innovation from mere novelty, a distinction you don't acknowledge. Novelty, I repeat (again), is worthless as a criterion of value; but innovation representing genuine creative vision is commonly recognized as a mark of distinction. You aren't obligated to recognize it or give anyone a "medal" for it, but most people do so. And since they do, your reference to an artist's "normal standing" is curious. If you exclude an artist's ability to break new creative ground from his "standing," you seem to be left with either simple popularity or some form of technical "expertise" as a criterion of value, with the great artist being a mere craftsman who has mastered specific skills and simply deploys them better than other people. I accept neither of these criteria as definitive. My view is that artistic greatness is primarily a matter of vision - of having something unique and compelling to say. Having the skills by which to say it is obviously necessary, but skill won't make art of the highest quality. Great art, art which the world cares about over time, is art which is in some significant way unique, and the greatest artists have by and large been the most distinctive and inimitable, and have in consequence provoked the greatest changes in the way other artists view the possibilities inherent in their media, and in the way humanity in general views the world. That is the real significance of innovation. It isn't some trivial add-on. It's something that great artists normally do, and that people who appreciate art admire.


There is nothing in the above that makes me wish to alter in the slightest anything I have already said several times before on the matter of innovation and its relevance to greatness.

I'm surprised that you cannot see the implausible conclusions that your viewpoint leads to. In the case of your postulated composer who possessed a "genuine creative vision", and who broke new ground etc, then I see no reason why his achievements cannot be fully encapsulated, as far as may be practicable to do so, in the popularity ratings he now commands.

To argue, as you do, that the composer in question deserves a "mark of distinction", to act as a kind of bonus rating in addition to his popularity rating, is tantamount to saying that the composer cannot internalise all the benefits accruing from his work and deserves an extra allowance to reflect the wider "external benefits" he was allegedly responsible for.

This kind of argument is dubious because it assumes (i) that the audiences themselves cannot quantify the alleged external benefits, (ii) that someone can do so, (iii) that the exra credit so calculated will command universal respect among audiences, and (iv) that the benefit can be re-calibrated reliably to reflect any changes in the preferences of classical music fans among the various classical music genres as time goes by.

None of these assumptions is remotely plausible. Therefore the whole idea you put forward is non-workable.


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> There is nothing in the above that makes me wish to alter in the slightest anything I have already said several times before on the matter of innovation and its relevance to greatness.
> 
> I'm surprised that you cannot see *the implausible conclusions that your viewpoint leads to*. In the case of your postulated composer who possessed a "genuine creative vision", and who broke new ground etc, then I see no reason why his achievements cannot be fully encapsulated, as far as may be practicable to do so, in the popularity ratings he now commands.
> 
> *To argue, as you do, that the composer in question deserves a "mark of distinction", to act as a kind of bonus rating in addition to his popularity rating, is tantamount to saying that the composer cannot internalise all the benefits accruing from his work and deserves an extra allowance to reflect the wider "external benefits" he was allegedly responsible for. *
> 
> This kind of argument is dubious because it assumes (i) that the audiences themselves cannot quantify the alleged external benefits, (ii) that someone can do so, (iii) that the exra credit so calculated will command universal respect among audiences, and (iv) that the benefit can be re-calibrated reliably to reflect any changes in the preferences of classical music fans among the various classical music genres as time goes by.
> 
> *None of these assumptions is remotely plausible. Therefore the whole idea you put forward is non-workable.*


The "whole idea I put forward" is simply true. There are no "implausible conclusions" to be drawn from it. My idea is simply this: that innovation - the embodiment of meaningful new ideas in new forms - is an element people recognize as a virtue in an artist, and one of the factors that differentiate the important artist from the imitator and the _routineur._

You're not arguing here with anything I've claimed, but rather with your own inaccurate version of it. What I've actually said you've left unaddressed. Your attempts to paraphrase me with sentences such as _"to argue, as you do, that the composer in question deserves a 'mark of distinction', to act as a kind of bonus rating in addition to his popularity rating, is tantamount to saying that the composer cannot internalise all the benefits accruing from his work and deserves an extra allowance to reflect the wider 'external benefits' he was allegedly responsible for"_... Whew! Sentences like that only obfuscate my plainly expressed meaning. Your mistake in that sentence is to imagine that I think the virtue of artistic innovation derives from its influence. I never said it did; influence is only a normal and important consequence of innovation, and one that may help to distinguish the truly innovative from the merely novel. The virtue actually resides in the quality, the power, of the artist's thought and imagination, of which innovation is the result and the evidence.

The thickets of verbal casuistry with which you attempt to explain - or rather, explain away - an essential dimension of the creation and experience of art leads me to suspect that you lack first- hand experience or close contact with the creative process. Were this not the case, I think, you would understand intuitively where artistic innovation comes from - from what depths in an artist's nature it arises and what it tells us about the artist - and why it is esteemed and sought after.

Art galleries are full of millions of accomplished paintings; record catalogs are full of well-composed music. Why do we say - how do we know - that some of them are works of genius, superior to the rest? By analyzing their form or technique? By consulting scholarly tomes? By taking a poll? All of those approaches may be useful. But so may be the fact that some of those works simply stand out by virtue of the uniqueness of their profile, their style, the vision of the artist. That, fundamentally, is what innovation is.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> The "whole idea I put forward" is simply true. There are no "implausible conclusions" to be drawn from it. My idea is simply this: that innovation - the embodiment of meaningful new ideas in new forms - is an element people recognize as a virtue in an artist, and one of the factors that differentiate the important artist from the imitator and the _routineur._
> 
> You're not arguing here with anything I've claimed, but rather with your own inaccurate version of it. What I've actually said you've left unaddressed. Your attempts to paraphrase me with sentences such as _"to argue, as you do, that the composer in question deserves a 'mark of distinction', to act as a kind of bonus rating in addition to his popularity rating, is tantamount to saying that the composer cannot internalise all the benefits accruing from his work and deserves an extra allowance to reflect the wider 'external benefits' he was allegedly responsible for"_... Whew! Sentences like that only obfuscate my plainly expressed meaning. Your mistake in that sentence is to imagine that I think the virtue of artistic innovation derives from its influence. I never said it did; influence is only a normal and important consequence of innovation, and one that may help to distinguish the truly innovative from the merely novel. The virtue actually resides in the quality, the power, of the artist's thought and imagination, of which innovation is the result and the evidence.
> 
> The thickets of verbal casuistry with which you attempt to explain - or rather, explain away - an essential dimension of the creation and experience of art leads me to suspect that you lack first- hand experience or close contact with the creative process. Were this not the case, I think, you would understand intuitively where artistic innovation comes from - from what depths in an artist's nature it arises and what it tells us about the artist - and why it is esteemed and sought after.
> 
> Art galleries are full of millions of accomplished paintings; record catalogs are full of well-composed music. Why do we say - how do we know - that some of them are works of genius, superior to the rest? By analyzing their form or technique? By consulting scholarly tomes? By taking a poll? All of those approaches may be useful. But so may be the fact that some of those works simply stand out by virtue of the uniqueness of their profile, their style, the vision of the artist. That, fundamentally, is what innovation is.



Trying to decouple the creativity aspect from the influence factor in innovation, in the manner you do, is not sensible.

In the context of classical music, I do not doubt that innovation is important and that some composers have made some highly significant innovations. If an innovation is big but had no influence at all beyond the innovating composer himself, then it deserves no extra credit beyond what is already reflected the composer's popularity (see below). Innovations that lasted only a very short time, or which had only a minor impact on a longer-term basis, are not worth arguing over. It is only those innovations that involved a lot of creativity and that had a big influence on other composers (who were themselves highly rated) that are really worth talking about.

In an ideal world situation, it would be nice to be able to disaggregate all of the components (including innovation) that add up to form a measure of a composer's "greatness". However, it is not possible to arrive at any broad agreement on what factors should be included in an assessment of "greatness". For any list of factors, the assessment would stumble at the hurdle of trying to measure any of them. To take just one example, how does one measure "innovation"? For this reason, popularity polls of one kind or another are just about the only indicators of what is essentially non-measurable.

By their very nature, popularity ratings are summary measures of the overall importance of composers. They are not amenable to further tinkering by way of reference to "innovation", as this is only one factor among several that ought in principle to have been already included in the popularity rating. If, for any reason, innovation wasn't included then it can't simply be added separately as a kind of bolt-on extra credit, as its value would be entirely arbitrary.


----------



## Luchesi

I’m enjoying this discussion. I immediately thought of the three piano sonatas dedicated to Haydn. 

Beethoven ‘innovated’. But to the ears of that time they were crude and sounded forced by this rebellious young upstart.

Perhaps the value of this innovating would be entirely arbitrary, to those ears, I agree up to a point. 

This is a complicated question. I want to thank you guys for exploring it.


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> Interesting but I don't think it takes us very far. Rather it looks like a load of technical waffle that you could have dug out of some textbook: "dominants" and "mediants" "climatic conclusions" tonic-dominant polarity". I mean, who cares about all that kind of stuff, let alone understand it?
> 
> I'm not saying Beethoven wasn't inventive. On the contrary I don't doubt that he was probably very inventive and his work shows the benefit of it in some cases. I like the finished results greatly and very much admire Beethoven. But I'm not sure that he was significantly more inventive than was, say, Mozart or Haydn. The latter was particuarly inventive, creating new styles altogether, and Mozart made big strides in opera.
> 
> The area where Beethoven seems to have been credited with making big strides is into the romantic area. Now whilst I'm sure that Beethoven twiddled and fiddled a lot before being happy with the result, it would seem to be mostly in refining and extending the existing classical style. From my quite broad reading on the subject, he didn't move things forward all that far into the romantic sphere. In the early stages it had as much to do with, if not more so, with the likes of Weber, Field, Rossini and Schubert.


If you are going to cite Rosen as an authority, it behooves you to understand what he actually wrote. What you describe as "a load of technical waffle" is talking about the substance of the music and it goes to the heart of Rosen's ideas. Who cares about that stuff? Everyone who hears it! This is the stuff that makes Beethoven different than his predecessors. Everyone hears it, they just don't know how to talk about it. By the way, I don't need to consult textbooks to dissect Beethoven's music. I got what I wrote from analyzing it, some of it in minute detail.

Beethoven's big achievement in the evolution of musical style does not reduce to "making big strides into the romantic area." He changed style in ways most of the romantics never understood or even attempted to further. What he did doesn't fit neatly into either style or even into the sum of both styles. That's one of the reasons he is a towering figure in the history of music.


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> *Trying to decouple the creativity aspect from the influence factor in innovation, in the manner you do, is not sensible.
> *
> In the context of classical music, I do not doubt that innovation is important and that some composers have made some highly significant innovations. *If an innovation is big but had no influence at all beyond the innovating composer himself, then it deserves no extra credit beyond what is already reflected the composer's popularity (see below). Innovations that lasted only a very short time, or which had only a minor impact on a longer-term basis, are not worth arguing over. It is only those innovations that involved a lot of creativity and that had a big influence on other composers (who were themselves highly rated) that are really worth talking about. *
> 
> In an ideal world situation, it would be nice to be able to disaggregate all of the components (including innovation) that add up to form a measure of a composer's "greatness". However, *it is not possible to arrive at any broad agreement on what factors should be included in an assessment of "greatness". For any list of factors, the assessment would stumble at the hurdle of trying to measure any of them. * To take just one example, how does one measure "innovation"? For this reason, *popularity polls of one kind or another are just about the only indicators of what is essentially non-measurable. *
> 
> By their very nature, popularity ratings are summary measures of the overall importance of composers. They are not amenable to further tinkering by way of reference to "innovation", as this is only one factor among several that ought in principle to have been already included in the popularity rating. If, for any reason, innovation wasn't included then it can't simply be added separately as a kind of bolt-on extra credit, as its value would be entirely arbitrary.


Whose posts are you reading? Not mine, surely.

I haven't "decoupled" creativity from innovation. As matter of fact, I've "coupled" them! I've said that innovation (again, significant innovation, not frivolous novelty) is an expression and evidence of an artist's creative power, and should be recognized as a manifestation of artistic value, as indeed it is in the real world. That seems a clear statement of the obvious.

What is this "deserving extra credit"? Are we in a school classroom? Why are you so concerned about degrees of influence? And why is a creative achievement that has less influence on other artists less meritorious, or "not worth talking about"? I should think that if a composer's work is striking enough to be inimitable it would merit quite a bit of talking about. In the case of an artist like Beethoven, it will certainly get it.

Why do we need to "measure" innovation? And who cares how "popular" a piece of music is? When I experience Beethoven's Opus 131 I don't need to consult polls in order to determine the correct amount of "credit" to give it so as to be sure that my astonishment at Beethoven's creative power is not too hot or too cold but just right. Right, Goldilocks?


----------



## Jacck

Innovation is overrated, especially in music where no clear progress can defined. It is an illusion that music evolves from worse to better, otherwise you would need to agree that modern music is better than say the Brandenburg concertos, which is ridiculous. Music is not science, in which there actually is some progress in knowledge.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> Innovation is overrated, especially in music where no clear progress can defined. It is an illusion that music evolves from worse to better, otherwise you would need to agree that modern music is better than say the Brandenburg concertos, which is ridiculous. Music is not science, in which there actually is some progress in knowledge.


Innovation doesn't imply progress (improvement), and its value doesn't rest on the assumption that it does. But when it's taken that way it is indeed overrated. I do think that the "progressive" view of artistic change is a relic of the past; in music its last gasp was the 12-tone movement, and in the visual arts abstract expressionism. We seem now to be in a state of collapsed time, nostalgia, and permanent eclectism.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> hmmm, not sure about that last statement bolded. are you being honest - or hiding your Beethoven flag for politically correct reasons?


Neither political correctness nor hiding is my style.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> Whose posts are you reading? Not mine, surely.
> 
> I haven't "decoupled" creativity from innovation. As matter of fact, I've "coupled" them! I've said that innovation (again, significant innovation, not frivolous novelty) is an expression and evidence of an artist's creative power, and should be recognized as a manifestation of artistic value, as indeed it is in the real world. That seems a clear statement of the obvious.
> 
> What is this "deserving extra credit"? Are we in a school classroom? Why are you so concerned about degrees of influence? And why is a creative achievement that has less influence on other artists less meritorious, or "not worth talking about"? I should think that if a composer's work is striking enough to be inimitable it would merit quite a bit of talking about. In the case of an artist like Beethoven, it will certainly get it.
> 
> Why do we need to "measure" innovation? And who cares how "popular" a piece of music is? When I experience Beethoven's Opus 131 I don't need to consult polls in order to determine the correct amount of "credit" to give it so as to be sure that my astonishment at Beethoven's creative power is not too hot or too cold but just right. Right, Goldilocks?


We seem to be going round in circles. I'll give it one more go.

I have never said that innovation is not a potentially relevant aspect of a great composer. On the contrary, I accept that if a composer is considered "great" then innovation could be part of the reason, but the main reasons could be due to other factors, in particular simply liking the broad style, range of offerings and the perceived generally high quality of many of that composer's works.

In fact, I don't think innovation in the way you interpret it is anything like as important as you appear to be believe. People arrive at their preferences among composers for reasons best known to themselves. Some may be highly impressed by any novelty aspects of a technical nature, while others may not give a hoot about such things. This is because all of any composer's output is the result of creativity in one form or another, and for a typical listener it is by no means easy to isolate just those components that reflect any extra special creativity that may be present due to that composer having invented something completely new.

My main point from all this is that once people have determined their likes and dislikes amongst composers, and possibly ranked them in some way, they are not going to be persuaded to modify those opinions by any additional information pertaining to the degree of innovation that each composer may or may not have incorporated into their works. All such information, if it was considered to be sufficiently important, should have already been included in their assessments. To take account of it again would involve double-counting.


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> We seem to be going round in circles. I'll give it one more go.
> 
> I have never said that innovation is not a potentially relevant aspect of a great composer. On the contrary, I accept that if a composer is considered "great" then innovation could be part of the reason, but the main reasons could be due to other factors, in particular simply liking the broad style, range of offerings and the perceived generally high quality of many of that composer's works.
> 
> In fact, I don't think innovation in the way you interpret it is anything like as important as you appear to be believe. *People arrive at their preferences among composers for reasons best known to themselves.* Some may be highly impressed by any novelty aspects of a technical nature, while others may not give a hoot about such things. This is because all of any composer's output is the result of creativity in one form or another, and for a typical listener it is by no means easy to isolate just those components that reflect any extra special creativity that may be present due to that composer having invented something completely new.
> 
> My main point from all this is that *once people have determined their likes and dislikes amongst composers, and possibly ranked them in some way, they are not going to be persuaded to modify those opinions by any additional information pertaining to the degree of innovation that each composer may or may not have incorporated into their works. All such information, if it was considered to be sufficiently important, should have already been included in their assessments. To take account of it again would involve double-counting.*


People do indeed enjoy and rate music for whatever reasons they like, or for no reasons at all. I'm not telling anyone what to like or why. But the context of musical experience we bring to the hearing of a work can make an enormous difference in how we respond to, and how we evaluate, what we hear, and increasing our musical knowledge can greatly increase our appreciation and estimate of the composer.

I loved Beethoven's late quartets before I knew what radically new realms of form and expression he was exploring in them, but greater awareness of these things - things which could not initially have been "included in my assessments" - brought greater appreciation of Beethoven's genius. Similarly, I was always gripped emotionally by the preludes of Wagner's operas, but it wasn't until I came to understand Wagner's immense significance for the development of Western music that I could truly estimate him as a creative artist. This is not merely academic; I both hear and assess the music in question - and music in general - differently than I did before.

It's wrong to think that art has "intrinsic" meaning or value outside the context of humanity's larger experience of life, and that includes his experience of art. We can't claim to assess adequately any artist's achievement (insofar as we can do it at all) without reference to what came before, during, and after him. Art is full of referents, and the more we know of them the more it can mean to us. They are not extraneous add-ons, but essential to our appreciation. And when a great composer makes a creative breakthrough into some previously unimagined world of tones and taps into feelings we didn't know we could have, something important has been added to our conception of music and our experience of life.


----------



## Luchesi

"....it looks like a load of technical waffle that you could have dug out of some textbook: "dominants" and "mediants" "climatic conclusions" tonic-dominant polarity". I mean, who cares about all that kind of stuff, let alone understand it?"

If someone wants to appreciate serious music and this is their attitude, they will be missing a lot.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> People do indeed enjoy and rate music for whatever reasons they like, or for no reasons at all. I'm not telling anyone what to like or why. But the context of musical experience we bring to the hearing of a work can make an enormous difference in how we respond to, and how we evaluate, what we hear, and increasing our musical knowledge can greatly increase our appreciation and estimate of the composer.
> 
> I loved Beethoven's late quartets before I knew what radically new realms of form and expression he was exploring in them, but greater awareness of these things - things which could not initially have been "included in my assessments" - brought greater appreciation of Beethoven's genius. Similarly, I was always gripped emotionally by the preludes of Wagner's operas, but it wasn't until I came to understand Wagner's immense significance for the development of Western music that I could truly estimate him as a creative artist. This is not merely academic; I both hear and assess the music in question - and music in general - differently than I did before.
> 
> It's wrong to think that art has "intrinsic" meaning or value outside the context of humanity's larger experience of life, and that includes his experience of art. We can't claim to assess adequately any artist's achievement (insofar as we can do it at all) without reference to what came before, during, and after him. Art is full of referents, and the more we know of them the more it can mean to us. They are not extraneous add-ons, but essential to our appreciation. And when a great composer makes a creative breakthrough into some previously unimagined world of tones and taps into feelings we didn't know we could have, something important has been added to our conception of music and our experience of life.


I'm not sure that I follow everything you say but I get the drift about the way your appreciation of classical music evolved over time, which I assume you will accept may well not have universal validity. As I said, everyone's experience is likely to be somwwhat different, but compared with the average listener I don't think I'm in any way exceptional. I believe that most people who enjoy classical music won't necessarily find that they rate the music any higher simply because it happens to contain innovative elements. Most people, I guess, would have major trouble unscrambling the old from the new, even if they tried.

People generally are more likely to judge the music on its merits as something pleasing to listen to, not whether it contains a lot of novelties of a technical nature which may or may not have influenced later composers. As an example, I'm fully aware of Wagner's innovations but I'm only a moderate fan of his work. I can happily listen to any of his work if I'm in the right frame of mind, but I wouldn't say that I'm enthralled by anything more than a few highlighted sections here and there. The rest of it is just opera as far as I'm concerned, and it makes no difference to my appreciation just how novel any of it was. I far prefer opera by Handel, Mozart and Verdi, and again any novely features included are of no great importance to me.


----------



## Genoveva

EdwardBast said:


> Genoveva said:
> 
> 
> 
> The area where Beethoven seems to have been credited with making big strides is into the romantic area. Now whilst I'm sure that Beethoven twiddled and fiddled a lot before being happy with the result, it would seem to be mostly in refining and extending the existing classical style. From my quite broad reading on the subject, he didn't move things forward all that far into the romantic sphere. In the early stages it had as much to do with, if not more so, with the likes of Weber, Field, Rossini and Schubert.
> 
> 
> 
> Beethoven's big achievement in the evolution of musical style does not reduce to "making big strides into the romantic area." He changed style in ways most of the romantics never understood or even attempted to further. What he did doesn't fit neatly into either style or even into the sum of both styles. That's one of the reasons he is a towering figure in the history of music.
Click to expand...

My point was to question the fairly common notion that Beethoven made big strides into the romantic era. You appear to agree that this is questionable. The only thing I would query in what you say is that many later romantics never understood the changes he made or attempted to pursue them further. I would think it more likely that the situation had changed by their time and they saw no need to continue in the same tradition, with the possible exception of Brahms.


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> My point was to question the fairly common notion that Beethoven made big strides into the romantic era. You appear to agree that this is questionable. The only thing I would query in what you say is that many later romantics never understood the changes he made or attempted to pursue them further. I would think it more likely that the situation had changed by their time and they saw no need to continue in the same tradition, with the possible exception of Brahms.


I am trying to understand how you could so egregiously misread what I wrote. I _do not_ agree with you. Beethoven exerted an enormous influence on romantic composers. I said his achievement does not "reduce to" that, meaning (I thought obviously!) that there is more to it. They didn't understand all of what he did and some of his important ideas were never taken up or fully understood by the romantics. Later composers, however, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe, did continue to explore paths he opened up well into the 20thc, particularly the use of dramatic thematic processes to structure individual movements and to unify multimovement cycles.


----------



## Kieran

EdwardBast said:


> They didn't understand all of what he did and some of his important ideas were never taken up or fully understood by the romantics.


Just out of curiosity, how do you know these ideas were never "fully understood by the romantics?"


----------



## Phil loves classical

So what can we conclude on Beethoven vs. Mozart? Is the question who is more influential, or technically innovative, or greater, or who borrowed from the other more?


----------



## Kieran

Phil loves classical said:


> So what can we conclude on Beethoven vs. Mozart? Is the question who is more influential, or technically innovative, or greater, or who borrowed from the other more?


Mozart was more influential on Beethoven - who borrowed more from Mozart... :tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Kieran said:


> Mozart was more influential on Beethoven - who borrowed more from Mozart... :tiphat:


Yes, he exerted a greater influence on others following, and took to innovate things further mostly from Haydn, and a few things (but critical) from Mozart.


----------



## Kieran

KenOC said:


> Could be, though Beethoven was critical of Don Giovanni. "_Die Zauberflote_ will always remain Mozart's greatest work, for in it he for the first time showed himself to be a German musician. _Don Juan_ still has the complete Italian cut; besides our sacred art ought never permit itself to be degraded to the level of a foil for so scandalous a subject."


This prudish side of Luigi is quite revealing, isn't it?


----------



## Kieran

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, he exerted a greater influence on others following, and took to innovate things further mostly from Haydn, and a few things (but critical) from Mozart.


Once music had entered what I would consider the egoistic romantic period, it seems natural that Beethoven would have more influence...


----------



## Genoveva

I think that some commentators tend to have a very narrow focus on the matter of innovation in music and its influence on later composers. They study and occasionally become so over-awed by the minutiae of what they're looking at that they sometimes make bold claims about future developments that are highly speculative and unquantifiable.

For example, music moved forward into the romantic era in the early 19th C largely under a socio-economic dynamic that was more complex in nature than anything as simple as Beethoven's (or anyone else's) innovations. Beethoven happened to have been the major figure of last of the "old school" music style, and one who tinkered around with a few extra features that appealed to the romantic composers, and it was therefore almost inevitable that some of his techniques were the ones likely to picked up and used alongside newer styles altogether.

In other words, the influence of Beethoven was probably one of convenience, and if he hadn't been around then other means would have been found to fill whatever gaps existed in the musical armoury required to cultivate the new romantic era. As is well known, several of the romantics developed styles that were new, e.g. Liszt and the symphonic poem.


----------



## Genoveva

EdwardBast said:


> I am trying to understand how you could so egregiously misread what I wrote. I _do not_ agree with you. Beethoven exerted an enormous influence on romantic composers. I said his achievement does not "reduce to" that, meaning (I thought obviously!) that there is more to it. They didn't understand all of what he did and some of his important ideas were never taken up or fully understood by the romantics. Later composers, however, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe, did continue to explore paths he opened up well into the 20thc, particularly the use of dramatic thematic processes to structure individual movements and to unify multimovement cycles.


I thought I had made a fair summary of what you said. I am not sure that your further comments above make the position any clearer, as they seem to be hedged about with all manner of very vague comments.

For example, I'd like to ask what evidence you have that the romantics didn't understand all of Beethoven's innovations, and why you think they never took up some of the ones they did understand. [I see that _Kieron_ asked a similar question.] Also, perhaps you could set out which of Beethoven's innovations the romantic composers did actually make use of that you can be sure are attributable solely to Beethoven. Further, do you think that the romantics would have been completely stumbled in the absence of these innovations, or is it not likely that they would have found other ways of coping without any serious loss of quality?

Regards the Russian and Eastern European composers you refer to, could you say who they are, and can you provide a few examples of their work in which Beethoven's innovations were developed. Can you also clarify how you identify these traits from all the other influences that may have affected the way they wrote their music, given that there was presumably quite a long time separating the innovations and the implementation?


----------



## Woodduck

Duplicate post.....


----------



## PlaySalieri

Listening to K466 today and trying to imagine if Beethoven had composed this concerto and not Mozart - or he had found the ms and posterity gave him credit for it.

What would posterity be saying? "Beethoven ushered in the romantic era of classical movement with this strikingly original composition - spoken in a new language etc etc, broken through the boundaries of artistic expression and redefined music."

I would have thought perhaps K466 would have sent Mozart in another direction - but it did not - he probably regarded it as having no more merit than the playful little concerto he composed before it (pc 19).


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> I think that some commentators tend to have a very narrow focus on the matter of innovation in music and its influence on later composers. They study and occasionally become so over-awed by the minutiae of what they're looking at that they sometimes make bold claims about future developments that are highly speculative and unquantifiable.
> 
> For example, music moved forward into the romantic era in the early 19th C largely under a socio-economic dynamic that was more complex in nature than anything as simple as Beethoven's (or anyone else's) innovations. Beethoven happened to have been the major figure of last of the "old school" music style, and one who tinkered around with a few extra features that appealed to the romantic composers, and it was therefore almost inevitable that some of his techniques were the ones likely to picked up and used alongside newer styles altogether.
> 
> In other words, the influence of Beethoven was probably one of convenience, and if he hadn't been around then other means would have been found to fill whatever gaps existed in the musical armoury required to cultivate the new romantic era. As is well known, several of the romantics developed styles that were new, e.g. Liszt and the symphonic poem.


Your remarks have the form of an argument, but it beats me who you're arguing with.

Who are these "some commentators" who are "overawed by minutiae" and are making "highly speculative claims" that are "unquantifiable" (and what, in music, is quantifiable beyond the number of beats in a measure)?

What does it mean to say that "music moved forward into the romantic era in the early 19th C largely under a socio-economic dynamic that was more complex in nature than anything as simple as Beethoven's (or anyone else's) innovations"? In what sense is a "socio-economic dynamic" comparable to musical innovations, so that you can say one is "more complex" than the other? Aren't you comparing apples and aardvarks? And has anyone ever claimed that the Romantic movement was "anything as simple" as a bunch of composers randomly trying out new things?

Then there's this:

"Beethoven happened to have been the major figure of last of the 'old school' music style, and one who tinkered around with a few extra features that appealed to the romantic composers."

and this:

"...the influence of Beethoven was probably one of convenience, and if he hadn't been around then other means would have been found to fill whatever gaps existed in the musical armoury required to cultivate the new romantic era."

Well! _<Woodduck strikes Jack benny pose>_ In a long lifetime of making and listening to music, I have never realized that Beethoven belonged to a "school" (old or new), I have never heard him "tinkering around" with anything, much less "extra features," and it has never occurred to me that Romantic composers had an "armoury" or a need to fill "gaps" in an armoury, or that they felt that the Romantic era would just not be complete if they couldn't purloin the tinkerings of whatever old-school composers happened to be "convenient."

The next time I listen to Beethoven's "Eroica," 5th, "Pastoral" or 9th symphonies, or his "Appassionata," "Moonlight," "Waldstein" or "Hammerklavier" sonatas, or his Violin Concerto, or his late quartets or cello sonatas, or the _Missa Solemnis,_ I'll try to remember that the extraordinary things I'm hearing are just extra features an old-school guy was tinkering around with.

I hope I'm not too old to learn.


----------



## Kieran

stomanek said:


> Listening to K466 today and trying to imagine if Beethoven had composed this concerto and not Mozart - or he had found the ms and posterity gave him credit for it.
> 
> What would posterity be saying? "Beethoven ushered in the romantic era of classical movement with this strikingly original composition - spoken in a new language etc etc, broken through the boundaries of artistic expression and redefined music."
> 
> I would have thought perhaps K466 would have sent Mozart in another direction - but it did not - he probably regarded it as having no more merit than the playful little concerto he composed before it (pc 19).


And of course, because such music had never been heard before, he'd have been given (deserved) credit for taking music to some new place. The beauty of mozart is, great as K466 undoubtedly is, he didn't hang around - K467 followed less than a month later...


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> Your remarks have the form of an argument, but it beats me who you're arguing with.
> 
> Who are these "some commentators" who are "overawed by minutiae" and are making "highly speculative claims" that are "unquantifiable" (and what, in music, is quantifiable beyond the number of beats in a measure)?
> 
> What does it mean to say that "music moved forward into the romantic era in the early 19th C largely under a socio-economic dynamic that was more complex in nature than anything as simple as Beethoven's (or anyone else's) innovations"? In what sense is a "socio-economic dynamic" comparable to musical innovations, so that you can say one is "more complex" than the other? Aren't you comparing apples and aardvarks? And who has claimed that the Romantic movement was "anything as simple" as a bunch of composers trying out new things?
> 
> None of the foregoing makes much sense, but the following leaves me speechless:
> 
> "Beethoven happened to have been the major figure of last of the "old school" music style, and one who tinkered around with a few extra features that appealed to the romantic composers."
> 
> After that revelation I feel almost guilty at having to look at what follows:
> 
> "...the influence of Beethoven was probably one of convenience, and if he hadn't been around then other means would have been found to fill whatever gaps existed in the musical armoury required to cultivate the new romantic era."
> 
> In a long lifetime of making and listening to music, I have never realized that Beethoven belonged to a school (old or new), I have never heard him tinkering around with extra features, and it hasnever occurred to me that Romantic composers had an armoury, or a need to fill gaps in an armoury, or a feeling that the Romantic era would just not be complete if they couldn't conveniently ransack the tinkerings of old school composers like Beethoven.


Perhaps you have lost the plot. It might have something to do with looking at some aspects of history with rose-tinted glasses. Let me remind what we're discussing.

It is about the relative greatness of Mozart v Beethoven. In that context it was claimed by someone earlier in the thread that Beethoven was more "innovative" than Mozart. Someone else replied that "innovation" is irrelevant. I entered the thread at that point and concurred with the latter view, and gave reasons. You then queried what I had written, so I then re-explained it in slightly different language.

There have been a number of further exchanges in which you appear to have continuing difficulty understanding that innovation is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a composer to be considered great. You also seem to have a problem accepting that, even when a composer has made some important innovations, their impact cannot be measured separately from the composer's overall greatness. Indeed there is no satisfactory measure of greatness at all, let alone just one aspect namely innovation, and we often have to rely on little more than popularity.

In the most recent exchanges, it has been noted that only some, not all, of Beethoven's innovations were taken up by later composers. I have suggested that it is perhaps inevitable that some of Beethoven's innovations were used by later composers simply because he was among the most respected and closest in time to the emerging romantic era composers who followed. Other types of innovation may have been dropped because they weren't needed, at least not by the romantic composers. If any of those innovations were picked up by much later composers it's a difficult calculation to assess how strong that link may be.

In any event, it seems quite obvious that the march of music into the romantic era would have happened regardless of Beethoven's specific input, as other ways would have been found to fill whatever gaps there may have been in the necessary musical tools.

I trust you may find this summary of some assistance.


----------



## KenOC

Genoveva said:


> …In other words, the influence of Beethoven was probably one of convenience, and if he hadn't been around then other means would have been found to fill whatever gaps existed in the musical armoury required to cultivate the new romantic era. As is well known, several of the romantics developed styles that were new, e.g. Liszt and the symphonic poem.


Two comments:

First, to speak of composers in a certain school sharing an "armoury" of techniques may be indelicate, but there's truth in it. Music composition is a turmoil of Darwinian activity, with each composer and each school of composition struggling for scarce resources. And what one gets, another loses. There are only so many gigs, concerts, publishers, CDs sold, and so forth. Here's how Leopold Kozeluch put it upon Mozart's death: "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."

Second, I've never been able to figure out why Liszt is credited with inventing the symphonic poem. What's the difference between Liszt's works and earlier ones like, for instance, the Coriolan Overture or the Egmont?


----------



## Woodduck

Perhaps you have lost the plot. It might have something to do with looking at some aspects of history with rose-tinted glasses. Let me remind [you of] what we're discussing.

No reminder needed. There is no plot. You made assertions which I considered a gross misrepresentation of reality - specifically, the realities of the creative process and of how art evolves through time. I might just as well say that you're looking at music through dark glasses.

It is about the relative greatness of Mozart v Beethoven. In that context it was claimed by someone earlier in the thread that Beethoven was more "innovative" than Mozart. Someone else replied that "innovation" is irrelevant. I entered the thread at that point and concurred with the latter view, and gave reasons. You then queried what I had written, so I then re-explained it in slightly different language. 

The discussion is only about "relative greatness" to some of us (to you, apparently). It's quite possible to make comparisons between composers without engaging in silly and fruitless debates about "greatness." Mozart and Beethoven are both great composers. That's good enough for me. I'm interested in what makes them different, not in who is superior.

There have been a number of further exchanges in which you appear to have continuing difficulty understanding that innovation is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a composer to be considered great.

Aside from the impertinence of telling me what I seem to have difficulty understanding, you are simply wrong about this. There is no such thing as an artist generally considered "great" who is not innovative. Some are more innovative than others, of course.

You also seem to have a problem accepting that, even when a composer has made some important innovations, their impact cannot be measured separately from the composer's overall greatness. 

This is also wrong. A striking new artistic idea won't have much impact if no one picks up on it; the fact that someone usually does, if the idea is interesting or useful, doesn't change this. On the other hand, a minor stroke of originality on the part of composer X may be picked up and used by composer Y as the basis of something remarkable and highly influential. Example: it's probable that no one knows what forgotten composer first had the idea of associating a particular musical theme with a character or idea, but although various composers used the procedure nothing much came of it until Wagner made the leitmotiv a basis for large-scale composition and a tool of subtle dramatic import, thus altering the whole concept of operatic composition.

Indeed there is no satisfactory measure of greatness at all, let alone just one aspect namely innovation,

So who needs to measure it? And if we can't, why are you even talking about it?

and we often have to rely on little more than popularity. 

_You_ may have to rely on popularity to know whether what you're listening to has merit. Don't speak for others.

In the most recent exchanges, it has been noted that only some, not all, of Beethoven's innovations were taken up by later composers. I have suggested that it is perhaps inevitable that some of Beethoven's innovations were used by later composers simply because he was among the most respected and closest in time to the emerging romantic era composers who followed. Other types of innovation may have been dropped because they weren't needed, at least not by the romantic composers. If any of those innovations were picked up by much later composers it's a difficult calculation to assess how strong that link may be.

What's remarkable about the fact that only some of Beethoven's ideas were valuable to later composers? Isn't this the way it always works? Artists are not slavish imitators - or, if they are, they are pale copies forgotten by posterity (at least until Naxos records their complete works with some Eastern European orchestra).

In any event, it seems quite obvious that the march of music into the romantic era would have happened regardless of Beethoven's specific input,

All this says is that Beethoven didn't create the Romantic era. Yes, that does seem quite obvious. Who would disagree?

as other ways would have been found to fill whatever gaps there may have been in the necessary musical tools.

This is music we're talking about, not building construction. What "gaps" are you talking about, that had to be "filled"? Is this how you think the process of composing works?

Now, can you address my points and answer my questions specifically, or are you going to make more general statements about what I don't seem to understand?


----------



## Kieran

"Impertinence? :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

Mozart found gold along the river banks. 
Beethoven had to dig for it.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart found gold along the river banks.
> Beethoven had to dig for it.


But he had a whoppin' big shovel!


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Listening to K466 today and trying to imagine if Beethoven had composed this concerto and not Mozart - or he had found the ms and posterity gave him credit for it.
> 
> What would posterity be saying? "Beethoven ushered in the romantic era of classical movement with this strikingly original composition - spoken in a new language etc etc, broken through the boundaries of artistic expression and redefined music."
> 
> I would have thought perhaps K466 would have sent Mozart in another direction - but it did not - he probably regarded it as having no more merit than the playful little concerto he composed before it (pc 19).


I do hear in this magnificent concerto an exceptionally dark and stormy atmosphere - Mozart didn't often choose minor keys - but no departures from his usual compositional procedures. Am I missing something? Is a strong dose of good 18th-century "Sturm und Drang" enough to "usher in the Romantic era" or "break through the boundaries of artistic expression," much less "redefine music"?

We can hear a similar dark turbulence in some of Haydn's middle-period symphonies (this movement, for example: 



) K466, like the g-minor symphony #40, strikes me as a peak example of what we think of as Classicism, containing its turbulence within the frame of balance and objectivity which Mozart had no desire to disturb.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> I do hear in this magnificent concerto an exceptionally dark and stormy atmosphere - Mozart didn't often choose minor keys - but no departures from his usual compositional procedures. Am I missing something? Is a strong dose of good 18th-century "Sturm und Drang" enough to "usher in the Romantic era" or "break through the boundaries of artistic expression," much less "redefine music"?
> 
> We can hear a similar dark turbulence in some of Haydn's middle-period symphonies (this movement, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ) K466, like the g-minor symphony #40, strikes me as a peak example of what we think of as Classicism, containing its turbulence within the frame of balance and objectivity which Mozart had no desire to disturb.


Dark turbulence is one thing - but there is a demonic menacing quality in the music of K466 that never appears in haydn, or in fact, in my view - even Beethoven. It returns later of course in Don Giovanni and the requiem of course.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Dark turbulence is one thing - but there is a demonic menacing quality in the music of K466 that never appears in haydn, or in fact, in my view - even Beethoven. It returns later of course in Don Giovanni and the requiem of course.


"Demonic" and "menacing" are rather subjective descriptions of music, don't you think? I'm not saying they're not valid interpretations, but in strictly musical terms I don't hear where the minor-key turbulence of this piece pushes it outside the bounds of Classicism, an aesthetic which in my understanding doesn't forbid the expression of such things but only seeks to keep them in balance. Note that this concerto ends with a jubilant peroration in the major, Mozart presumably feeling that it was somehow wrong, irrational, or too disturbing to leave us "in the dark." He makes the same sort of saving gesture at the end of Don Giovanni when he follows the Don's descent into hell by having the rest of the company gather for a cheerful bit of moralizing. In 19th century performances, that final scene was generally omitted; Romantic sensibilties wanted their gothic thrills pure and "uncorrected."

I do agree that we find in Mozart's late works some heightened qualities of emotional expression, often tending toward darkness. The Romantic movement in literature was under way in his lifetime, and had he lived longer he would surely have pushed harder against the bounds of Classical decorum. But in what we do have from him, I don't find him doing it to any appreciable extent, and this is a matter of both sensibility and its expression in musical form.


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> "Demonic" and "menacing" are rather subjective descriptions of music, don't you think? I'm not saying they're not valid interpretations, but in strictly musical terms I don't hear where the minor-key turbulence of this piece pushes it outside the bounds of Classicism, an aesthetic which in my understanding doesn't forbid the expression of such things but only seeks to keep them in balance. *Note that this concerto ends with a jubilant peroration in the major, Mozart presumably feeling that it was somehow wrong, irrational, or too disturbing to leave us "in the dark." He makes the same sort of saving gesture at the end of Don Giovanni when he follows the Don's descent into hell by having the rest of the company gather for a cheerful bit of moralizing. *In 19th century performances, that final scene was generally omitted; Romantic sensibilties wanted their gothic thrills pure and "uncorrected."
> 
> I do agree that we find in Mozart's late works some heightened qualities of emotional expression, often tending toward darkness. The Romantic movement in literature was under way in his lifetime, and had he lived longer he would surely have pushed harder against the bounds of Classical decorum. But in what we do have from him, I don't find him doing it to any appreciable extent, and this is a matter of both sensibility and its expression in musical form.


But this is a very subjective view also. Neither of the endings you mention have the same effect on everyone who hears them. Nor do we have anything at all to prove that Mozart felt that "it was somehow wrong, irrational, or too disturbing to leave us in the dark." I realise that you're only expressing an opinion, and this is good, but in fact, this kind of thinking was most commonly applied to K516, the great g-minor string quintet, which after 4 movements of brooding anguish, flips into manic cheer. This was considered evidence among the romantics that Wolfie didn't really understand darkness and his natural inclinations towards light won through. But, the finale in K516 is perfectly in keeping with the overall mood of the piece, in my opinion, a manic wild finish being still tinged with the darkness which went before.

The original ending to Don Giovanni, with the empty moralising, only emphasises the gaping hole that's left behind by the Don's departure to other realms. Musically, of course, it's as sublime as any other music in the opera. Does it make for a more or less satisfactory ending? This is open to debate. I think this ending was also dropped by Mozart once the show arrived in Vienna, but that was largely because of time constrictions, after he'd had to compose more music for different singers in Vienna.

One thing with dark moods in life - they can contain many mixtures and they can ignite into gaiety and strangely hued happiness, which is also part of the same personality. I think this is one area of composing where Mozart was indeed the maestro...


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> But this is a very subjective view also. Neither of the endings you mention have the same effect on everyone who hears them. Nor do we have anything at all to prove that Mozart felt that "it was somehow wrong, irrational, or too disturbing to leave us in the dark." I realise that you're only expressing an opinion, and this is good, but in fact, *this kind of thinking was most commonly applied to K516, the great g-minor string quintet, which after 4 movements of brooding anguish, flips into manic cheer. * This was considered evidence among the romantics that Wolfie didn't really understand darkness and his natural inclinations towards light won through. But, *the finale in K516 is perfectly in keeping with the overall mood of the piece, in my opinion, a manic wild finish being still tinged with the darkness which went before.*
> 
> The original ending to Don Giovanni, with the empty moralising, only emphasises the gaping hole that's left behind by the Don's departure to other realms. Musically, of course, it's as sublime as any other music in the opera. Does it make for a more or less satisfactory ending? This is open to debate. I think this ending was also dropped by Mozart once the show arrived in Vienna, but that was largely because of time constrictions, after he'd had to compose more music for different singers in Vienna.
> 
> One thing with dark moods in life - they can contain many mixtures and they can ignite into gaiety and strangely hued happiness, which is also part of the same personality. I think this is one area of composing where Mozart was indeed the maestro...


I understand your observations and by and large agree with them. But I do need to reaffirm that there was such a thing as a Classical sensibility, and that Mozart was exhibiting it when he chose to use minor keys as infrequently as he did. It's conceivable, of course, that this was less a matter of personal inclination than of submission to convention, but I don't think so. The major mode was felt at the time to represent a norm, a stable, emotionally balanced state, from which the minor was an expressive departure, not a destination.

I'm glad you brought up the G-minor string quintet, probably the classic example of this. Whether the finale of the g-minor quintet is "perfectly in keeping with the general mood of the work" depends, I suppose, on what we mean by "in keeping," and what we think the general mood is (or indeed whether we think it even has one). There are plenty of minor-key works by lots of composer that end in the major, and this particular example shouldn't surprise us. I don't think the mood of the finale has to be justified as "manic cheer" following "brooding anguish"; all such terms oversimplify what is quite an emotionally complex and ambiguous piece, and frankly I don't hear any mania in it. Since there's a great deal of alternation of major and minor in the work (including moments in the finale) it would have seemed an indulgence in overt tragedy not to finish in the major - to let darkness win the day - and that is something Classical composers simply did not find acceptable. As a late and supremely inventive representative of the Classical style, and especially as an opera composer, Mozart must have given the question of tragedy in music some thought, but it isn't something I find him ready to embrace. In that quintet, though, he certainly walks along the edge of the abyss.


----------



## Kieran

Again we come back to something I mentioned earlier, which is why composers wrote what they did. In Mozart’s case, he wasn’t sufficiently independent to compose as much of what he really wanted to (operas), and as a working composer striving for such independence, but also with a family to feed, he “gave ‘em what they came for”, while also dragging the audience forward to better things, which he couldn’t help but do. So if he conformed to musical norms, he was wise to - but he also innovated within those norms and stretched them to further them along - until they needed to be remade, or just taken further. And of course, who knows what he’d have given us if he’d had a proper middle period, and a late period. 

None of this is to Mozart’s detriment. In fact, when we see that K466 or the Jupiter symphony were written as “mere entertainment”, it only makes them more astonishing, not less. A lot of the time we read of how complicated his music was, for it’s time, and yet we never see him stumble or at a loss in what he’s doing. And this applies to music he composed across all genres, and for every type of instrument.

I was reading back on this thread yesterday and I noted a few witty remarks made at the expense of his alleged “perfection”, as if this was a detrimental attribute. I see how this can be, if it makes music too formulaic and predictable, at the expense of intensity and wit, and expressiveness.

Against this, I’ve read many times that Mozart’s music is so architecturally secure and sound that a performer can almost ruin a piece by small deviations, or unexpected improvisations. Or just bad timing, which can happen. This is especially true, I think, in the operas. This level of exactness and brilliance in a composer is far-reaching and deeply insightful. I’m digressing but I’m thinking of the comments I read last night. I don’t think being “perfect” in his writing is a fault in mozart - I think it’s a miracle, especially given the conditions he worked under, and the great speed with which he wrote these masterpieces....


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> ... But I do need to reaffirm that there was such a thing as a Classical sensibility, and that Mozart was exhibiting it when* he chose to use minor keys as infrequently as he did*. It's conceivable, of course, that this was less a matter of personal inclination than of submission to convention, but I don't think so. The major mode was felt at the time to represent a norm, a stable, emotionally balanced state, from which the minor was an expressive departure, not a destination.


It's pretty standard that most classical era music was written in major keys. All the same, Mozart wrote quite a few other works in minor keys apart from K 466 and K 516 than you appear to recognise.

Based simply on a cursory glance of the catalogues, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Mozart wrote a roughly similar amount as Joseph Haydn, and not that far short of the amount Beethoven wrote, in minor keys. I'm basing this on the "key" in which the entire work is nominally labelled, and I'm obviously aware that keys often change during a work, and that something that starts in minor key can often end up in major.


----------



## Larkenfield

It's always enlightening to read an assessment of Mozart's works by the great forum pundits who apparently have no appreciation of... _ the sublime_. How is that so? Because they rarely if ever mention it in their observations or assessments. Mozart offers listeners the sublime tempered to perfection in something like his G Minor Quintet, and they wonder, "Yeah, but where's the Hershey's dark chocolate or the mud pie?" It's not tragic enough. Apparently, they have never penetrated beyond the superficial level of his creative genius to imagine that not everything was calculated to simply please his audience with offerings without substance, or sufficiently give due weight to the restlessness, turbulence and furry that can be heard at the beginning of his K466 Piano Concerto. His emotional range and depth are far greater than his critics give him credit for, and yet I also believe that he understood that music could be consciously uplifting to the mind and spirit-a source of emotional refreshment and spiritual renewal.


----------



## Kieran

Larkenfield said:


> It's always enlightening to read an assessment of Mozart's works by the great forum pundits who apparently have no appreciation of... _ the sublime_. How is that so? Because they rarely if ever mention it in their observations or assessments. Mozart offers listeners the sublime tempered to perfection in something like his G Minor Quintet, and they wonder, "Yeah, but where's the Hershey's dark chocolate or the mud pie?" It's not tragic enough. Apparently, they have never penetrated beyond the superficial level of his creative genius to imagine that not everything was calculated to simply please his audience with offerings without substance, or sufficiently give due weight to the restlessness, turbulence and furry that can be heard at the beginning of his K466 Piano Concerto. His emotional range and depth are far greater than his critics give him credit for, and he yet he also understood that music could be consciously uplifting to the mind and spirit-a source of emotional refreshment and spiritual renewal.


^^ This.

Very well said, Larkenfield...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> "Demonic" and "menacing" are rather subjective descriptions of music, don't you think? I'm not saying they're not valid interpretations, but in strictly musical terms I don't hear where the minor-key turbulence of this piece pushes it outside the bounds of Classicism, an aesthetic which in my understanding doesn't forbid the expression of such things but only seeks to keep them in balance. Note that this concerto ends with a jubilant peroration in the major, *Mozart presumably feeling that it was somehow wrong, irrational, or too disturbing to leave us "in the dark."* He makes the same sort of saving gesture at the end of Don Giovanni when he follows the Don's descent into hell by having the rest of the company gather for a cheerful bit of moralizing. In 19th century performances, that final scene was generally omitted; Romantic sensibilties wanted their gothic thrills pure and "uncorrected."
> 
> I do agree that we find in Mozart's late works some heightened qualities of emotional expression, often tending toward darkness. The Romantic movement in literature was under way in his lifetime, and had he lived longer he would surely have pushed harder against the bounds of Classical decorum. But in what we do have from him, I don't find him doing it to any appreciable extent, and this is a matter of both sensibility and its expression in musical form.


A movement needs to be resolved one way or another - and I can only imagine that Mozart felt a flourish of life affirming energy was the best way to resolve this piece - artistically and emotionally.

How does Mozart conclude k494? No cheer there. The unexpected coda resolves nothing. It's like an unfinished story - deliberately truncated.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mozart's Rondo K. 511, during his obsession of death, ends in minor.






It has been suggested the final chorus ending to Don Giovanni was just a curtain call, or written to please the singers. It sounds obviously forced and lightweight anyway after the preceding. Boulez and others thought it was better to leave the ending with Don Giovanni's death. The libretto in Vienna didn't include it. Considering Mozart's preoccupation with exoloring music in the death and doom direction, like in K. 511, where he felt more free to express on solo piano, it is quite possible he preferred himself to end Don Giovanni on a sour note. Kinda like Shostakovich was forced to write a triumphant ending to his Symphony 5, which he made it sound sarcastic and out of place as possible.

No matter, Mozart expression in this was unprecented in its power. and realization. Whether or not he ended jubilantly.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart's Rondo K. 511, during his obsession of death, ends in minor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been suggested the final chorus ending to Don Giovanni was just a curtain call, or written to please the singers. It sounds obviously forced and lightweight anyway after the preceding. Boulez and others thought it was better to leave the ending with Don Giovanni's death. The libretto in Vienna didn't include it. Considering Mozart's preoccupation with exoloring music in the death and doom direction, like in K. 511, where he felt more free to express on solo piano, it is quite possible he preferred himself to end Don Giovanni on a sour note. *Kinda like Shostakovich was forced to write a triumphant ending to his Symphony 5, which he made it sound sarcastic and out of place as possible.
> *
> No matter, Mozart expression in this was unprecented in its power. and realization. Whether or not he ended jubilantly.


So I have heard - I try to get into the "critique of authoritariansim" mode when hearing this each time - nodding in grim sympathy when i hear that wall of shrill violins and thundering drum - but but - it is damned stirring music! I guess my emotions are too easily manipulated and I am afraid Shost sarcasm is wasted on me - I miss the whole point of this work.


----------



## Biffo

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart's Rondo K. 511, during his obsession of death, ends in minor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been suggested the final chorus ending to Don Giovanni was just a curtain call, or written to please the singers. It sounds obviously forced and lightweight anyway after the preceding. Boulez and others thought it was better to leave the ending with Don Giovanni's death. The libretto in Vienna didn't include it. Considering Mozart's preoccupation with exoloring music in the death and doom direction, like in K. 511, where he felt more free to express on solo piano, it is quite possible he preferred himself to end Don Giovanni on a sour note. Kinda like Shostakovich was forced to write a triumphant ending to his Symphony 5, which he made it sound sarcastic and out of place as possible.
> 
> No matter, Mozart expression in this was unprecented in its power. and realization. Whether or not he ended jubilantly.


William Mann in 'The Operas of Mozart' has it differently.

'For Victorian opera-goers Don Giovanni ended here and romantics gladly spread the rumour that Mozart had ended it here when it was produced in Vienna on the grounds that Mozart made a cut, then deleted it. But the libretto and the manuscript did go further: it was Mozart's pupil Sussmayr who suppressed the last sextet in 1798. For an eighteenth-century audience... what follows is absolutely necessary. Don Giovanni has descended to the evrlasting toasting fork...........But he is not the only character in this drama. How unsatisfactory to go home without knowing what happened to the others! How dreary to end a drama giacoso like a hellfire sermon'


----------



## PlaySalieri

Biffo said:


> William Mann in 'The Operas of Mozart' has it differently.
> 
> 'For Victorian opera-goers Don Giovanni ended here and romantics gladly spread the rumour that Mozart had ended it here when it was produced in Vienna on the grounds that Mozart made a cut, then deleted it. But the libretto and the manuscript did go further: it was Mozart's pupil Sussmayr who suppressed the last sextet in 1798. For an eighteenth-century audience... what follows is absolutely necessary. Don Giovanni has descended to the evrlasting toasting fork...........But he is not the only character in this drama. How unsatisfactory to go home without knowing what happened to the others! How dreary to end a drama giacoso like a hellfire sermon'


quite - the ending of the stone guest scene also has none of the hallmarks of a Mozart operatic ending. the brilliant final sextet sounds like Mozart signing off in grand fashion.


----------



## Kieran

I think there’s arguments for both endings. And of course, anyone producing this opera has a huge amount of music to play with, but decisions also have to be made, similar to the ones Mozart faced when he presented the opera in Vienna. I’ve even seen versions which include all the music from both Prague and Vienna versions, but I doubt Mozart would ever have done that.

But what were the composers own intentions, long term? Did he ever dream of posterity, and want definitive, unarguable versions of his works to survive? My own hunch is that he was constantly in forward motion and he only composed extra music for the operas to suit the strengths of the troupe performing them, an example being the extra music he composed for Idomeneo. I don’t think mozart speculated too much about what future audiences would make of the work. 

As for the ending of DG, I think both have strengths and good reasons for them to be performed, and both have the stamp of the imprimatur of the maestro - but whenever I settle down with a pint of Guinness and Giulini’s version of Don Giovanni, invariably I’m too shattered after the scene where the Don is hauled off to Hell to be able to listen to more. It almost feels like I need to reset my ears to be able to hear it!


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> *It's always enlightening to read an assessment of Mozart's works by the great forum pundits who apparently have no appreciation of...  the sublime. How is that so? Because they rarely if ever mention it in their observations or assessments. Mozart offers listeners the sublime tempered to perfection* in something like his G Minor Quintet, and they wonder, "Yeah, but where's the Hershey's dark chocolate or the mud pie?" *It's not tragic enough. Apparently, they have never penetrated beyond the superficial level of his creative genius* to imagine that not everything was calculated to simply please his audience with offerings without substance, or sufficiently give due weight to the restlessness, turbulence and furry that can be heard at the beginning of his K466 Piano Concerto. His emotional range and depth are far greater than his critics give him credit for, and yet I also believe that he understood that music could be consciously uplifting to the mind and spirit-a source of emotional refreshment and spiritual renewal.


You are unhappy that some people don't love Mozart enough.

I don't recall anyone saying that the g-minor quintet is not sufficiently tragic. How tragic is sufficiently tragic? Is the work ultimately tragic at all? It doesn't seem so to me; you may disagree. But whatever it is (if any work of music "is" irrespective of who hears it), it seems to move and satisfy just about everyone who knows it. It's unquestionably one of chamber music's peak achievements. Let each take from it what he can.

As for Mozart's "sublimity," I can only speak for myself when I confess to being wary of certain words, especially words of ultimate praise and words with religious connotations. Mozart lovers in particular are prone to terms of unqualified adulation, as if no other music is even necessary in life, or has anything important to say to us that his does not.

I don't think Mozart said it all - not by a long shot - or that no one else ever reached equal or greater heights in some forms and areas of music. I'd guess that some of our "great forum pundits" are quite capable of appreciating the genius of Mozart without being moved to apply the vocabulary of religious devotion to him. They might prefer to apply it to some of the music of Bach or Beethoven or Wagner, or they might not want to apply it at all. We can share in a recognition of artistic greatness, but our feelings about any artist or work are our own. And as far as music is concerned, "sublime" is, finally, just a feeling.


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> You are unhappy that some people don't love Mozart enough.
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying that the g-minor quintet is not sufficiently tragic. How tragic is sufficiently tragic? Is the work ultimately tragic at all? It doesn't seem so to me; you may disagree. But whatever it is (if any work of music "is" irrespective of who hears it), it seems to move and satisfy just about everyone who knows it. It's unquestionably one of chamber music's peak achievements. Let each take from it what he can.
> 
> As for Mozart's "sublimity," I can only speak for myself when I confess to being wary of certain words, especially words of ultimate praise and words with religious connotations. Mozart lovers in particular are prone to terms of unqualified adulation, as if no other music is even necessary in life, or has anything important to say to us that his does not.
> 
> I don't think Mozart said it all - not by a long shot - or that no one else ever reached equal or greater heights in some forms and areas of music. I'd guess that some of our "great forum pundits" are quite capable of appreciating the genius of Mozart without being moved to apply the vocabulary of religious devotion to him. They might prefer to apply it to some of the music of Bach or Beethoven or Wagner, or they might not want to apply it at all. We can share in a recognition of artistic greatness, but our feelings about any artist or work are our own. And as far as music is concerned, "sublime" is, finally, just a feeling.


It's very easy to scan every post this way. When somebody says "sublime", you react to the word "sublime" reducing it to mere feelings, as if an idiots guffawing might be equally sublime, since it might be sublime to somebody. Likewise, we can look at your sentence, "We can share in a recognition of artistic greatness" and query every word, Bill Clinton-like, and say it depends on what you mean by the word, "of', and it depends on what you mean by the word "great", etc. We would then end up with a chorus of hagglers, debating what the other means by the word "Mozart." :lol:

By the way, did you not veer awfully close to describing the g-minor string quintet as "tragic" when you said of the finale, "it would have seemed an indulgence in overt tragedy not to finish in the major?"


----------



## Bluecrab

Woodduck said:


> As for Mozart's "sublimity," I can only speak for myself when I confess to being wary of certain words, especially words of ultimate praise and words with religious connotations. Mozart lovers in particular are prone to terms of unqualified adulation, as if no other music is even necessary in life, or has anything important to say to us that his does not.


Amen to that. And by the way, you're hardly speaking only for yourself. In fact, rather than call it "unqualified adulation," I'd call it idolatry.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> You are unhappy that some people don't love Mozart enough.
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying that the g-minor quintet is not sufficiently tragic. How tragic is sufficiently tragic? Is the work ultimately tragic at all? It doesn't seem so to me; you may disagree. But whatever it is (if any work of music "is" irrespective of who hears it), it seems to move and satisfy just about everyone who knows it. It's unquestionably one of chamber music's peak achievements. Let each take from it what he can.
> 
> As for Mozart's "sublimity," I can only speak for myself when I confess to being wary of certain words, especially words of ultimate praise and words with religious connotations. *Mozart lovers in particular are prone to terms of unqualified adulation*, as if no other music is even necessary in life, or has anything important to say to us that his does not.
> 
> I don't think Mozart said it all - not by a long shot - or that no one else ever reached equal or greater heights in some forms and areas of music. I'd guess that some of our "great forum pundits" are quite capable of appreciating the genius of Mozart without being moved to apply the vocabulary of religious devotion to him. They might prefer to apply it to some of the music of Bach or Beethoven or Wagner, or they might not want to apply it at all. We can share in a recognition of artistic greatness, but our feelings about any artist or work are our own. And as far as music is concerned, "sublime" is, finally, just a feeling.


Come on - I have heard this from Beethoven people too.

It should be tolerated for what it is rather than dismissed.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> Come on - I have heard this from Beethoven people too.
> 
> It should be tolerated for what it is rather than dismissed.


There are fanboys in Classical Music too, most likely for every composer that has and will ever exist.


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> It's very easy to scan every post this way. When somebody says "sublime", you react to the word "sublime" reducing it to mere feelings, as if an idiots guffawing might be equally sublime, since it might be sublime to somebody. Likewise, we can look at your sentence, "We can share in a recognition of artistic greatness" and query every word, Bill Clinton-like, and say it depends on what you mean by the word, "of', and it depends on what you mean by the word "great", etc. We would then end up with a chorus of hagglers, debating what the other means by the word "Mozart." :lol:
> 
> By the way, did you not veer awfully close to describing the g-minor string quintet as "tragic" when you said of the finale, "it would have seemed an indulgence in overt tragedy not to finish in the major?"


.
It has nothing to do with niggling definitions. It has to do with the presumption of superior understanding.

I wouldn't even remark on someone's extravagant fanhood if we (whoever we are) hadn't been told that we're revealing by our failure to call Mozart "sublime" our inability to appreciate "the sublime." It really seemed appropriate to point out that one man's sublime is another man's something else.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with thinking that the g-minor quintet is tragic - or thinking that it isn't. My own feeling is that the piece flirts fascinatingly, disturbingly and movingly with tragedy but doesn't resign itself to it. I think only Mozart, Schubert and Mahler have this propensity to toe-dance between darkness and light, or at least the skill to do it gracefully (if one can think of Mahler as graceful). I expect Mozart would have given us many more examples of it had he lived to see in the Romantic age.


----------



## Luchesi

Maybe Mozart sensed that he shouldn't write more piano concertos in a minor key. 

Dm and Cm, what about Gm? 

Would his reputation with his audience be damaged? Did they like minor mood concertos? I get the impression, perhaps just a few was the right amount.. These concertos were very public happenings, light-hearted?


----------



## Guillet81

Bluecrab said:


> Amen to that. And by the way, you're hardly speaking only for yourself. In fact, rather than call it "unqualified adulation," I'd call it idolatry.


Guilty as charged: I idolize Mozart's music. Divine perfection exemplified in musical form. Utterly, absolutely sublime. Amen, indeed.


----------



## Larkenfield

There's nothing more exhausting than reading posts that are full of reservations rather than the occasional total surrender to the sublimity of a creation, whether it's Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Wagner, or anyone else. Instead, there's the conditioned intellectual reserve, however slight or subtle, that never seems to transcend logic, the conceptual, or something as a matter of opinion-pages upon pages and no complete surrender to a composer's genius ever, and evidently never any experience of the transcendental, the blissful, or the sublime. Why bother with any composer if one is never carried away beyond one's intellectual reserves and reservations every now and then? If someone has an experience of the sublime, then it exists as a reality whether others have the same experience or not. Yet rather than being open to being stopped in one's tracks by transcendental beauty, even the experience of the sublime is marginalized with never-ending conditions. The only opinions I find of value are by those listeners who have the apparent capacity to be swept away by genius, no matter the composer, and occasionally rendered silent with unbounded admiration, amazement or gratitude-_the sublime_. Only then do I feel the person might possibly understand the strengths, limitations, and character of the composer.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> There is nothing more tedious than reading long-winded posts that are full of reservations of some type rather than the occasional total surrender to the sublimity of a creation, whether it's Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, Wagner, or anyone else. Instead, there's *the constant intellectual reserve, the continual veiled skepticism, however slight or subtle, that never seems to transcend logic, the conceptual, or something* as a matter of opinion-pages upon pages and *no surrender to a composer's genius ever, and evidently never any experience of the transcendental, the blissful, or the sublime.* Why bother with anyone *if one is never carried beyond one's intellectual boundaries and reservations every now and then* by the sublime? If someone has an experience of the sublime, then it exists as a reality whether others have the same experience or not. Yet, *rather than being stopped in one's tracks by unexpected and transcendent beauty, even the experience of the sublime is marginalized with never-ending opinions and reserve.* I'm interested in those listeners who can unreservedly be swept away by genius, no matter the composer.


Are you saying that the ability to submit oneself fully to the beauty and message of art is incompatible with an interest in analyzing it critically? One may be "stopped in one's tracks by unexpected and transcendent beauty," but when one begins walking again one may find that one has ideas about the source of that experience, as well as a wish to express them.

You appear to be not only perpetuating but commending a dichotomy between our rational and emotional faculties. In my experience, it's the really powerful aesthetic experiences that stimulate the most productive thinking, and in the end critical thought - what you appear to mean by "logic and the conceptual" - only deepens my appreciation by leading me outward from a simple experience of pleasure to a more comprehensive perspective on the thing I love.

Great works of art can bear limitless thought, and will always be there to experience again when we want to rest from our labors and simply feel.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Are you saying that the ability to submit oneself fully to the beauty and message of art is incompatible with an interest in analyzing it critically? One may be "stopped in one's tracks by unexpected and transcendent beauty," but when one begins walking again one may find that one has ideas about the source of that experience, as well as a wish to express them.
> 
> You appear to be not only perpetuating but commending a dichotomy between our rational and emotional faculties. In my experience, it's the really powerful aesthetic experiences that stimulate the most productive thinking, and in the end critical thought - what you appear to mean by "logic and the conceptual" - only deepens my appreciation by leading me outward from a simple experience of pleasure to a more comprehensive perspective on the thing I love.
> 
> Great works of art can bear limitless thought, and will always be there to experience again when we want to rest from our labors and simply feel.


Yes, it's so motivating and intellectually encouraging and inspirational that it can unquestionably be the complete package! And as a thoroughgoing reductionist myself the mystery continues for me.

Where words fail, music speaks, but I continue to want to know how it works.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Maybe Mozart sensed that he shouldn't write more piano concertos in a minor key.
> 
> Dm and Cm, what about Gm?
> 
> Would his reputation with his audience be damaged? Did they like minor mood concertos? I get the impression, perhaps just a few was the right amount.. These concertos were very public happenings, light-hearted?


2 minor key symphonies out of 60 - 3 or 4 minor key solo piano etc

major key works were the norm- even for Beethoven


----------



## Genoveva

There is currently a discussion going on the "_Haydn: A Muscular Mozart_" thread concerning a comparison of Mozart's works against Beethoven's; post nos 164 and later refer. I was going to post the comments below in that thread but I think they are more directly relevant here. It may be worth glancing at the other thread in order to obtain the background of what follows.

I have had a look at the various TC _Recommended Lists_ (as set out in the relevant section of the Forum) to see whether any light can be shed on the subject referred to in the other thread about how far each of these composer's overall reputation depends upon their relative strengths in each main area of composition. The discussion in the other thread seems to be based primarily on selective examples of each composer's works and it's all very qualitative. I have tried to see if it may possible to quantify matters in so far that the TC Recommended Lists may be of assistance here.

From my calculations, it seems that Mozart performs very well against Beethoven if account is taken of all the genres in which they each composed. According to the way the various works were ranked in the TC lists, it would seem that Mozart's strengths are not just in choral music of various types but also in orchestral music. This may come rather by surprise to some, but the fact is that Mozart wrote some very highly popular works across the orchestral landscape, including of course not just some high quality symphonies but several concertos of various types. Beethoven obviously wrote some sublime sypmhonies but his relative strength vis-a-vis Mozart is strongly in the chamber music area, which I took to include solo piano as well all the other areas, namely duos, trios, quartets etc.

In fact, Mozart comes out with a higher points total on two alternative weighting systems between the various main genres. I don't attach much importance to the precise numbers that result, only the broad results that imply that Mozart does very well overall against Beethoven. Mozart also a more even distribution of highly valued works across the main genres (choral, orchestral, chamber) as judged by the members of this Forum in various historic polls. I accept that the weights I used are fairly arbitrary, but not, I think, unreasonable. In any case, a sensitivity analysis does not change the overall results. Moreover, I can only work with the data that exists, not what I would have liked more ideally, which is a set of data based on the same large sample of members at one point of time.

Details of the calculations I undertook are given below for those who may be interested.

I do not pretend hat the works as listed in TC Recommended Lists are by any means definitive. My own involvement in them was minimal having only participated in one thread. They were all carried out at different times, some being very old. They also contain some overlaps where the same work appears in more than one list.

What I did was to create three broad categories of composition:

1. Choral - this has two sub-categories comprising (1) opera and (2) all other choral works (Masses and Oratorios etc);

2. Orchestral - this has 5 sub-categories comprising (1) symphony, (2) keyboard concerto, (3) string concerto, (4) wind concerto, (5) other orchestral works;

3. Chamber - this has 7 sub-categories comprising (1) keyboard, (2) duo, (3) trio, (4) string quartet, (5) piano quartet) (6) piano quintet, (7) string quintet (nothing else is relevant for these two composers in the top 50 ranks).

Some of the original TC Recommended lists exceeded 50 works, but I only took the top 50 works in each category. In a small number of cases, the lists fell short of 50 works. I ensured that no work appeared twice. I then identified the works by each of Beethoven and Mozart in each of the sub-categories. Each category was given equal weight within its main group, e.g. a piano solo piece was treated as having the same value as any other item like a string quartet etc. I noted the rankings of each work from 1 to 50.

The next stage was to set up a weighting system to allow greater weight to higher placed works, as seems proper. Starting with 100 points for the No 1 position, I used a 5% decline rate so that No 2 was 95, No 3 was 90, etc all the way down to rank 50. The weights decline geometrically. I fully accept that this 5% decline rate is arbitrary but something had to be used to give credibility to the results.

The final stage was to obtain a combined weighted average score across all three broad categories of choral, orchestral, chamber. Again, the weights are arbitrary, but I chose two main possibilities: The first set was choral (33%), orchestral (33%), chamber (33%). The second set was choral (20%), orchestral (40%), chamber (40%).

The results are:

First set of weights:

Mozart

choral 163
orchestral 413
chamber 265
*total 842*

Beethoven

choral 29
orchestral 243
chamber 440
*total 713*

Second set of weights

Mozart

choral 98
orchestral 496
chamber 318
*total 912*

Beethoven

choral 18
orchestral 292
chamber 527
*total 837*


----------



## PlaySalieri

That is a mind boggling little study, Genoveva - I will respond when I have had some real time to analyse your findings.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> 2 minor key symphonies out of 60 - 3 or 4 minor key solo piano etc
> 
> major key works were the norm- even for Beethoven


 a quick key word search on the wiki LvB listing by opus numbers gave me 24 titles in minor keys and 97 in major keys

....doing the same scan of the page for Mozart it's 58 out of about 626 Kochel


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> There is currently a discussion going on the "_Haydn: A Muscular Mozart_" thread concerning a comparison of Mozart's works against Beethoven's; post nos 164 and later refer. I was going to post the comments below in that thread but I think they are more directly relevant here. It may be worth glancing at the other thread in order to obtain the background of what follows.
> 
> I have had a look at the various TC _Recommended Lists_ (as set out in the relevant section of the Forum) to see whether any light can be shed on the subject referred to in the other thread about how far each of these composer's overall reputation depends upon their relative strengths in each main area of composition. The discussion in the other thread seems to be based primarily on selective examples of each composer's works and it's all very qualitative. I have tried to see if it may possible to quantify matters in so far that the TC Recommended Lists may be of assistance here.
> 
> From my calculations, it seems that Mozart performs very well against Beethoven if account is taken of all the genres in which they each composed. According to the way the various works were ranked in the TC lists, it would seem that Mozart's strengths are not just in choral music of various types but also in orchestral music. This may come rather by surprise to some, but the fact is that Mozart wrote some very highly popular works across the orchestral landscape, including of course not just some high quality symphonies but several concertos of various types. Beethoven obviously wrote some sublime sypmhonies but his relative strength vis-a-vis Mozart is strongly in the chamber music area, which I took to include solo piano as well all the other areas, namely duos, trios, quartets etc.
> 
> In fact, Mozart comes out with a higher points total on two alternative weighting systems between the various main genres. I don't attach much importance to the precise numbers that result, only the broad results that imply that Mozart does very well overall against Beethoven. Mozart also a more even distribution of highly valued works across the main genres (choral, orchestral, chamber) as judged by the members of this Forum in various historic polls. I accept that the weights I used are fairly arbitrary, but not, I think, unreasonable. In any case, a sensitivity analysis does not change the overall results. Moreover, I can only work with the data that exists, not what I would have liked more ideally, which is a set of data based on the same large sample of members at one point of time.
> 
> Details of the calculations I undertook are given below for those who may be interested.
> 
> I do not pretend hat the works as listed in TC Recommended Lists are by any means definitive. My own involvement in them was minimal having only participated in one thread. They were all carried out at different times, some being very old. They also contain some overlaps where the same work appears in more than one list.
> 
> What I did was to create three broad categories of composition:
> 
> 1. Choral - this has two sub-categories comprising (1) opera and (2) all other choral works (Masses and Oratorios etc);
> 
> 2. Orchestral - this has 5 sub-categories comprising (1) symphony, (2) keyboard concerto, (3) string concerto, (4) wind concerto, (5) other orchestral works;
> 
> 3. Chamber - this has 7 sub-categories comprising (1) keyboard, (2) duo, (3) trio, (4) string quartet, (5) piano quartet) (6) piano quintet, (7) string quintet (nothing else is relevant for these two composers in the top 50 ranks).
> 
> Some of the original TC Recommended lists exceeded 50 works, but I only took the top 50 works in each category. In a small number of cases, the lists fell short of 50 works. I ensured that no work appeared twice. I then identified the works by each of Beethoven and Mozart in each of the sub-categories. Each category was given equal weight within its main group, e.g. a piano solo piece was treated as having the same value as any other item like a string quartet etc. I noted the rankings of each work from 1 to 50.
> 
> The next stage was to set up a weighting system to allow greater weight to higher placed works, as seems proper. Starting with 100 points for the No 1 position, I used a 5% decline rate so that No 2 was 95, No 3 was 90, etc all the way down to rank 50. The weights decline geometrically. I fully accept that this 5% decline rate is arbitrary but something had to be used to give credibility to the results.
> 
> The final stage was to obtain a combined weighted average score across all three broad categories of choral, orchestral, chamber. Again, the weights are arbitrary, but I chose two main possibilities: The first set was choral (33%), orchestral (33%), chamber (33%). The second set was choral (20%), orchestral (40%), chamber (40%).
> 
> The results are:
> 
> First set of weights:
> 
> Mozart
> 
> choral 163
> orchestral 413
> chamber 265
> *total 842*
> 
> Beethoven
> 
> choral 29
> orchestral 243
> chamber 440
> *total 713*
> 
> Second set of weights
> 
> Mozart
> 
> choral 98
> orchestral 496
> chamber 318
> *total 912*
> 
> Beethoven
> 
> choral 18
> orchestral 292
> chamber 527
> *total 837*


Thanks for all the valuable work you have done.
It is clear that Mozart fares better across all genres but chamber. 
Bearing in mind these figures though - why do you think in the poll of top 10 great composers - 51 put Beethoven at no 1 and only 27 had Mozart in the top spot?
Could there be an reality to my view that many who put Beethoven at no 1 feel that Beethoven's symphonies basically trump all of Mozart's masterpieces? Such people may like more of Mozart's music - but the symphonies are thought to be the supreme compositional achievement.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> Thanks for all the valuable work you have done.
> It is clear that Mozart fares better across all genres but chamber.
> Bearing in mind these figures though - why do you think in the poll of top 10 great composers - 51 put Beethoven at no 1 and only 27 had Mozart in the top spot?
> Could there be an reality to my view that many who put Beethoven at no 1 feel that Beethoven's symphonies basically trump all of Mozart's masterpieces? Such people may like more of Mozart's music - but the symphonies are thought to be the supreme compositional achievement.


I don't really know and am only guessing but I think that it more likely has something to do with weights I used for each group as a whole not being quite right, rather than any individual component (e.g. symphony) within a group being way out.

If the weight for choral music is reduced to 10%, and the other two groups each have 45%, the overall advantage of Mozart over Beethoven is still thre but is reduced by about half. If chamber music is nudged up to 50% and orchestral music reduced to 40% this produces a small advantage for Beethoven over Mozart.

To get a result for Bethoven that is more consistent with the composer polls, a more drastic adjustent seems to be required. It would require the weight of chamber music to be further increased to 55% and that for orchestral music reduced to 35%. Whether this amount of fiddling is reasonable I do not know, but it does seem rather a lot. It's possible that within the orchestral group a shift in favour of symphonies from concertos might achieve a further small gain, but I haven't worked out the amount.

Basicaly, I'm left somewhat mystified. The fact remains that, looked at in the light of the preference statistics alone for all the works, Mozart's performance is very creditable across all fronts, and is especially good in both choral and orchestral music. In theory he ought to be much closer to Beethoven in the composer polls, if not actually higher.


----------



## Luchesi

"In theory he ought to be much closer to Beethoven in the composer polls, if not actually higher."

There are works by Beethoven which thrill most listeners, the Waldstein, the Appassionata, the Ninth, Moonlight Sonata especially the third movement, the Emperor Concerto, on and on and on.

How does Mozart compare with this thrill factor from LvB? 

What's endlessly thrilling from those two? what's memorable and impressive for those moods.. Of course I'm above all that! lol


----------



## Woodduck

My initial reaction is that the foregoing statistical orgy is left-brained madness, and I don't see what it's supposed to accomplish.

But, for the moment, I'll assume there's something to be learned by this exercise and ask: What is being measured here? Is it people's liking for the music? Is it their estimate of its artistic merit? Is it how "important" they think the music is? Is it what they think a composer's "reputation" is - i.e., what they think everyone else thinks?

What is the question(s) to which these statistics purport to be an answer? Consulting this thread, Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists , I find only this: "The project philosophy is summarized below: The TalkClassical members with a wide variety of interests and experiences can reach a consensus on the top works from a variety of musical forms."

"Top works" might imply any of the criteria I've mentioned. Given the variety of reasons people might have for choosing a work as "top," the degrees of "greatness" a work may be thought to exhibit, and the range of intensity with which people respond to certain works, it seems perfectly reasonable that one composer may have more "top works" to his credit than another, yet not be chosen as a greater composer or a greater favorite. Example: I find, like most people, that Mozart is a better, and much more important, composer of opera than Beethoven, and I would recommend his operas to anyone as important in the repertoire and in the history of music. But Mozart's operas generally leave me cool, while I love _Fidelio_. Who, for me, "wins" in the opera category? That depends on what's being asked.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> My initial reaction is that the foregoing statistical orgy is left-brained madness, and I don't see what it's supposed to accomplish.
> 
> But, for the moment, I'll assume there's something to be learned by this exercise and ask: What is being measured here? Is it people's liking for the music? Is it their estimate of its artistic merit? Is it how "important" they think the music is? Is it what they think a composer's "reputation" is - i.e., what they think everyone else thinks?
> 
> What is the question(s) to which these statistics purport to be an answer? Consulting this thread, Compilation of the TC Top Recommended Lists , I find only this: "The project philosophy is summarized below: The TalkClassical members with a wide variety of interests and experiences can reach a consensus on the top works from a variety of musical forms."
> 
> "Top works" might imply any of the criteria I've mentioned. Given the variety of reasons people might have for choosing a work as "top," the degrees of "greatness" a work may be thought to exhibit, and the range of intensity with which people respond to certain works,* it seems perfectly reasonable that one composer may have more "top works" to his credit than another, yet not be chosen as a greater composer or a greater favorite.* Example: I find, like most people, that Mozart is a better, and much more important, composer of opera than Beethoven, and I would recommend his operas to anyone as important in the repertoire and in the history of music. But Mozart's operas generally leave me cool, while I love _Fidelio_. Who, for me, "wins" in the opera category? That depends on what's being asked.


No Wooduck - despite your example which as you admit could work for or against depending on what it is perceived is being asked - it is not "perfectly"reasonable to listen to more Mozart and vote Beethoven above. Certainly not by a margin of 51 to 27. But we see the same with Bach - who regularly is voted higher than Mozart in the polls - I suspect on Genoveva's weighting system he would be well behind on number of top works. Clearly people are employing criteria to make their choices on greatest composer polls that I am not aware of.

if Mozart has more top works, by consensus - he should be No 1.


----------



## Genoveva

edited post see below


----------



## Kieran

Luchesi said:


> "In theory he ought to be much closer to Beethoven in the composer polls, if not actually higher."
> 
> There are works by Beethoven which thrill most listeners, the Waldstein, the Appassionata, the Ninth, Moonlight Sonata especially the third movement, the Emperor Concerto, on and on and on.
> 
> How does Mozart compare with this thrill factor from LvB?


I was listening to Idomeneo last night. You could start there, and stay there too, but you don't have to...


----------



## Genoveva

Further to my post # 305 and some comments made since, I tried to make what I wrote as simple as possible mathematically, but obviously I did not want to dumb it down too far, given that the subject matter involves looking at some historical polls and interpreting the statistics pertaining thereto. I must admit I had not reckoned on the odd mathematically challenged member trying to make sense of it, and clearly getting into difficulties from the opening sentence. On second thoughts, maybe I should have been more aware of the likelihood of such criticism coming from some quarters, no matter what I had written on this subject.

What I have done is very simple in principle. It looks at the various TC _Recommended Lists_ to see what light they may shed on the overall preferences of the members of this Forum in respect of the works of Mozart and Beethoven. There is nothing remarkable about looking at polls, and is exactly the sort of thing that people who get involved in forum polls do after the results are given out. The only difference is that I have been looking at the totality of poll results across all the relevant polls on works covering the entire range of music that is relevant to the matter in hand, with a view to seeing what they say about Forum members' preferences relating to these two composers.

As I explained, I undertook this exercise because there seemed to me to be an inconclusive and merely verbal discussion taking place on the current thread "_Haydn: A Muscular Mozart_" thread on exactly this issue. It involved a very simple comparison of certain works by Mozart and Beethoven to see which of the two composers seem to stand out the most in popularity ratings amongst members of this Forum. It was all pretty rough and ready analysis, and the assertions by one side were disputed by the other. It should, therefore, have been obvious what the purpose of this investigation has been, and if anyone claims not to understand its purpose it leaves me wondering whether they may possibly have a comprehension difficulty, or mental blockage problem of some sort, when it comes to anything involving statistics. Alternatively, of course, it could be that they simply do not like results thrown up, which would not surprise me, and they will lob anything they can in order to try to discredit it.

I did not approach this task with any hard and fast preconceived views. I would not have been surprised if the results had been slightly in Beethoven's favour given that Beethoven has tended to come out ahead of Mozart in the various composer polls that have taken place on this Forum over the past 9 years. On the other hand, Mozart's operas are very popular as too are several of his orchestral works, so I would not have been surprised if things had turned to be somewhat closer.

For the attention of any astute poll-watchers who may be reading this, I have now slightly simplified the analysis to base it solely on the polls that were specific to each category of music. This only affect the chamber music section that now cover the four exhaustive categories: solo keyboard, duos, string chamber, piano chamber. Previously there were seven categories. [As some members may be aware, some of the polls involved duplicate works that were common to more than one poll. Dealing with this problem involved a complication that is now avoided by taking only the mutually exclusive polls].

The results have changed somewhat because of these amendments, but not by a large amount. Mozart still comes out slightly ahead of Beethoven overall if equal weighting is given to each of choral, orchestral, chamber music. If the weight given to choral music is reduced for 33% to 25%, and the remaing 75% spread equally between orchestral and chamber,there is a very small advantage the other way round, but it is not significant. Only if choral music is removed altogether from the comparison does Beethoven's lead over become more compelling. Even then, a lot depends on how rapidly the preference weights decline as one goes down the lists. The less rapidly the weights decline (so that works further down the lists do not lose appeal all that quickly compared with those above) the more likely it is that the advantage remains slightly with Mozart overall. This is because Mozart has more works listed in some categories but they tend to spread out more evenly in the ranks.

My broad conclusion remains that the apparent greater popularity of Beethoven over Mozart according to the composer polls is bigger than seems to be justified by looking at the poll ratings relating to their works across the entire range, as reflected in the various TC _Recommended Lists_ that are based on members' voting in the past.


----------



## Genoveva

Luchesi said:


> "In theory he ought to be much closer to Beethoven in the composer polls, if not actually higher."
> 
> There are works by Beethoven which thrill most listeners, the Waldstein, the Appassionata, the Ninth, Moonlight Sonata especially the third movement, the Emperor Concerto, on and on and on.
> 
> How does Mozart compare with this thrill factor from LvB?
> 
> What's endlessly thrilling from those two? what's memorable and impressive for those moods.. Of course I'm above all that! lol


I don't see how you can possibly consider your comment to be even remotely relevant to anything I wrote about.

The statistics I was discussing did not purport to measure solely the "thrill" factor in Beethoven's music compared with Mozart's. I was discussing the whole range of works by each composer. The "thrill" factor is but one of many possible reactions that most listeners will experience when listening to classical music. They don't always want to be "thrilled". In fact some people are put off Beethoven (if not initially but after a while) mainly because of what they perceive to be its often relentless forward-moving rythmic drive.

I like Beethoven a lot but it's often very nice to sample the oft-slower and more elegant music offered by Mozart, of which I know none that's any better.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> How does Mozart compare with this thrill factor from LvB?


Some personal favorites. Szell knew how to bring out the thrill factor.


----------



## Luchesi

Genoveva said:


> I don't see how you can possibly consider your comment to be even remotely relevant to anything I wrote about.
> 
> The statistics I was discussing did not purport to measure solely the "thrill" factor in Beethoven's music compared with Mozart's. I was discussing the whole range of works by each composer. The "thrill" factor is but one of many possible reactions that most listeners will experience when listening to classical music. They don't always want to be "thrilled". In fact some people are put off Beethoven (if not initially but after a while) mainly because of what they perceive to be its often relentless forward-moving rythmic drive.
> 
> I like Beethoven a lot but it's often very nice to sample the oft-slower and more elegant music offered by Mozart, of which I know none that's any better.


"In theory he ought to be much closer to Beethoven in the composer polls, if not actually higher."

According to how I suspect people respond to polls, they're biased towards the memorable and thrilling pieces (the warhorses that they know?).

Not you or I.

And not many people in this thread. But the larger the poll the more you'll see this effect, I think. And the sad thing is, this is one of the reasons for the superficial views which we've all heard about. Because if you're only very familiar with five or 10 famous works by each of the greats - this seems to be self-defeating (for the reason you've shared above).

Don't mind me, I like to amateurishly analyze music listeners. So few of my friends have kept up their explorations in music. We all were passionate about ranking bodies of works in our teens and 20s, but only my fellow musicians in our ensemble seem to remember those days...

And then beyond that, it's very sad to see the young people of today living very different lives. Do they know what they're missing - and what they will be missing in the decades to come...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> "In theory he ought to be much closer to Beethoven in the composer polls, if not actually higher."
> 
> According to how I suspect people respond to polls, they're biased towards the memorable and thrilling pieces (the warhorses that they know?).
> 
> Not you or I.
> 
> And not many people in this thread. But the larger the poll the more you'll see this effect, I think. And the sad thing is, this is one of the reasons for the superficial views which we've all heard about. Because if you're only very familiar with five or 10 famous works by each of the greats - this seems to be self-defeating (for the reason you've shared above).
> 
> Don't mind me, I like to amateurishly analyze music listeners. So few of my friends have kept up their explorations in music. We all were passionate about ranking bodies of works in our teens and 20s, but only my fellow musicians in our ensemble seem to remember those days...
> 
> And then beyond that, it's very sad to see the young people of today living very different lives. Do they know what they're missing - and what they will be missing in the decades to come...


Perhaps there are two sets them

set A - only vote in top 10 composers polls and of those, a higher number find more Beethoven pieces memorable than Mozart.

set B - only vote in favourite pieces polls and among these more recall famous Mozart pieces.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Perhaps there are two sets them
> 
> set A - only vote in top 10 composers polls and of those, a higher number find more Beethoven pieces memorable than Mozart.
> 
> set B - only vote in favourite pieces polls and among these more recall famous Mozart pieces.


Yes, that would ring true for most of the people I know.

Using the concept of artistically constrained ambiguity it's said to be Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, according to the way I've learned it. This approach indirectly assesses the use of increasing dissonance, music/aesthetic development and innovation/originality.

The catch is, they all 3 inherited elements of music of different levels of sophistication, so if you adjust for that reality, it's probably Mozart, Bach, Beethoven. What do you think?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Yes, that would ring true for most of the people I know.
> 
> Using the concept of artistically constrained ambiguity it's said to be Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, according to the way I've learned it. This approach indirectly assesses the use of increasing dissonance, music/aesthetic development and innovation/originality.
> 
> The catch is, they all 3 inherited elements of music of different levels of sophistication, so if you adjust for that reality, it's probably Mozart, Bach, Beethoven. What do you think?


depends what you mean by sophistication

bach's solo violin partitas are sophisticated on the highest level.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> Perhaps there are two sets them
> 
> set A - only vote in top 10 composers polls and of those, a higher number find more Beethoven pieces memorable than Mozart.
> 
> set B - only vote in favourite pieces polls and among these more recall famous Mozart pieces.



The composer polls were all based on simple selections of members' favourite composers. The people who voted in them did not need to make any justification for their choices, nor give any account of themselves in terms of their familiarity with classical music, level of knowledge or experience. Some people discussed their choices but the majority tended simply to list them with little or no comment.

The polls based on favourite works were, as far as I recall from memory, based on opinions of members who appeared to have a more proven knowledge of classical music. The results of the polls were mainly based on successive voting rounds that required selections to be made using an iterative procedure of various kinds. It wasn't exactly clear how people were basing their choices but a reasonable level of knowledge of, and familiarity with, the options was pre-supposed.

If all the people who voted in the works polls also voted in the composer polls then it seems likely that there must have been some extra people who voted only in the composer polls who had somewhat different tastes concerning Mozart and Beethoven. Otherwise, if the people who voted in both sets of polls were the same then it would be very difficult to explain how they voted for Mozart in terms of the number of preferred works and Beethoven as their favourite composer.

The only explanation for this apparent oddity might be if there were any highly unusually high weightings given to some of Beethoven's works (e.g. some people being over awed by say Symphony No 9, and giving it an extremely high weight), or possibly some unusually low weightings given to any of Mozart's masterworks (e.g. people not liking opera or other choral works in general to any great extent but nevertheless acknowledging their greatness). These matters can only be a matter of speculation, but my own opinion is that I doubt that there is all that much force in such arguments.

In view of the above, it's a reasonable guess that the favourite works polls seem to be more reliably based than that the composer polls in terms of knowledge levels. Such exceptional scenarios as mentioned in the previous paragraph aside, from the polls discussed it seems likely that Mozart was rated at least as highly as Beethoven, if not slightly more so, by those past and present members of this Forum who seemed to have a more proven good knowledge of classical music and the inclination to participate in polls.


----------



## Luchesi

I think it's explained now..

To the average music listener, who composed the most memorable works?

But if they're familiar with many works, they lean towards the prolific Mozart (who wasn't merely prolific).


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> depends what you mean by sophistication
> 
> bach's solo violin partitas are sophisticated on the highest level.


Where did JsB get the spark for such sophistication?


----------



## Genoveva

Luchesi said:


> I think it's explained now..
> 
> To the average music listener, who composed the most memorable works?
> 
> But if they're familiar with many works, they lean towards the prolific Mozart (who wasn't merely prolific).


A very neat summary of what the statistics seem to be saying, if I may say so.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Where did JsB get the spark for such sophistication?


We have been told Bach got it from God - where as Mozart got it from the Angels.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> We have been told Bach got it from God - where as Mozart got it from the Angels.


Then where did Beethoven get it?


----------



## Kieran

KenOC said:


> Then where did Beethoven get it?


The crossroads at dawn... :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Then where did Beethoven get it?


From the Devil, of course. That must be why I like him.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> I think it's explained now..
> 
> To the average music listener, who composed the most memorable works?
> 
> But if they're familiar with many works, they lean towards the prolific Mozart (who wasn't merely prolific).


Does that mean "the most works that are memorable" or "the works that are most memorable"? I would answer "Mozart" in the first case, and "Beethoven" in the second.


----------



## Luchesi

Kieran said:


> The crossroads at dawn... :lol:


Yes, that story!

"There is no more mythological person in the history of modern music than Robert Johnson. The legendary story of his going to the "crossroads" and selling his soul to the devil for musical talent is well known."

http://www.death2ur.com/Delta-Blues-Legends.htm


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Does that mean "the most works that are memorable" or "the works that are most memorable"? I would answer "Mozart" in the first case, and "Beethoven" in the second.


'Token' perceptions sway people when they're asked to rank composers in a poll.


----------



## Genoveva

Luchesi said:


> Yes, that story!
> 
> "There is no more mythological person in the history of modern music than Robert Johnson. The legendary story of his going to the "crossroads" and selling his soul to the devil for musical talent is well known."
> 
> http://www.death2ur.com/Delta-Blues-Legends.htm


This subject of Robert Johnson came up in another thread recently in the non-classical section:

https://www.talkclassical.com/45240-classical-composer-musicians-did-2.html?highlight=#post1407586

I'm a fan of Robert Johnson and made a comment in that thread at post # 27, but it was disputed that he was the artist who sold his soul to the devil at the crossroads.


----------



## Luchesi

Genoveva said:


> This subject of Robert Johnson came up in another thread recently in the non-classical section:
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/45240-classical-composer-musicians-did-2.html?highlight=#post1407586
> 
> I'm a fan of Robert Johnson and made a comment in that thread at post # 27, but it was disputed that he was the artist who sold his soul to the devil at the crossroads.


One of the mysteries of music for me has been how we get into that zone where everything becomes effortless and you're appreciating the sounds without thinking about the technicals? I wonder about it most every day and people ask me about it when they're learning an instrument. After 10,000 hours of repeating and repeating the working interface you have with the concepts of the pieces you're playing, it just becomes 'natural' (like talking and walking and driving a car). Really? I can't convince every new student about this. Do they need to learn progressions and pleasing-sounding intervals and strict fingering? The teacher's there to observe and determine what your musical foundation was from your earliest years, and then you go from there. I had one student who seemed to have entered into a contract with a beelzebub. His mother had no idea of how well he played for his age. "He had always played like that." I very quickly got him to a professor I knew at the university downtown.

"... author Malcolm Gladwell says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. How does Gladwell arrive at this conclusion? And, if the conclusion is true, how can we leverage this idea to achieve greatness in our professions?

Gladwell studied the lives of extremely successful people to find out how they achieved success. This article will review a few examples from Gladwell's research, and conclude with some thoughts for moving forward.

Violins in Berlin

In the early 1990s, a team of psychologists in Berlin, Germany studied violin students. Specifically, they studied their practice habits in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. All of the subjects were asked this question: "Over the course of your entire career, ever since you first picked up the violin, how many hours have you practiced?"

All of the violinists had begun playing at roughly five years of age with similar practice times. However, at age eight, practice times began to diverge. By age twenty, the elite performers averaged more than 10,000 hours of practice each, while the less able performers had only 4,000 hours of practice."


----------



## Beet131

This is also a difficult poll. I do believe Beethoven is elevated to a higher position than Mozart based on symphonies, concertos, chamber music, piano sonatas and a few other select works. As wonderful as Mozart's "Great" and "Jupiter" symphonies are, they are surpassed by Beethoven's mighty Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth symphonies for their sheer revolutionary impact and incomparable mix of intellectual and emotional qualities. I just love Mozart's 21st and 23rd piano concertos, but once again, Beethoven's Emperor Concerto eclipses both of those and opens a pathway for Schumann, Brahms, Grieg and Tchaikovsky. Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante and his five violin concertos are just about perfect, but Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D Major is perfect. If I were to pinpoint one area of the Beethoven concertos in particular that distinguishes itself from Mozart, it would be in the slow movements, specifically the Adagio in Beethoven's Emperor Piano Concerto, the Largo in Beethoven's Third Piano Concerto and the Larghetto in Beethoven's Violin Concerto. As beautifully sublime as Mozart's Andante from Piano Concerto No. 21 is, Beethoven delivers an ethereal and transcendent quality that is almost indescribably sacred. In terms of chamber music, Beethoven truly has no equal. The Late Quartets and Razumovsky's of Beethoven are indeed peerless. Beethoven's C Sharp minor String Quartet and the Grosse Fuge blazed new trails in chamber music that only Bartok would later rival. Beethoven's piano sonatas are the pinnacle of piano music. Mozart outshines Beethoven in just one area for me, and that is in choral music. I treasure Mozart's Requiem, Ave Verum Corpus and operas. I do not treasure any of Beethoven's choral music, although his Missa Solemnis is great. In the end, Beethoven ascends to a level above and beyond all others. Still, I love them both.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> One of the mysteries of music for me has been how we get into that zone where everything becomes effortless and you're appreciating the sounds without thinking about the technicals? I wonder about it most every day and people ask me about it when they are learning an instrument. After 10,000 hours of repeating and repeating the working interface you have with the concepts of the pieces you're playing, it just becomes 'natural' (like talking and walking and driving a car). Really? I can't convince every new student about this. Do they need to learn progressions and pleasing-sounding intervals and strict fingering? The teacher's there to observe and determine what your musical foundation was from your earliest years, and then you go from there. I had one student who seemed to have entered into a contract with a beelzebub. His mother had no idea of how well he played for his age. "He had always played like that." I very quickly got him to a professor I knew at the university downtown.
> 
> "... author Malcolm Gladwell says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field. How does Gladwell arrive at this conclusion? And, if the conclusion is true, how can we leverage this idea to achieve greatness in our professions?
> 
> Gladwell studied the lives of extremely successful people to find out how they achieved success. This article will review a few examples from Gladwell's research, and conclude with some thoughts for moving forward.
> 
> Violins in Berlin
> 
> In the early 1990s, a team of psychologists in Berlin, Germany studied violin students. Specifically, they studied their practice habits in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. All of the subjects were asked this question: "Over the course of your entire career, ever since you first picked up the violin, how many hours have you practiced?"
> 
> All of the violinists had begun playing at roughly five years of age with similar practice times. However, at age eight, practice times began to diverge. By age twenty, the elite performers averaged more than 10,000 hours of practice each, while the less able performers had only 4,000 hours of practice."


It may well take 10,000 hours to achieve mastery - but it takes 4-6 hours practice per day to maintain that standard from what I know and understand. 
I dont think it ever becomes effortless - though for a soloist it is necessary that it must appear as if it is effortless.


----------



## Genoveva

Luchesi said:


> One of the mysteries of music for me has been how we get into that zone where everything becomes effortless and you're appreciating the sounds without thinking about the technicals?


Did you mean to post this in answer to me, only I can't see what its relevance is to anything in my post. I was simply pointing out that the story about Robert Johnson (delta blues) selling his soul to the devil was disputed by another member in the thread to which I referred.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> Did you mean to post this in answer to me, only I can't see what its relevance is to anything in my post. I was simply pointing out that the story about Robert Johnson (delta blues) selling his soul to the devil was disputed by another member in the thread to which I referred.


He might have thought his musings might be more likely to attract some interest if readers saw your name in the quote bubble.

Take it as a compliment.


----------



## Luchesi

Genoveva said:


> Did you mean to post this in answer to me, only I can't see what its relevance is to anything in my post. I was simply pointing out that the story about Robert Johnson (delta blues) selling his soul to the devil was disputed by another member in the thread to which I referred.


As I understand it, as a guitarist being not very good or accomplished -- and then he came back a short time later and his performing was effortless and spontaneous. I think it's just long hours and plugging away more than anything else.

Being in the zone is what many of our audience members want to know about in our talk backs after our recitals (especially if they're put off by discussions of music theory).


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> It may well take 10,000 hours to achieve mastery - but it takes 4-6 hours practice per day to maintain that standard from what I know and understand.
> I dont think it ever becomes effortless - though for a soloist it is necessary that it must appear as if it is effortless.


I can imagine Beethoven and Chopin and maybe Brahms plugging away 4-6 hours at their composing during most days, but Mozart? I don't see it that way, but maybe we've been misled.

The impression I get is Schubert didn't struggle like the 3 above, he enjoyed every moment of it.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Well, I reach for my Mozart CDs much more than Beethoven's. No contest.

I reach for my Haydn CDs much more than Mozart's.

So among these three "classicists", I consider Haydn, the greatest composer, followed by Mozart, with Beethoven in last place.


----------



## Luchesi

hpowders said:


> OP: Well, I reach for my Mozart CDs much more than Beethoven's. No contest.
> 
> I reach for my Haydn CDs much more than Mozart's.
> 
> So among these three "classicists", I consider Haydn, the greatest composer, followed by Mozart, with Beethoven in last place.


How long have you felt this way?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> How long have you felt this way?


Well doctor, how shall I begin ...


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Well doctor, how shall I begin ...


I was thinking that I could write 4 posts with each one (JsB, Haydn, Mozart, LvB) at the top of my ranking. Couldn't you?

Probably not Handel, probably not Schubert..


----------



## Aloevera

Luchesi said:


> One of the mysteries of music for me has been how we get into that zone where everything becomes effortless and you're appreciating the sounds without thinking about the technicals? I wonder about it most every day and people ask me about it when they're learning an instrument. After 10,000 hours of repeating and repeating the working interface you have with the concepts of the pieces you're playing, it just becomes 'natural' (like talking and walking and driving a car). Really? I can't convince every new student about this. Do they need to learn progressions and pleasing-sounding intervals and strict fingering? The teacher's there to observe and determine what your musical foundation was from your earliest years, and then you go from there. I had one student who seemed to have entered into a contract with a beelzebub. His mother had no idea of how well he played for his age. "He had always played like that." I very quickly got him to a professor I knew at the university downtown.


 I think it is most definitely a musician's high and a very powerful one at that which I think most musicians seek. Somehow it turns a scramble of notes into everything being perfectly placed as you synchronize yourself to the grand universal spectrum of things The unfortunate part is that it can leave the musician whenever so its important to have a solid foundation in its absence. Perhaps this is why a musician's life is a bit self destructive


----------



## poconoron

One thing we should all remember: Beethoven was known to have studied a number of Mozart's works, such as string quartet K464, the Magic Flute, piano concertos K466 and K491 and a number of other pieces. Mozart _did not_ have the benefit of studying any of Beethoven's works. Big advantage for Beethoven in this regard................


----------



## Bulldog

poconoron said:


> One thing we should all remember: Beethoven was known to have studied a number of Mozart's works, such as string quartet K464, the Magic Flute, piano concertos K466 and K491 and a number of other pieces. Mozart _did not_ have the benefit of studying any of Beethoven's works. Big advantage for Beethoven in this regard................


Neither did Bach or any other composers prior to Beethoven. I don't see this fact as being significant.


----------



## KenOC

poconoron said:


> One thing we should all remember: Beethoven was known to have studied a number of Mozart's works, such as string quartet K464, the Magic Flute, piano concertos K466 and K491 and a number of other pieces. Mozart _did not_ have the benefit of studying any of Beethoven's works. Big advantage for Beethoven in this regard................


This reminds me of a supposedly true composer story. Rameau was criticized for not studying the works of the old masters. He replied, "Why should I? After all, they didn't study mine."


----------



## poconoron

Bulldog said:


> Neither did Bach or any other composers prior to Beethoven. I don't see this fact as being significant.


So let me get this straight: You don't think that Mozart and Beethoven benefited at all by having the works of JS Bach to study and learn from?


----------



## Bulldog

poconoron said:


> So let me get this straight: You don't think that Mozart and Beethoven benefited at all by having the works of JS Bach to study and learn from?


All composers benefit from having the works of earlier composers to learn from.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Did that work at all for Yoko Ono ?


----------



## poconoron

Bulldog said:


> All composers benefit from having the works of earlier composers to learn from.


Including Beethoven learning from Mozart.................right????


----------



## KenOC

poconoron said:


> Including Beethoven learning from Mozart.................right????


I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. Beethoven studied Mozart's works assiduously and used some of them as direct inspirations, particularly in his early career as a professional composer. Throughout his entire life, the three composers he venerated above all others were Handel, Mozart, and Bach.


----------



## Bulldog

poconoron said:


> Including Beethoven learning from Mozart.................right????


You keep putting a special emphasis on Beethoven learning from Mozart's music. That's where you and I part ways.


----------



## Larkenfield

poconoron said:


> One thing we should all remember: Beethoven was known to have studied a number of Mozart's works, such as string quartet K464, the Magic Flute, piano concertos K466 and K491 and a number of other pieces. Mozart _did not_ have the benefit of studying any of Beethoven's works. Big advantage for Beethoven in this regard................


That's true, but it's also true that Mozart worked hard by studying the scores that he collected, undoubtedly with Leopold's help, including throughout his life Bach (including his sons), Handel and Haydn, and others who were contemporaries. He used to have Haydn's fugues sent to him, and I'm sure he had heard Salieri. I believed he worked so diligently hard at his studies, which he was known to talk about, that actually writing his music was relatively easy by comparison, as he could be prolifically productive with apparently no loss of quality in his work, especially late in his all-too-short life. It looks to me that he was in an upward spiral in his genius and mastery.

Had Mozart lived further into Beethoven's lifetime, I believe he would have looked at Beethoven's scores too, not because he needed to but simply because he was interested in the new and Beethoven's exceptional development, though one can only speculate now. Other than appreciating the positives of both composers, rather than pitting one against the others, I would declare it a tie or a stalemate like in chess. Beethoven when young tried to meet Mozart but was evidently unsuccessful. But that didn't prevent him from repeatedly studying Mozart's scores throughout his lifetime. I would also speculate that Beethoven wouldn't have denigrated Mozart like with some of the negative comments in this thread. It's the same with pitting Haydn and Mozart against each other when they were friends and had nothing to say but complimentary things about the other. But then, who's willing to look through the eyes of Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven to see their contemporaries as they might have done?


----------



## Star

poconoron said:


> So let me get this straight: You don't think that Mozart and Beethoven benefited at all by having the works of JS Bach to study and learn from?


When Mozart first came across the works at JSB he said, 'Here is something everyone can learn from'


----------



## Star

It is unbelievable to me that some people try and denigrate Mozart, probably the greatest musical genius you ever lived. Mozart and Beethoven both occupied different times in a rapidly changing world. Of course Beethoven was the greater and more obvious revolutionary, in that he expanded the symphonic and keyboard form beyond recognition. But we must remember that Mozart wrote the most sublime set of piano concertos ever written, and most of the later ones are revolutionary in their way. The last three symphonies are indeed revolutionary in their form. And what about the operas? In Figaro Mozart produced an opera something like that never been seen before and he followed that up with three absolute blinding masterpieces, the like of which has never been equalled. Mozart was the complete master of just about every musical form, which Beethoven certainly wasn't - not as far as opera is concerned. Fidelio lives because of the genius of the music not because of its operatic form. 
In saying this I do not want in any way to put Beethoven down because I believe he was a towering genius too but in a different way. Just that the two were very different and I don't think you can compare them. Along with a certain JS Bach they top the tree of great composers.


----------



## Aloevera

Bulldog said:


> You keep putting a special emphasis on Beethoven learning from Mozart's music. That's where you and I part ways.


 It seems each era adds a significantly new dimension of musicality which the following generation is either conscious of or takes for granted. Even if Beethoven did not specifically say his primary inspiration was from Mozart even though he was significantly inspired, it would be impossible for him to escape the musical world without his influence. Beethoven is very much an evolution of the musical sound which Mozart had a lot to do in pioneering it. Even if we look at rock, the development of the sound happened quite rapidly and the standard of playing also developed rapidly. Mainly because it was just so easy to learn the songs and technique of the predecessors. We can look at music as timeless and out of history but I find it personally more interesting to listen in relation to the historical context.

Some people say that Mozart didn't really pioneer the genre and he was just reasserting the existing classical era, but I think his pioneering is much more subtle in that it is not exactly easy to point out how exactly he pioneered the genre compared to Beethoven. It's just an element that needs to be felt. It seems that he connected the humanity element to the divine which the enlightenment movement was seeking to do. In many ways he reached the end of the enlightmentment and forced Europe to reinvent itself.

As for which is the better composer, , playing a beethoven sonata next to a Mozart sonata it's obvious that the Beethoven sonata is much more evolved, but like I said its like the door of consciousness that Mozart developed had already been open for Beethoven growing up. His musical world while developing himself as a composer was a post mozart world so it's an unfair comparison.


----------



## Genoveva

It's interesting that Schubert was a contemporary of Beethoven, living in the same city, and yet managed to remain largely detached from Beethoven's influence, preferring instead to follow Mozart's musical footprint if anyone's. 

To me the most important aspect of any composer's music is how good it is, not how advanced it was in terms of pioneering effort, or how influential it may have been on later generations of composers. 

The reason why Mozart is so highly revered is because there was no other composer of his day and style that got anywhere close to achieving the same high quality in so many genres, save for Haydn in some areas but with rather less widespread popularity in the present day.

Beethoven changed the way several genres sounded but it doesn't necessarily mean that they sounded any better. Better or worse is a matter of personal opinion. I find Beethoven's music is great and very gratifying for short bursts, but I find Mozart's more pleasing to listen to for extended periods. That includes some of Mozart's piano sonatas, which generally sound less fussy and hard work to listen to compared with some of Beethoven. In any case I prefer Schubert's sonatas any day of the week.


----------



## tdc

^^Schubert worshipped Beethoven (pretty much literally) and you can definitely hear some influence there, particularly in the harmonic language of the late piano sonatas, and in some of the other late works. You could say that Schubert's over all compositional voice was less masculine or yang than Beethoven's and in that sense closer to Mozart, however to say that he was largely detached from Beethoven's influence I think is over stating things a little. There was definitely strong admiration and influence there. Schubert however was naturally gifted in different areas than Beethoven (melody and harmony more so than form or counterpoint), this accounts for much of the difference in sound. Schubert was smart enough to stick to his strengths rather than trying to "out Beethoven" Beethoven.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Most of the Mozart's music is based on stock "galant schemata" musical phrases. The child composer Alma Deutscher's output is a product of the same chord and melody patterns.

It is so funny that some people continue to compare him to someone that actually had individual style and influence over the music history.

https://www.amazon.com/Music-Galant-Style-Robert-Gjerdingen/dp/0195313712

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Partimento-History-Theory-Practice/dp/0195394208

https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-History-Western-Music-Theory/dp/0521686989 (see the sections on Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque (we can add here early Classical era) methodology in teaching and composing for more insights why most of the music sounds samey)


----------



## Enthusiast

BabyGiraffe said:


> It is so funny that some people continue to compare him to someone that actually had individual style and influence over the music history.


Clarinet Concerto
da Ponte operas
Jupiter Symphony

I could list hundreds. Both Haydn and Beethoven revered him.


----------



## Genoveva

tdc said:


> ^^Schubert worshipped Beethoven (pretty much literally) and you can definitely hear some influence there, particularly in the harmonic language of the late piano sonatas, and in some of the other late works. You could say that Schubert's over all compositional voice was less masculine or yang than Beethoven's and in that sense closer to Mozart, however to say that he was largely detached from Beethoven's influence I think is over stating things a little. There was definitely strong admiration and influence there. Schubert however was naturally gifted in different areas than Beethoven (melody and harmony more so than form or counterpoint), this accounts for much of the difference in sound. Schubert was smart enough to stick to his strengths rather than trying to "out Beethoven" Beethoven.


I don't doubt that Schubert idolised Beethoven, so much so that his dying wish was to be buried next to Beethoven.

Apart from paying general respect to Beethoven, my point was that Schubert's indebtedness to Beethoven was very limited insofar that he took up any of Beethoven's innovations or style . None of Schubert's many lieder bears any resemblance to either Beethoven or Mozart, so there cannot be any indebtedness there. Rather, Schubert revolutionised this genre completely.

The weight of academic opinion that I am familiar with is that Schubert's orchestral works were, if anything, far more closely tied to Mozartian principles than Beethoven's. This is the opinion of Charles Rosen, for example. Schubert's chamber works and piano solo works are almost unique in their style, but if anything sound far more like Mozart, being based on the flowing and expansive rather than driving forward all the time as with a lot of Beethoven's style.

That's probably because, unlike Beethoven, Schubert was not concerned with finding the ultimate musical expression of his thoughts, but simply let them issue forth in almost indiscriminate flowering of different forms and moods, from his very agile and creative musical mind. The only musical device that Schubert had no use for was counterpoint as his technique was so rich that he had no need for it.


----------



## Star

Aloevera said:


> It seems each era adds a significantly new dimension of musicality which the following generation is either conscious of or takes for granted. Even if Beethoven did not specifically say his primary inspiration was from Mozart even though he was significantly inspired, it would be impossible for him to escape the musical world without his influence. Beethoven is very much an evolution of the musical sound which Mozart had a lot to do in pioneering it. Even if we look at rock, the development of the sound happened quite rapidly and the standard of playing also developed rapidly. Mainly because it was just so easy to learn the songs and technique of the predecessors. We can look at music as timeless and out of history but I find it personally more interesting to listen in relation to the historical context.
> 
> Some people say that Mozart didn't really pioneer the genre and he was just reasserting the existing classical era, but I think his pioneering is much more subtle in that it is not exactly easy to point out how exactly he pioneered the genre compared to Beethoven. It's just an element that needs to be felt. It seems that he connected the humanity element to the divine which the enlightenment movement was seeking to do. In many ways he reached the end of the enlightmentment and forced Europe to reinvent itself.
> 
> As for which is the better composer, , *playing a beethoven sonata next to a Mozart sonata it's obvious that the Beethoven sonata is much more evolved,* but like I said its like the door of consciousness that Mozart developed had already been open for Beethoven growing up. His musical world while developing himself as a composer was a post mozart world so it's an unfair comparison.


But playing a Mozart piano concerto next to a Beethoven concerto it's obvious which is the more sublime. And opera? No question who was the master there. But as you say it is an unfair comparison


----------



## tdc

Genoveva said:


> I don't doubt that Schubert idolised Beethoven, so much so that his dying wish was to be buried next to Beethoven.
> 
> Apart from paying general respect to Beethoven, my point was that Schubert's indebtedness to Beethoven was very limited insofar that he took up any of Beethoven's innovations or style . None of Schubert's many lieder bears any resemblance to either Beethoven or Mozart, so there cannot be any indebtedness there. Rather, Schubert revolutionised this genre completely.
> 
> The weight of academic opinion that I am familiar with is that Schubert's orchestral works were, if anything, far more closely tied to Mozartian principles than Beethoven's. This is the opinion of Charles Rosen, for example. Schubert's chamber works and piano solo works are almost unique in their style, but if anything sound far more like Mozart, being based on the flowing and expansive rather than driving forward all the time as with a lot of Beethoven's style.
> 
> That's probably because, unlike Beethoven, Schubert was not concerned with finding the ultimate musical expression of his thoughts, but simply let them issue forth in almost indiscriminate flowering of different forms and moods, from his very agile and creative musical mind. The only musical device that Schubert had no use for was counterpoint as his technique was so rich that he had no need for it.


Yes, I still think the Schubert late piano sonatas sound closer to Beethoven than Mozart, however over all you do bring up some good points. Its got me thinking - the composers another composer most idolizes, don't necessarily end up being what they most sound like. The same I think is true for Beethoven who mostly idolized Handel, Mozart and J.S. Bach, but ended up sounding closer to Haydn I think (and then used that as a platform to create his own sound).

This line of thought has got me thinking that I'm not actually sure if composers in general have as much control over their own sound as one might think. :lol: I certainly think they do have some but part of it is just in their nature.


----------



## Merl

But who would win a Mozart v Beethoven fist-fight? I'm going for Ludwig. He had the worst temper. Mozart may have had a couple of inches height advantage but his foppish demeanour would have held him back.


----------



## Enthusiast

Merl said:


> But who would win a Mozart v Beethoven fist-fight? I'm going for Ludwig. He had the worst temper. Mozart may have had a couple of inches height advantage but his foppish demeanour would have held him back.
> 
> View attachment 102464


It is all about the footwork: Mozart will win.


----------



## Star

tdc said:


> Yes, I still think the Schubert late piano sonatas sound closer to Beethoven than Mozart, however over all you do bring up some good points. Its got me thinking - the composers another composer most idolizes, don't necessarily end up being what they most sound like. The same I think is true for Beethoven who mostly idolized Handel, Mozart and J.S. Bach, but ended up sounding closer to Haydn I think (and then used that as a platform to create his own sound).
> 
> This line of thought has got me thinking that I'm not actually sure if composers in general have as much control over their own sound as one might think. :lol: I certainly think they do have some but part of it is just in their nature.


From his late works I reckon Schubert to be one of the greatest composers who ever lived. Sadly his career was cut short by his early death at the age of 31 but just wonder what he would've written it even he had lived to have been as old as Mozart. I would put Schubert next (potentially) after the big three but of course as a composer of song he had no equal.


----------



## Genoveva

Star said:


> From his late works I reckon Schubert to be one of the greatest composers who ever lived. Sadly his career was cut short by his early death at the age of 31 but just wonder what he would've written it even he had lived to have been as old as Mozart. I would put Schubert next (potentially) after the big three but of course as a composer of song he had no equal.


There has been much speculation on this Board and others on this very matter. I think it fair to say that there has been broad agreement that if "Little Mushroom" had lived as long as Wolfie, and continued to churn out mega-works at the same rate of knots as in his last year, there would be a different ranking on Mount Olympus, with Schubert being in a somewhat higher position, to say the least. I know who I'd put my money on.

Whether or not he might have "innovated" any more than he did is anybody's guess but he did decide late in life (close to the end in fact) to learn more about counterpoint than he had used or needed hitherto. Possibly, if he had lived long to incorporate some counterpoint into his works, I think it may may have taken to music to untold new heights. Along with Mozart, I think he is the most gifted of all the composers.


----------



## Genoveva

tdc said:


> Yes, I still think the Schubert late piano sonatas sound closer to Beethoven than Mozart, however over all you do bring up some good points. Its got me thinking - the composers another composer most idolizes, don't necessarily end up being what they most sound like. The same I think is true for Beethoven who mostly idolized Handel, Mozart and J.S. Bach, but ended up sounding closer to Haydn I think (and then used that as a platform to create his own sound).
> 
> This line of thought has got me thinking that I'm not actually sure if composers in general have as much control over their own sound as one might think. :lol: I certainly think they do have some but part of it is just in their nature.


I think it was Handel who Beethoven said he most admired. _"Go and learn from him (Handel) how to achieve vast effects with simple means"_ (Ludwig van Beethoven).

Beethoven must therefore have been impressed with Handel's ability to achieve a lot with simple ideas that were "milked" for all they're worth. We can see LvB picking up on this matter in the way he explored every avenue with multi variations in his motifs etc.

I think that if composers sounded like the ones they most admired they probably wouldn't be considered so great. It's the quality and uniqueness factor in each composer's work that determines their greatness. From where the great composers got those ideas is of lesser importance.


----------



## Kieran

Genoveva said:


> There has been much speculation on this Board and others on this very matter. I think it fair to say that there has been broad agreement that if "Little Mushroom" had lived as long as Wolfie, and continued to churn out mega-works at the same rate of knots as in his last year, there would be a different ranking on Mount Olympus, with Schubert being in a somewhat higher position, to say the least. I know who I'd put my money on.
> 
> Whether or not he might have "innovated" any more than he did is anybody's guess but he did decide late in life (close to the end in fact) to learn more about counterpoint than he had used or needed hitherto. Possibly, if he had lived long to incorporate some counterpoint into his works, I think it may may have taken to music to untold new heights. Along with Mozart, I think he is the most gifted of all the composers.


I think at age 31, Mozart was still the greater composer, but Schubert was such a strange, mercurial talent, who knows where he'd have gone? I tend to rate him just after Mozart and Bach in the pantheon, based upon his outrageous natural gifts. Sometimes his music sounds a little bloated to me, but that's obviously my problem, because his bloat (if it exists) is not in the same category of a lot of otter Romantic period composers who I tend to avoid...


----------



## Kieran

tdc said:


> Yes, I still think the Schubert late piano sonatas sound closer to Beethoven than Mozart


In revolutionary character and mood, definitely - but in the sense of how natural and unforced it all sounds, Schubert's last 3 piano sonatas sound Mozartian, if you know what I mean. There's a feeling to them, that they *just exist *without human tampering, tinkering or interference. I never really get that feeling from Beethoven, and that's not to insult Beethoven (as if!), because his genius was obviously different, but quite staggering......


----------



## Kieran

poconoron said:


> One thing we should all remember: Beethoven was known to have studied a number of Mozart's works, such as string quartet K464, the Magic Flute, piano concertos K466 and K491 and a number of other pieces. Mozart _did not_ have the benefit of studying any of Beethoven's works. Big advantage for Beethoven in this regard................


This is true, and it isn't only the more explicit influence of the likes of K464, K466, etc, the so many works that Beethoven studied, performed, took obvious pleasure and lead from, but also the more indirect influence, of leaving music at such an advanced stage when he died, that the piano concerto was now a fully fledged symphonic being, with piano accompaniment, it could almost be said, that the model Mozart developed was not only in place for Beethoven, but is still the same model today. Imagine the impact a composer like Mozart must have had on a world _before _Mozart. It couldn't help but inspire Beethoven, and challenge him, and instruct him..


----------



## Genoveva

Kieran said:


> I think at age 31, Mozart was still the greater composer, but Schubert was such a strange, mercurial talent, who knows where he'd have gone? I tend to rate him just after Mozart and Bach in the pantheon, based upon his outrageous natural gifts. Sometimes his music sounds a little bloated to me, but that's obviously my problem, because his bloat (if it exists) is not in the same category of a lot of otter Romantic period composers who I tend to avoid...


I think that poor Schubert wrote more music than he could possibly edit properly in the time available, and it's this which unfortunately gives some people the impression that he didn't know when to stop writing so that some of his works appear to be too long. The problem was no doubt exacerbated by his almost bohemian life style, general lack of commissions, and being primarily concerned to get the music in his head onto paper as soon as he could. He was much less concerned about meeting tight schedules for new work, or satisfying monetarily fat commissions for this or that work, as he didn't get that many. Personally, I take all this into account in assessing this utter genius of a composer, and it doesn't bother me at all.

As for Schubert's style in general, his early "absolute" music - masses, other sacred works, early chamber works etc - is quite clearly Classicist. However, his emphasis on lieder is also much more of a Romantic trait than a Classicist trait. Although Beethoven wrote a song cycle this is very much genre that more properly belong in the Romantic era. His chamber music harks more of the classical to me, but again it has a heavy unique Schubertian flavour all of its own.

Regards Schubert's orchestral music, as I said previously I think that he tended to base some of his orchestral music on the Mozartian mould much more so than on Beethoven. But that's not to say there was no influence from Beethoven. In this context, Schubert's piano sonata No 19 in C minor (D 958) is perhaps the closest in style to that of Beethoven from its very beginning, but it soon begins to fade into something more typically unique with regard to Schubert's style, i.e. expansiveness. It is as if he let go of rules altogether and just wrote down whatever came into his head, and somehow made a wonderful job of it without trying very hard.

The same kind of thing, expansiveness, occurs in the first movement of the "Unfinished Symphony" (D 759), and in the C major String Quintet (D 956). This was taken a stage further with sonata No 20 (D 959) in A major that sounds new and original to me in design. The textural and mood contrasts built into this sonata are quite astonishing, from its dramatic first movement and the incredibly sublime, surreal pathos of the second (slow) movement. The expansiveness trait is taken to a completely new level in the first movement of Sonata No 21 in b flat major (D 960). Further, his use of a "cyclical" technique in his fabulous Wanderer Fantasy in C (D 760) was probably a new one that owes nothing to either school, whether from Mozart or Beethoven.

Overall, it's therefore difficult to decide where in the spectrum of Classical to Romantic Schubert best fits. I'd tend to go for the Romantic but it's hardly a matter of any great importance either way.


----------



## Kieran

Thanks Genoveva, a great take on his writing and its effect. A law unto himself, it seems - and we're the beneficiaries!


----------



## poconoron

Bulldog said:


> You keep putting a special emphasis on Beethoven learning from Mozart's music. That's where you and I part ways.


That, my friend, is because this thread happens to be titled "Beethoven vs. Mozart".


----------



## Wendy88

I love Mozart and Beethoven the same, they are special in their own way


----------



## Kieran

Wendy88 said:


> I love Mozart and Beethoven the same, they are special in their own way


Exactly. It's actually possibe to like them both, strangely enough. 

Welcome to the forum, Wendy!


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> Yes, I still think the Schubert late piano sonatas sound closer to Beethoven than Mozart, however over all you do bring up some good points. Its got me thinking - the composers another composer most idolizes, don't necessarily end up being what they most sound like. The same I think is true for Beethoven who mostly idolized Handel, Mozart and J.S. Bach, but ended up sounding closer to Haydn I think (and then used that as a platform to create his own sound).
> 
> This line of thought has got me thinking that I'm not actually sure if composers in general have as much control over their own sound as one might think. :lol: I certainly think they do have some but part of it is just in their nature.


"Yes, I still think the Schubert late piano sonatas sound closer to Beethoven than Mozart,."

I wonder how much late Beethoven Schubert was familiar with.


----------



## Luchesi

Aloevera said:


> I think it is most definitely a musician's high and a very powerful one at that which I think most musicians seek. Somehow it turns a scramble of notes into everything being perfectly placed as you synchronize yourself to the grand universal spectrum of things The unfortunate part is that it can leave the musician whenever so its important to have a solid foundation in its absence. Perhaps this is why a musician's life is a bit self destructive


It's great fun to sit down and play quickly through 5 songs with tricky figurations and added chords (you won't even remember) as a warm up. You get a yen to play something serious, but you must warm up first. But surprisingly once you're done with the fooling around the set pieces are even more inspiring, because the contrast is so pronounced.


----------



## poconoron

Wendy88 said:


> I love Mozart and Beethoven the same, they are special in their own way


Absolutely true..........I feel pretty much the same way. The thing which, for me, nudges Mozart slightly ahead is the sublime operas which Beethoven does not match.


----------



## Wendy88

Thank you and you'r welcome, I am kinda of new to Classical music.


----------



## Kieran

Wendy88 said:


> Thank you and you'r welcome, I am kinda of new to Classical music.


Then you joined the right forum, it caters to everyone and there are many here who are new to the music, or unfamiliar with huge amounts of it, like me, and others who are very instructive and annoyingly knowledgeable


----------



## Captainnumber36

People keep saying Mozart reigned in the Opera department, but I LOVE Fidelio and think it's a fantastic work!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Wendy88 said:


> Thank you and you'r welcome, I am kinda of new to Classical music.


People are really nice and welcoming around here! Enjoy your stay, hope you learn a ton about your tastes and more!


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> People keep saying Mozart reigned in the Opera department, but I LOVE Fidelio and think it's a fantastic work!


So are you saying that Beethoven's operatic output reigns over Mozart's?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> So are you saying that Beethoven's operatic output reigns over Mozart's?


I think I prefer Fidelio to any Mozart Opera (but I do enjoy his works too).


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think I prefer Fidelio to any Mozart Opera (but I do enjoy his works too).


It's fair enough that you prefer it - but do you think that Beethoven reigns over Mozart in opera?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> It's fair enough that you prefer it - but do you think that Beethoven reigns over Mozart in opera?


Mozart wrote more...but the one by Beethoven is so strong...I may say I think he reigns in Opera. ***Ducks***


----------



## Blancrocher

There are limits, Captainnumber36!


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> Mozart wrote more...but the one by Beethoven is so strong...I may say I think he reigns in Opera. ****Ducks****


:lol: ***Hurls Giulini version of DG***

I mean, music is a subjective taste, there's no question about it. I'd prefer to listen to most of Mozart's piano sonatas ahead of any of Beethoven's - but i think Beethoven's piano sonatas are _the book _when it comes to solo piano works. With regards to opera, I'm listening a lot to Idomeneo lately and it's starting to feel to me that this thing may just be the greatest music ever written - even ahead of Mozart's other great mature operas. Its gripping me so much, it has so many ideas and themes and tunes and music flying around everywhere, all in perfect kilter, without losing balance, without even once flagging for an instant.

Next week, I may think it's great, but I'm back listening to Figaro, and I'm bigging that up. I don't think though there's much case can be made for Fidelio over all of Mozart's operatic output, and certainly not his mature work. Full disclosure: you're more familiar with Fidelio than I am, but still. I was looking around the forum earlier and read a remarkable and interesting thread ranking Wagner's top 10 operas. I'd love to be more familiar with them, but I got thinking again (as I often do ) about Mozart: sheesh, he wrote these seven mature operas in the space of only ten years - along with all the other things he wrote then - PCs, symphs, chamber stuff, etc. But the operas are really the thing he loved to compose and they're worth more of my listening time, I reckon...


----------



## Captainnumber36

I also really love Debussy's Opera: Pelléas et Mélisande


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I also really love Debussy's Opera: Pelléas et Mélisande


Have a listen, you might find this interesting, around the 1 minute mark:


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> Have a listen, you might find this interesting, around the 1 minute mark:


I'll check it out after I finish up Beethoven's 9th, in the middle of the third movement. Why does the intro of this sound so familiar? Is he quoting Mozart?


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'll check it out after I finish up Beethoven's 9th, in the middle of the third movement. Why does the intro of this sound so familiar? Is he quoting Mozart?


I don't know, but the famous vocal theme of the 9th sounds like he is, if he heard K222...


----------



## KenOC

Kieran said:


> I mean, music is a subjective taste, there's no question about it...


One of Saint-Saens's students got into a heated discussion with him about the merits of some piece of music. Finally, the frustrated student said, "Well, after all it's a matter of taste." Saint-Saens, no doubt looking down his nose, replied, "Yes. Good taste and bad."


----------



## Kieran

KenOC said:


> One of Saint-Saens's students got into a heated discussion with him about the merits of some piece of music. Finally, the frustrated student said, "Well, after all it's a matter of taste." Saint-Saens, no doubt looking down his nose, replied, "Yes. Good taste and bad."


Well that's true too - and far be it from to argue with Saint-Saens!


----------



## Captainnumber36

KenOC said:


> One of Saint-Saens's students got into a heated discussion with him about the merits of some piece of music. Finally, the frustrated student said, "Well, after all it's a matter of taste." Saint-Saens, no doubt looking down his nose, replied, "Yes. Good taste and bad."


lol .
:lol:


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'll check it out after I finish up Beethoven's 9th, in the middle of the third movement. Why does the intro of this sound so familiar? Is he quoting Mozart?


Just listening to the start of the third movement, but not hearing any Mozart quotes...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> I don't know, but the famous vocal theme of the 9th sounds like he is, if he heard K222...


You weren't kidding !


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> Just listening to the start of the third movement, but not hearing any Mozart quotes...


It sounds like something I've heard before but I can't put my finger on it...


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> You weren't kidding !


No, I wasn't - I only kid when I'm being deadly serious!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> Just listening to the start of the third movement, but not hearing any Mozart quotes...


I'm thinking it's a Piano Sonata Beethoven is quoting...


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm thinking it's a Piano Sonata Beethoven is quoting...


I'm gonna give that symph a full spin tomoro, it's been a while since I listened the whole lot through...

EDIT: a sonata by Mozart or Beethoven?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> I'm gonna give that symph a full spin tomoro, it's been a while since I listened the whole lot through...
> 
> EDIT: a sonata by Mozart or Beethoven?


I actually think it may be the second movement of the Pathetique which quotes both Beethoven and Mozart!


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I actually think it may be the second movement of the Pathetique which quotes both Beethoven and Mozart!


Well....let's get the order right here! It quotes Billy Joel?!

By the way, I think in the 21st variation in his Diabelli Variations Beethoven quotes Leporello's whining at the beginning of Don Giovanni. Leporello is moaning about his lot, working for the Don, and Beethoven humorously turns it into a complaint against the demands of Mr Diabelli!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> Well....let's get the order right here! It quotes Billy Joel?!
> 
> By the way, I think in the 21st variation in his Diabelli Variations Beethoven quotes Leporello's whining at the beginning of Don Giovanni. Leporello is moaning about his lot, working for the Don, and Beethoven humorously turns it into a complaint against the demands of Mr Diabelli!


Do you hear it? It comes in a few moments after the first few notes of the third movement....


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you hear it? It comes in a few moments after the first few notes of the third movement....


Ill have a listen tomoro, I'm in bed now reading my Cuthbert Girdlestone book on Mozart's PCs. But I'll listen carefully for that. It's something I think all composers do - "relocate" a good idea into another work where it'll fit...


----------



## Genoveva

Wendy88 said:


> I love Mozart and Beethoven the same, they are special in their own way


So do a lot of people. It's just that in places like this the differences get talked up a lot by some folk.


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you hear it? It comes in a few moments after the first few notes of the third movement....


I heard it! It's when the strings enter, right? Beautiful music, isn't it?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> I heard it! It's when the strings enter, right? Beautiful music, isn't it?


Yes !


----------



## Larkenfield

Kieran said:


> Have a listen, you might find this interesting, around the 1 minute mark:


Glorious, fervent, incisive, passionate work and performance-and yet to some listeners, Mozart overall as a composer lacks strength and force. It sounds to me that he is storming heaven. And such a superlative, masterful orchestration like the insides of a bejeweled watch. I do hear one motif that B. may have used in his 9th, mentioned a number of times over the years, and used more than once, but it's a short one. Sometimes such a similarity can happen on the subconscious level. But this is an early work by Mozart and it's possible that Beethoven remembered and was inspired to use it. Such use is not uncommon from one composer to another, and I believe that sometimes there's nothing wrong with the conscious use of someone else's quote when it's done out of admiration or love. And some listeners say that Mozart early works aren't worth hearing, or are mere juvenalia, when his sublime K222 was written when he was 20. Gad, what glorious counterpoint at such a young age.



> Mozart wrote to Padre Martini about it in September 1776: "I composed for last year's carnival at Munich an opera buffa, La finta giardiniera. A few days before my departure the Elector expressed a desire to hear some of my contrapuntal compositions. I was therefore obliged to write this motet in a great hurry, in order to have time to have the score copied for his Highness and to have the parts written out and thus enable it to be performed during the Offertory at High Mass on the following Sunday." Padre Martini replied, "I find in it all that is required by modern music: good harmony, mature modulations, a moderate pace in the violins, a natural connection of the parts and good taste." [unquote]
> 
> Here's Eberlin's work that may have inspired Mozart's. I can see why he studied it because of its own contrapuntal excellence:


----------



## Beet131

Kieran said:


> Have a listen, you might find this interesting, around the 1 minute mark:


Very clearly the Ode to Joy that Beethoven would later use in his Ninth!


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Glorious, fervent, incisive, passionate work and performance-and yet to some listeners, Mozart overall as a composer lacks strength and force. It sounds to me that he is storming heaven. And such a superlative, masterful orchestration like the insides of a bejeweled watch. I do hear one motif that B. may have used in his 9th, mentioned a number of times over the years, and used more than once, but it's a short one. Sometimes such a similarity can happen on the subconscious level. But this is an early work by Mozart and it's possible that Beethoven remembered and was inspired to use it. Such use is not uncommon from one composer to another, and I believe that sometimes there's nothing wrong with the conscious use of someone else's quote when it's done out of admiration or love. And some listeners say that Mozart early works aren't worth hearing, or are mere juvenalia, when his sublime K222 was written when he was 20. Gad, what glorious counterpoint at such a young age.


They sound similar mainly because the instruments sound similar and familiar, but Beethoven lingers very effectively on the dominant, and he does it twice. Mozart isn't doing that here. He's just moving back to the tonic.

I didn't realize that "Beethoven wanted to incorporate the "Ode to Joy" into a major musical work as early as 1793, when he was only 23 years old. Segments of the 9th Symphony appear in Beethoven's sketchbooks in 1811 and 1817."


----------



## Mandryka

Here's a very striking and powerful piece of music by Mozart which seems to me every bit as striking and powerful as the Grosse Fugue


----------



## hpowders

Still waiting for Beethoven to compose ANYTHING in the same league as Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro!


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> Still waiting for Beethoven to compose ANYTHING in the same league as Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro!


I think you mean genre.


----------



## Guillet81

The Grosse Fugue is severely overrated, in my opinion. If one wants Beethoven at his best, better to look to his 3rd, 4th and 5th symphonies, or his Violin Concerto.


----------



## hpowders

EdwardBast said:


> I think you mean genre.


 When I hire you as a proofreader, you will know it, by the two bitcoin deposited in your checking account!

Mozart wrote great music, seemingly with incredible facility. Beethoven had to struggle.

I love Mozart. I sometimes like Beethoven-the composer of the Hammerklavier Sonata, Diabelli Variations (in which Beethoven writes a comical musical tribute to Mozart and his Don Giovanni) and the Missa Solemnis.

But, the Marriage of Figaro-not one clinker of a boring note from the beginning of the magnificent overture to the final note of reconciliation. Simply awesome, that one human mind could create all that.


----------



## Guillet81

hpowders said:


> Still waiting for Beethoven to compose ANYTHING in the same league as Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro!


Or Mozart's late symphonies. Or his late Operas. Or his great sacred works. Or his great chamber works. Or... Oh, well, you get the idea! :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Guillet81 said:


> Or Mozart's late symphonies. Or his late Operas. Or his great sacred works. Or his great chamber works. Or... Oh, well, you get the idea! :lol:


The only regret I have is I wasn't there to hear Him perform his piano concertos at his subscription concerts. Oh well, they probably wouldn't honor Visa anyway....and I wouldn't be in very good shape today as a TC poster.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> I think you mean genre.


No, because if you replaced "league" with "genre" in that sentence, it would become a lie (you know Fidelio is of the same 'genre').


----------



## poconoron

hpowders said:


> _When I hire you as a proofreader, you will know it, by the two bitcoin deposited in your checking account!
> _
> Mozart wrote great music, seemingly with incredible facility. Beethoven had to struggle.
> 
> I love Mozart. I sometimes like Beethoven-the composer of the Hammerklavier Sonata, Diabelli Variations (in which Beethoven writes a comical musical tribute to Mozart and his Don Giovanni) and the Missa Solemnis.
> 
> But, the Marriage of Figaro-not one clinker of a boring note from the beginning of the magnificent overture to the final note of reconciliation. Simply awesome, that one human mind could create all that.


:lol::lol::lol: I love it...................


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> No, because if you replaced "league" with "genre" in that sentence, it would become a lie (you know Fidelio is of the same 'genre').


It's not a comic opera. Different genre.


----------



## poconoron

hpowders said:


> But, the Marriage of Figaro-not one clinker of a boring note from the beginning of the magnificent overture to the final note of reconciliation. Simply awesome, that one human mind could create all that.


Mr. hpowders: great minds think alike:

"In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle," composer Johannes Brahms said of Mozart's great opera a century after its creation. "It is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect. Nothing like it was ever done again".


----------



## Kieran

poconoron said:


> Mr. hpowders: great minds think alike:
> 
> "In my opinion, each number in Figaro is a miracle," composer Johannes Brahms said of Mozart's great opera a century after its creation. "It is totally beyond me how anyone could create anything so perfect".


It has that, and as we listen, it flows seamlessly from one perfection to the next, with seemingly no effort at all on behalf of the composer, music that can hold several meanings at once, brilliant and funny and often just expressing the hilarious, but never less than gorgeous, sumptuous, delicious, prompting us to want to sing along. The reconciliation at the end is magnificent. It's as if a miracle happened in opera - and yet, he has several operas which affect us just the same, while being totally different, too...


----------



## poconoron

Kieran said:


> It has that, and as we listen, it flows seamlessly from one perfection to the next, with seemingly no effort at all on behalf of the composer, music that can hold several meanings at once, brilliant and funny and often just expressing the hilarious, but never less than gorgeous, sumptuous, delicious, prompting us to want to sing along. The reconciliation at the end is magnificent. It's as if a miracle happened in opera - and yet, he has several operas which affect us just the same, while being totally different, too...


Agreed..............believe it or not, I think Don Giovanni, Cosi, and the Magic Flute are equally great in their own ways. When I am in the midst of listening to any one of these - I'm thinking..............nothing tops_ this._


----------



## Kieran

poconoron said:


> Agreed..............believe it or not, I think Don Giovanni, Cosi, and the Magic Flute are equally great in their own ways. When I am in the midst of listening to any one of these - I'm thinking..............nothing tops_ this._


Exactly. It seems that the one I'm listening to tops all the others - until I listen to them! Currently, it's Idomeneo. I listen and I think, why oh why did Mozart go downhill from here....until I put on my Magic Flute CD, and we're in a different realm and another music, and it seems like the culmination of everything in existence...until the Don takes the stage...


----------



## hpowders

Guillet81 said:


> Or Mozart's late symphonies. Or his late Operas. Or his great sacred works. Or his great chamber works. Or... *Oh, well, you get the idea! * :lol:


I not only get the idea, I have the CDs of said genres to back it up! A lot of Mozart!


----------



## Genoveva

One of my favourite Mozart works is his Great Mass in C minor, K 427.

He wrote this work in 1782/3 at the grand "old" age of 26, for the occasion of his wedding. He didn't fully complete the work but there's enough of it to justify its place among the very greatest of its type, a "missa solemnis". This was a term first used in the classical era to refer to a latin mass suitable for grander occasions, and included various embellishments compared with a standard "missa brevis". A particularly splendid version of this work is by the Bach Collegium Japan, that I have recently acquired and have been playing through quite a lot.

It is a really magnificent work throughout, and very uplifting in places. According to Pope Francis in 2015, he told reporters that the "Et incarnatus est" from the work "_... is matchless; it lifts you to God!" _ Who am I to argue with that? This section occurs roughly half way through the Credo and was the last section of that part of the mass that Mozart completed.

In scale and general quality it compares with Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and Schubert's Mass 6. Incidentally, Beethoven was age 53 when he finished his work, and even the young Schubert was 31. The works isn't as long as Bach's Mass in B Minor (also a missa solemnis), and is less well known, but I know what order of preference I would place these works in, and that's (best first): Mozart, Schubert, Bach, Beethoven.


----------



## Guillet81

Genoveva said:


> One of my favourite Mozart works is his Great Mass in C minor, K 427.


Another favorite of mine, written by Mozart when he was merely twelve, is his Missa Solemnis in C minor, K 139, the "Waisenhausmesse". Here is a link to a fine recording:






For anyone with limited time, I would like to highlight the lovely fugues that Mozart placed within, the time references are 17:03, and 30:50.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Guillet81 said:


> Another favorite of mine, written by Mozart when he was merely twelve, is his Missa Solemnis in C minor, K 139, the "Waisenhausmesse". Here is a link to a fine recording:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone with limited time, I would like to highlight the lovely fugues that Mozart placed within, the time references are 17:03, and 30:50.


I think he was a bit older.

But agreed - I was ploughing through Mozart's early masses from my Brilliant Classics set and found they are better than I thought they would be - and K139 really stood out.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Beethoven battles with Wagner for #2 on my personal list: Mozart is (in all likelihood) my eternal #1. His four operatic masterpieces, those late piano concertos, all his concertos for other instruments, the Requiem, the Great Mass, the late string quartets, the many great quintets, the piano quartets, the Divertimento for String Trio, the Kegelstatt Trio, the late Piano and Violin Sonatas, the Fantasia in Cm and Dm, the Adagio in B, The Rondos, the Serenades... it's almost ridiculous when one considers the volume of masterpieces he produced in every single genre.


----------



## Bill Shakespeare

Mozart spent his life trying to be Mozart, Beethoven spent his life trying to be the same.


----------



## Larkenfield

Bill Shakespeare said:


> Mozart spent his life trying to be Mozart, Beethoven spent his life trying to be the same.


Really? Mozart sounded like himself by the age of five and within months was soon playing before kings and queens as one of the greatest composers and improvisers who ever lived. Beethoven, as great as he was, was a late bloomer by comparison and was not the same kind of prodigy. Mozart's identity was clearly established from the get-go and those who are truly familiar with his life are aware of this.

I would never, ever compare the lives of these two composers and their talents, but it was Beethoven who looked to the works of Mozart often throughout his entire life for inspiration and knowledge, and not the other way around because Mozart was born 21 years earlier. Nevertheless, Beethoven was a composer of great originality and power and he carved out his own place as an unforgettable composer just like Mozart was.

Mozart Bio:


----------



## flamencosketches

I tried, but I cannot possibly decide. Wolfie MIGHT edge out Beethoven a tiny bit on account of the perfection I find in his music that is not often there with Beethoven, which sounds more "composed" than Mozart's "effortless" sound, where everything is "just so". I can almost hear Beethoven's thought process sometimes, which never happens with Mozart, whose music is harder for me to believe has been written by a man (which is a sentiment I share with the music of JS Bach). But Beethoven's music is so great too, and taps a little bit deeper into some kind of universal struggle that Mozart only sometimes reveals (he does it with equal precision and feeling, but it is sometimes obscured).


----------



## Knight769

I think you can make a case for either Mozart or Beethoven. These two are the greatest composers in history. You can sit down and analyze each one, and try and compare them. But in the end, it comes down to personal taste, and which great composer moves you the most. I give the advantage to Mozart because of his piano concerto's, The Marriage of Figaro, and his Jupiter Symphony is out of this world.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Knight769 said:


> I think you can make a case for either Mozart or Beethoven. These two are the greatest composers in history. You can sit down and analyze each one, and try and compare them. But in the end, it comes down to personal taste, and which great composer moves you the most. I give the advantage to Mozart because of his piano concerto's, The Marriage of Figaro, and his Jupiter Symphony is out of this world.


Agreed, Mozart barely edged it out.


----------



## Luchesi

I've read that Mozart's wife thought that people would believe that her husband composed pieces with no corrections of any kind - and destroyed any evidence to the contrary. Only a non-musician would think that corrections were a bad thing..


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> I've read that Mozart's wife thought that people would believe that her husband composed pieces with no corrections of any kind - and *destroyed any evidence to the contrary.* Only a non-musician would think that corrections were a bad thing..


The evidence is not destroyed. Mozart did cross out some measures once, upon changing his mind what to write:

7:41


----------



## hammeredklavier

Going through this thread, I see some un-insightful posts how Mozart sounds all the same. But because they're old, I'll not reply to them specifically. Instead I'll invite other people to go through these and see how much variety there is:






I still think Mozart's achievement in this field is unbeaten by Haydn's late masses (which Beethoven himself considered "inimitable"). Compare Viaticum in Domino Morientum of Litaniae K243 with Tremendum ac vivificum, or with Pignus Futurae Gloriae of the same piece, for example. See how much variety there is.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> I've read that Mozart's wife thought that people would believe that her husband composed pieces with no corrections of any kind - *and destroyed any evidence to the contrary.* Only a non-musician would think that corrections were a bad thing..


then she would have destroyed hundreds of MS

where did you read that?


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Going through this thread, I see some un-insightful posts how Mozart sounds all the same. But because they're old, I'll not reply to them specifically.


It's an incontrovertible fact that music of the 18th century is awash with harmonic clichés hammeredklavier. Whether that is an issue or not for the listener is completely subjective. You, presumably do have an issue since you have criticized pop music for sounding all rather similar (and I would largely agree with you here).

Now if there are works that do avoid this - then they _may_ have, to some degree, an objective claim to superiority.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> I've read that Mozart's wife thought that people would believe that her husband composed pieces with no corrections of any kind - and destroyed any evidence to the contrary. Only a non-musician would think that corrections were a bad thing..


"'Twere to consider too curiously to consider so".


----------



## Guest

Knight769 said:


> I think you can make a case for either Mozart or Beethoven. These two are the greatest composers in history. You can sit down and analyze each one, and try and compare them. But in the end, it comes down to personal taste, and which great composer moves you the most. I give the advantage to Mozart because of his piano concerto's, The Marriage of Figaro, and his Jupiter Symphony is out of this world.


Disagree that these two are the greatest composers in history. I would rank Beethoven there along with Bach, but not Mozart.


----------



## Larkenfield

It’s rare that Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven aren’t spoken of in the same breath as three of the greatest composers of all time. I would never go along with the exclusion of any one of them, because each one almost interchangeable has deservedly been found at the top of such lists. If all three had been contemporaries, I could easily imagine Mozart deferring to Bach, Beethoven deferring to Mozart, and Bach sincerely admiring the genius of the other two out of mutual admiration and respect. Among the three are almost too many masterpieces to be ignored for those with the ears to appreciate them.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> It's an incontrovertible fact that music of the 18th century is awash with harmonic clichés hammeredklavier. Whether that is an issue or not for the listener is completely subjective. You, presumably do have an issue since you have criticized pop music for sounding all rather similar (and I would largely agree with you here).
> 
> Now if there are works that do avoid this - then they _may_ have, to some degree, an objective claim to superiority.


What is a harmonic cliche? How do we know when we're hearing one? How often can a musical device be used before it becomes a cliche? How often can we hear I-IV-V-I before that progression becomes a harmonic cliche? I need to hear some "incontrovertible facts."


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> It's an incontrovertible fact that music of the 18th century is awash with harmonic clichés hammeredklavier. Whether that is an issue or not for the listener is completely subjective. You, presumably do have an issue since you have criticized pop music for sounding all rather similar (and I would largely agree with you here).
> 
> Now if there are works that do avoid this - then they _may_ have, to some degree, an objective claim to superiority.


Even in their "cadences", there's complexity involved.














I didn't criticize modern pop songs for sounding the same. I criticized them for not requiring "talent" to write.






As long as there's "skill" involved, "sounding the same" is not a fault. The classical giants have enough variety in their oeuvre to be exempt from criticism like that.
Say if you loved the final movement of Beethoven's Sonata Quasi una Fantasia Op.27 No.2 and looked through his oeuvre for pieces that are similar to it and you find that Beethoven did write other pieces with the same kind of intensity and passion. 
Is that a bad thing? I don't think it is.


----------



## Luchesi

PlaySalieri said:


> then she would have destroyed hundreds of MS
> 
> where did you read that?


I wish I could remember.

I guess she destroyed a lot.

https://www.newspaperalum.com/2013/11/shattering-the-myths-of-wolfgang-amadeus-mozart.html

``A generation ago scholars thought Mozart composed everything in his head and then notated it on paper after the creative process was over. He was most certainly capable of this, as works such as the Linz symphony (composed in four days) attest. But his process of notating in layers, revealed by the different ink tints in his manuscripts, and his surviving sketches (some 90% of which were destroyed by his widow), have revealed a more nuanced sense of his creative process.''


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Only a non-musician would think that corrections were a bad thing..


I love how often Mr. Luchesi starts off his posts with the lofty "I'm not a non-musician, I'm a pianist." phrase. :lol:



Luchesi said:


> if you're a pianist


Once he tried to claim that Chopin's pieces weren't written for students to play. 
I know, I know. Because Chopin is God who surpassed everyone. Of course he would never have written for money. Truly a Romantic artist (or rather "Romanticized artist") who would never betray his artist spirit.
No wonder why he called his publishers anti-semitic names over financial matters.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7ApCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT125
Of course the "we-must-separate-the-man-from-his-music" logic applies to Chopin, but not someone like Wagner :lol:
Surely, that's the way a "true musician" should think.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> I love how often Mr. Luchesi starts off his posts with the lofty "I'm not a non-musician, I'm a pianist." phrase. :lol:
> 
> Once he tried to claim that Chopin's pieces weren't written for students to play.
> I know, I know. Because Chopin is God who surpassed everyone. Of course he would never have written for money. Truly a Romantic artist (or rather "Romanticized artist") who would never betray his artist spirit.
> No wonder why he called his publishers anti-semitic names over financial matters.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=7ApCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT125
> Of course the "we-must-separate-the-man-from-his-music" logic applies to Chopin, but not someone like Wagner :lol:
> Surely, that's the way a "true musician" should think.


You have narrow views of Chopin. You don't enjoy Chopin?


----------



## Tchaikov6

Luchesi said:


> You have narrow views of Chopin. You don't enjoy Chopin?


Personally I don't really like Chopin. I wish he wrote larger scale pieces, the little miniatures are often hit or miss... granted, he does have many hits, but not enough to call him a favorite.


----------



## Luchesi

Tchaikov6 said:


> Personally I don't really like Chopin. I wish he wrote larger scale pieces, the little miniatures are often hit or miss... granted, he does have many hits, but not enough to call him a favorite.


You might not like the smaller works of other composers?


----------



## Tchaikov6

Luchesi said:


> You might not like the smaller works of other composers?


Well... not really, I guess. I like more developed melodies/harmonies, the only examples I can think of that I actually a prefer a composer's short works to their longer works are Brahms's beautiful short pieces for piano. But I still prefer the larger scale orchestral works like the concertos and the symphonies in that case.

Oh, and The Well-Tempered Clavier of course, is a collection of short pieces. But each one is so tightly constructed and developed, and takes shape in a much longer four hour scope, that it hardly counts as "short pieces" in the same way Chopin's Nocturnes and Waltzes do. I hardly ever listen to short trinkets of Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Luchesi

Tchaikov6 said:


> Well... not really, I guess. I like more developed melodies/harmonies, the only examples I can think of that I actually a prefer a composer's short works to their longer works are Brahms's beautiful short pieces for piano. But I still prefer the larger scale orchestral works like the concertos and the symphonies in that case.
> 
> Oh, and The Well-Tempered Clavier of course, is a collection of short pieces. But each one is so tightly constructed and developed, and takes shape in a much longer four hour scope, that it hardly counts as "short pieces" in the same way Chopin's Nocturnes and Waltzes do. I hardly ever listen to short trinkets of Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky.


Try to compose a short piece that sounds like Chopin.

According to the medical evidence Chopin probably had cystic fibrosis, along with other members of his family.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Luchesi said:


> *Try to compose a short piece that sounds like Chopin.*
> 
> According to the medical evidence Chopin probably had cystic fibrosis, along with other members of his family.


Why? Chopin had his individual style, that's not my style of music. What would it prove to write a short piece in his style?


----------



## Luchesi

Tchaikov6 said:


> Why? Chopin had his individual style, that's not my style of music. What would it prove to write a short piece in his style?


It's nobody's style today, but I think it would interesting to hear about.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> What is a harmonic cliche? How do we know when we're hearing one? How often can a musical device be used before it becomes a cliche? How often can we hear I-IV-V-I before that progression becomes a harmonic cliche? I need to hear some "incontrovertible facts."


Well it's come up many times before:

Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.


----------



## Guest

A harmonic cliche? Da-da, da-da; da-da-da-da-da-da on the final cadence. 5 to 1. A large number of times in some of the symphonies, the piano concertos and in the piano sonatas.

Zzzzzz. One of the main reasons I grew monumentally bored - but not limited to that.

OK, the operas: excellent. String quartets excellent. Gran Partita very good. Symphonies 36 to 41 very good. You can have the rest. Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> A harmonic cliche? Da-da, da-da; da-da-da-da-da-da on the final cadence. 5 to 1. A large number of times in some of the symphonies, the piano concertos and in the piano sonatas.
> 
> Zzzzzz. One of the main reasons I grew monumentally bored - but not limited to that.
> 
> OK, the operas: excellent. String quartets excellent. Gran Partita very good. Symphonies 36 to 41 very good. You can have the rest. Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!


It's good to be reminded of this gripe so that we reign back the adoration.

You don't put yourself into those times. Hammeredklavier doesn't put himself into Chopin times.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> I wish I could remember.
> 
> I guess she destroyed a lot.
> 
> https://www.newspaperalum.com/2013/11/shattering-the-myths-of-wolfgang-amadeus-mozart.html
> 
> ``A generation ago scholars thought Mozart composed everything in his head and then notated it on paper after the creative process was over. He was most certainly capable of this, as works such as the Linz symphony (composed in four days) attest. But his process of notating in layers, revealed by the different ink tints in his manuscripts, and his surviving sketches (some 90% of which were destroyed by his widow), have revealed a more nuanced sense of his creative process.''


But you have provided no evidence that she destroyed MS to protect that myth that Mozart did not correct.

She mainly, according to Jane Glover - destroyed scraps that in her view were not worth preserving. A shame - as she may have, for example - destroyed scraps that relate to the requiem.

Apart from that - we know nothing since there is no other information.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Christabel said:


> A harmonic cliche? Da-da, da-da; da-da-da-da-da-da on the final cadence. 5 to 1. A large number of times in some of the symphonies, the piano concertos and in the piano sonatas.
> 
> Zzzzzz. One of the main reasons I grew monumentally bored - but not limited to that.
> 
> OK, the operas: excellent. String quartets excellent. Gran Partita very good. Symphonies 36 to 41 very good. You can have the rest. Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!


You can make similar arguments about Bach and Beethoven


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Well it's come up many times before:
> 
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.


Kieran, trazom, jdec, PlaySalieri had already written rebuttals for them (your criticisms on the style) in that thread.


----------



## Knight769

janxharris said:


> Well it's come up many times before:
> 
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.
> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.


Beethoven is my least favorite of the big three. But I acknowledge how great he is. His music just doesn't connect with me for some strange reason. If we were in the same room together, I would tell him,"It's not you, Ludwig. It's me!"


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Even in their "cadences", there's complexity involved.


Interesting video thanks.

We perceive music very differently - in general I don't consider interrupted cadences and extensions in this style as particularly interesting - unless the composer is doing something unusual with the melody.

Fundamentally, I prefer composers that use a unique harmonic language for each work. On the imaginary harmonic continuum from unique to outright plagiaristic, the 18th century doesn't, imho, fare that well.



> I didn't criticize modern pop songs for sounding the same. I criticized them for not requiring "talent" to write.


You posted this video 



 which begins:

"It starts off like a thousand other songs that you've heard before...."

I haven't got round to the rest of your post yet.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> We perceive music very differently - in general I don't consider interrupted cadences and extensions in this style as particularly interesting - unless the composer is doing something unusual with the melody.
> Fundamentally, I prefer composers that use a unique harmonic language for each work. On the imaginary harmonic continuum from unique to outright plagiaristic, the 18th century doesn't, imho, fare that well.


Yes, we all have different preferences. Even though CPE Bach (for example) is also loaded with symmetrical phrasing and classical cadences which you don't find appealing, - I prefer his music any day over the more modern music that reminds me of minimalism or film scores.

I think Rene Leibowitz described it well in his essay <Sibelius the worst composer in the world>:

_"... some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic. Suddenly the flow is interrupted, without the author giving thought to the various consequences of it-still-[they are capable[?]]. Then the themes reappear, without rhyme or reason, without connection to what precedes and what follows; ground down to bits, twisted apart, even clumsier and more painful than they had been on first appearance.
The rhythmic monotony, the absence of any real counterpoint, the uniformity of tempo, in short the ennui which arises from all this quickly makes you sleepy when, rudely, you are awakened because the piece is finished-without our being able to say, however, how or why anything in it has happened. This description was only of the first movement, but the others are such that the reader need only read the above to have an idea of them. 
It is then that the anxiety grabs you and one expresses his doubts over the "admirers." Naturally, it is you who does not understand. The harmony which you feel is wrong…but that is exactly the thing which makes Sibelius so original! The absence of development…but that is precisely his power, this is what places him "above schools"! The rhythmic and melodic laziness…but these are the qualities of Sibelius who, like Beethoven, managed to make the most of the most simple elements, etc…."_



janxharris said:


> You posted this video
> 
> 
> 
> which begins:
> "It starts off like a thousand other songs that you've heard before...."
> I haven't got round to the rest of your post yet.


I find the lyrics of the song funny. I think it's very cleverly written. I prefer it over many popsongs today that have nothing to say through their lyrics. Just because I find it funny, it doesn't necessarily mean I completely agree with everything said in it.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, we all have different preferences. Even though CPE Bach (for example) is also ridden with symmetrical phrasing and classical cadences which you don't find appealing, - I prefer him over any day to the more modern stuff that reminds me of minimalism and film scores.
> 
> I think Rene Leibowitz described it well in his essay <Sibelius the worst composer in the world>:
> 
> _"... some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic. Suddenly the flow is interrupted, without the author giving thought to the various consequences of it-still-[they are capable[?]]. Then the themes reappear, without rhyme or reason, without connection to what precedes and what follows; ground down to bits, twisted apart, even clumsier and more painful than they had been on first appearance.
> The rhythmic monotony, the absence of any real counterpoint, the uniformity of tempo, in short the ennui which arises from all this quickly makes you sleepy when, rudely, you are awakened because the piece is finished-without our being able to say, however, how or why anything in it has happened. This description was only of the first movement, but the others are such that the reader need only read the above to have an idea of them.
> It is then that the anxiety grabs you and one expresses his doubts over the "admirers." Naturally, it is you who does not understand. The harmony which you feel is wrong…but that is exactly the thing which makes Sibelius so original! The absence of development…but that is precisely his power, this is what places him "above schools"! The rhythmic and melodic laziness…but these are the qualities of Sibelius who, like Beethoven, managed to make the most of the most simple elements, etc…."_


And not forgetting Theodor Adorno's infamous:

"If this is good music then it invalidates the standards of music quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg..."

Of course, Sibelius was loved outside of Europe - in the UK and USA (a survey in 1935 by the 'New York Philharmonic Society' deemed him the most popular).

Not sure Adorno's own music has fared as well today as Sibelius's.


----------



## Xisten267

*1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?*

For real is impossible to know, but if this is just about my perception then I say _Mozart_. Because he had such amazing ease to compose - in average, for each three hours of music he would make, Bach would make about two hours and Beethoven, one hour.

*2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?*

Considering "superior" in terms of my particular musical taste, I say _Beethoven_. For my most favorite moments of music by him are more dear to me than Mozart's.

*3.) Who has had more of a global impact?*

It's _a tie_ in my opinion, for both composers were (and still are) very, very influential. I think that Beethoven was more innovative though.


----------



## Larkenfield

Tchaikov6 said:


> Personally I don't really like Chopin. I wish he wrote larger scale pieces, the little miniatures are often hit or miss... granted, he does have many hits, but not enough to call him a favorite.


Why Chopin has to be dragged into practically any thread that mentions Mozart is silly. But I believe that one of the biggest misconceptions is that Chopin composed nothing but miniatures, and the word needs to be reconsidered. The spirit behind so many of them is huge, such as his heroic polonaise. His F Minor Fantasie and Barcarolle are big in spirit. The right cut diamond can be worth more and say more than a Mercedes or Rolls. But unfortunately, some believe that only size matters even if it has little or nothing to say while something exquisite and on a more concentrated scale could be saying volumes. I believe that's a big discovery for some listeners. Plus, there's barely anything that he wrote that is not melodically memorable because he was a melodic and harmonic genius where virtually everything he wrote is in the standard repertoire and performed by the world's greatest pianists, and yet some of his shortsighted detractors so often miss out on why these world-class pianists devotedly play him because evidently the critics do not pick up on his great poetic sensitivity, depth, refinement, elegance, charm, brilliance, humor, sarcasm, wit, romanticism, force, power, chordal voicings, colors, harmonic invention, and huge emotional range that is almost infinite, from the tenderest expressions of love to his unforgettable funeral march. It's a huge emotional palette and it's still being explored with no apparent loss of interest by the finest pianists of today. Sometimes it helps to hear his music from their perspective because they're obviously getting something BIG out of it that's more than the size of a miniature. I believe that at his best, Chopin can internalize the listener to what is the most poetic, sensitive, and refined of one's innermost nature; but on the other hand, that's what some don't like about him because it's considered effeminate and unmanly to give in to such feelings. The greatest pianists play him with sentiment but not sentimentality because there's an incredible balance between the masculine and feminine energies in his works.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, we all have different preferences. Even though CPE Bach (for example) is also loaded with symmetrical phrasing and classical cadences which you don't find appealing, - I prefer his music any day over the more modern music that reminds me of minimalism or film scores.
> 
> I think Rene Leibowitz described it well in his essay <Sibelius the worst composer in the world>:
> 
> _"... some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic. Suddenly the flow is interrupted, without the author giving thought to the various consequences of it-still-[they are capable[?]]. Then the themes reappear, without rhyme or reason, without connection to what precedes and what follows; ground down to bits, twisted apart, even clumsier and more painful than they had been on first appearance.
> The rhythmic monotony, the absence of any real counterpoint, the uniformity of tempo, in short the ennui which arises from all this quickly makes you sleepy when, rudely, you are awakened because the piece is finished-without our being able to say, however, how or why anything in it has happened. This description was only of the first movement, but the others are such that the reader need only read the above to have an idea of them.
> It is then that the anxiety grabs you and one expresses his doubts over the "admirers." Naturally, it is you who does not understand. The harmony which you feel is wrong…but that is exactly the thing which makes Sibelius so original! The absence of development…but that is precisely his power, this is what places him "above schools"! The rhythmic and melodic laziness…but these are the qualities of Sibelius who, like Beethoven, managed to make the most of the most simple elements, etc…."_


How can anyone read that Leibowitz essay now without laughing? It ranks with the notorious Grove's 1954 entry on Rachmaninoff as a paragon of arrogant incomprehension.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


>


Other instances of Mozart crossing out stuff:

http://conquest.imslp.info/files/im...Requiem_K626_-autograph_fragment-.pdf#page=14

27:18


----------



## Larkenfield




----------



## hammeredklavier

Christabel said:


> A harmonic cliche? Da-da, da-da; da-da-da-da-da-da on the final cadence. 5 to 1. A large number of times in some of the symphonies, the piano concertos and in the piano sonatas.
> Zzzzzz. One of the main reasons I grew monumentally bored - but not limited to that.
> OK, the operas: excellent. String quartets excellent. Gran Partita very good. Symphonies 36 to 41 very good. You can have the rest. Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!


btw, I just remembered you saying some time ago Beethoven's late piano sonatas belong in the category of "elitist music" or something like that.



Christabel said:


> there are _few_ musical experiences which are as transcendent. I would put into that category the final piano sonatas by Beethoven.


I can say that the first movement of Op.111 is the best movement in Beethoven's late piano sonatas --- Because it reminds me of Mozart K475, K426/K546






*You can have the rest.* :lol: All that boogie woogie and minimalism with tremolos and trills 
Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!! :lol:

Brahms: "But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven."
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Larkenfield

Outstanding BBC performance of Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 15 with Yeol Eum Son:


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, we all have different preferences. Even though CPE Bach (for example) is also loaded with symmetrical phrasing and classical cadences which you don't find appealing, - I prefer his music any day over the more modern music that reminds me of minimalism or film scores.
> 
> I think Rene Leibowitz described it well in his essay <Sibelius the worst composer in the world>:
> 
> _"... some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic. Suddenly the flow is interrupted, without the author giving thought to the various consequences of it-still-[they are capable[?]]. Then the themes reappear, without rhyme or reason, without connection to what precedes and what follows; ground down to bits, twisted apart, even clumsier and more painful than they had been on first appearance.
> The rhythmic monotony, the absence of any real counterpoint, the uniformity of tempo, in short the ennui which arises from all this quickly makes you sleepy when, rudely, you are awakened because the piece is finished-without our being able to say, however, how or why anything in it has happened. This description was only of the first movement, but the others are such that the reader need only read the above to have an idea of them.
> It is then that the anxiety grabs you and one expresses his doubts over the "admirers." Naturally, it is you who does not understand. The harmony which you feel is wrong…but that is exactly the thing which makes Sibelius so original! The absence of development…but that is precisely his power, this is what places him "above schools"! The rhythmic and melodic laziness…but these are the qualities of Sibelius who, like Beethoven, managed to make the most of the most simple elements, etc…."_


Leibowitz's comments are with respect to Sibelius' fifth symphony; since you agree with him then, no doubt, you can explain where Sibelius' harmonies are 'incorrect'?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> How can anyone read that Leibowitz essay now without laughing? It ranks with the notorious Grove's 1954 entry on Rachmaninoff as a paragon of arrogant incomprehension.


Just in case anyone takes you too literally, the laughing isn't necessary, but the dismissing of the essay as poor criticism is.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Just in case anyone takes you too literally, the laughing isn't necessary, but the dismissing of the essay as poor criticism is.


I want to be taken literally! I think the essay is hilariously wrong-headed and pretentious. But feel free to read it po-faced. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I want to be taken literally! I think the essay is hilariously wrong-headed and pretentious. But feel free to read it po-faced. :tiphat:


I agree, but there are others who are more po-faced than thee and me.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Leibowitz's comments are with respect to Sibelius' fifth symphony


Not just the symphony, throughout the essay Leibowitz criticizes Sibelius's composition style as a whole. Why is the essay "Sibelius the worst composer in the world", not "Sibelius's fifth symphony the worst symphony ever written"?



janxharris said:


> since you agree with him then, no doubt, you can explain where Sibelius' harmonies are 'incorrect'?


I said I Leibowitz described it well, which means even though I felt bad for Sibelius as I read the blasphemous essay, I cannot come up with logic to argue against it. Do you have places that you feel wrong in Sibelius? Surely you don't think everything Sibelius wrote is right, do you? I have in mind the minimalist tendencies of Tapiola, -- Whether that is an issue or not for the listener is completely subjective.


----------



## Larkenfield

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, we all have different preferences. Even though CPE Bach (for example) is also loaded with symmetrical phrasing and classical cadences which you don't find appealing, - I prefer his music any day over the more modern music that reminds me of minimalism or film scores.
> 
> I think Rene Leibowitz described it well in his essay <Sibelius the worst composer in the world>:
> 
> _"... some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic. Suddenly the flow is interrupted, without the author giving thought to the various consequences of it-still-[they are capable[?]]. Then the themes reappear, without rhyme or reason, without connection to what precedes and what follows; ground down to bits, twisted apart, even clumsier and more painful than they had been on first appearance.
> The rhythmic monotony, the absence of any real counterpoint, the uniformity of tempo, in short the ennui which arises from all this quickly makes you sleepy when, rudely, you are awakened because the piece is finished-without our being able to say, however, how or why anything in it has happened. This description was only of the first movement, but the others are such that the reader need only read the above to have an idea of them.
> It is then that the anxiety grabs you and one expresses his doubts over the "admirers." Naturally, it is you who does not understand. The harmony which you feel is wrong…but that is exactly the thing which makes Sibelius so original! The absence of development…but that is precisely his power, this is what places him "above schools"! The rhythmic and melodic laziness…but these are the qualities of Sibelius who, like Beethoven, managed to make the most of the most simple elements, etc…."_
> 
> I find the lyrics of the song funny. I think it's very cleverly written. I prefer it over many popsongs today that have nothing to say through their lyrics. Just because I find it funny, it doesn't necessarily mean I completely agree with everything said in it.


Where's the statue dedicated to Leibowitz and his like-minded critics who relish dragging certain composers through the mud? "Pay no attention to what critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic." -Sibelius.

He was right then and he's right today. His symphonies are played all over the world by the first-rate orchestras while Leibowitz has been virtually forgotten except for a few of his Beethoven recordings for-wait for it-Reader's Digest.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I agree, but there are others who are more po-faced than thee and me.


We must do what we can to help them. ut:


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I said Leibowitz described it well, which means even though I felt bad for Sibelius as I read the blasphemous essay, I cannot come up with logic to argue against it.


Given your remarks on Chopin and Schubert, it doesn't surprise me that you feel you have to refute Leibowitz by means of logic. Not to get too personal, but do you also evaluate sex on logical grounds?

"Was it good for you?"

"What do you mean by 'good'?"

"I mean, are the premises of this relationship sound, and can you arrive at a correct evaluation of the experience we just had by an exact, non-contradictory process of deduction from those premises?"

"Wow! Who knew sex could be so epistemologically thrilling? Marry me!!!"


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Given your remarks on Chopin and Schubert, it doesn't surprise me that you feel you have to refute Leibowitz *by means of logic*.


http://viz.co.uk/2014/11/07/mr-logic-gets-pulled-speeding/


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Not just the symphony, throughout the essay Leibowitz criticizes Sibelius's composition style as a whole. Why is the essay "Sibelius the worst composer in the world", not "Sibelius's fifth symphony the worst symphony ever written"?


I wasn't/am not not disagreeing.



> I said I Leibowitz described it well, which means even though I felt bad for Sibelius as I read the blasphemous essay, I cannot come up with logic to argue against it. Do you have places that you feel wrong in Sibelius? Surely you don't think everything Sibelius wrote is right, do you? I have in mind the minimalist tendencies of Tapiola, -- Whether that is an issue or not for the listener is completely subjective.


I wouldn't use 'wrong' or 'incorrect' about his harmony but there's plenty of material I dislike.

For me Tapiola is a master class in organic cohesion - where nearly all of the material draws from and develops the initial theme. The picture painting he achieves has unnerving clarity and, in view of the subject matter, is supremely terrifying.


----------



## Guest

I thought this was LvB v WAM? How did we get sidetracked on to discussing the world's greatest symphonist instead?


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!!
> 
> Brahms: "But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven."


Why do you repeat this Brahms quotation? You haven't the least clue what Brahms meant, as you've demonstrated in other threads. And if you can't find dissonance in Beethoven you're tone deaf.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you repeat this Brahms quotation? You haven't the least clue what Brahms meant, as you've demonstrated in other threads. And if you can't find dissonance in Beethoven you're tone deaf.


Care to explain what Brahms really "meant" with that quote? It doesn't sound ambiguous to me at all.


----------



## jdec

jdec said:


> Care to explain what Brahms really "meant" with that quote? It doesn't sound ambiguous to me at all.


Never mind, EdwardBast. 

1) https://www.talkclassical.com/61124-what-did-brahms-mean.html#post1627974

2) https://www.talkclassical.com/61124-what-did-brahms-mean.html#post1628638

3) https://www.talkclassical.com/61124-what-did-brahms-mean-2.html#post1646530

:lol: :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> Care to explain what Brahms really "meant" with that quote? It doesn't sound ambiguous to me at all.


So, what did Brahms mean if it's unambiguous to you? (he said, expecting you don't have any more idea than hammer's does )



jdec said:


> Never mind, EdwardBast.
> 
> 1) https://www.talkclassical.com/61124-what-did-brahms-mean.html#post1627974
> 
> 2) https://www.talkclassical.com/61124-what-did-brahms-mean.html#post1628638
> 
> 3) https://www.talkclassical.com/61124-what-did-brahms-mean-2.html#post1646530


First of all, I wasn't saying I knew and Hammer'd didn't, but only that he didn't. Since he's the one who keeps quoting the statement, he is the one who should be able to explain what it means, don't you think? More important, you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread you cited. After it was suggested that Brahms had in mind a specific quartet from Idomeneo when he made the statement, along with the fact that he was referring to dissonance on strong beats, I (#32) provided the only analysis of the dissonance in that Mozart quartet:

_If Phil is right about the specific music Brahms was citing, then what he meant was chain suspensions and simultaneous dissonant appoggiaturas among several voices. . . . Guess the truth is pretty mundane. And Beethoven did these things too._

No one has cited a kind of dissonance treatment employed by Mozart or Bach that wasn't also used by Beethoven, which suggests that Brahms was calling attention to a difference in emphasis in the use of the various kinds of dissonance they all employed. Do you have anything substantive to contribute to that discussion?


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you repeat this Brahms quotation? You haven't the least clue what Brahms meant, as you've demonstrated in other threads. And if you can't find dissonance in Beethoven you're tone deaf.


I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny :lol:. 



Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:
In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol: (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> _If Phil is right about the specific music Brahms was citing, then what he meant was chain suspensions and simultaneous dissonant appoggiaturas among several voices. . . . Guess truth is pretty mundane. And Beethoven did these things too._


Beethoven tried to do stuff like the beginning of Mozart K465 in the beginning of Op.59 No.3, but he didn't really achieve it. His attempts ended up being "bang! bang!", "bam! bam!"


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example *is ridiculously funny :lol:*.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ *struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:*
> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying *"I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol:* (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)
> 
> Beethoven *tried to do stuff like the beginning of* Mozart K465 in the beginning of Op.59 No.3, but he didn't really achieve it. His attempts ended up *being "bang! bang!", "bam! bam!"*


In your opinion.

All what you wrote here is so trolly and utterly disrespectful to the figure of a major composer. You don't seem to want to prove anything, but to upset the other members.


----------



## Xisten267

"In my study I can lay my hand on the Bible in the pitch dark. All truly inspired ideas come from God. The powers from which all truly great composers like Mozart, Schubert, Bach and *Beethoven* drew their inspirations is the same power that enabled Jesus to do his miracles."

"To follow in *Beethoven*'s footsteps transcends one's strength."

"Composers in the old days used to keep strictly to the base of the theme, as their real subject. *Beethoven* varies the melody, harmony and rhythms so beautifully."

All quotes above by Johannes Brahms.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant


I'm sure it's very, very vague.



> cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny :lol:.


Funny...how?



> Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:


Maybe you should struggle to overcome the urge to speculate on Beethoven's mental processes.



> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol: (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)


Oh, no one gets you wrong. No one.


----------



## Woodduck

Allerius said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> All what you wrote here is so trolly and utterly disrespectful to the figure of a major composer. You don't seem to want to prove anything, but to upset the other members.


He does seem to want to prove something, but what he proves is not what he intends.


----------



## pickybear

I think it would be an impossible comparison. I do think saying one is 'far superior' than the other is a bit daft. 

Mozart had a facility with music while Beethoven struggled, and this gives their music intrinsic differences out the gate. You could certainly hear Beethoven's music darken as he began to go deaf, and perhaps this gave his music a particular emotional power, but there are other times that I find the genius of Mozart's life affirming, mind-invading melodies exactly what I am in need of. 

I will say that, when my father was dying, we all preferred to hear Mozart over the Moonlight sonata in that hospital room, as it brought lightness to the worst moments. This 'easy' quality which people criticize Mozart's music for, is to me actually what is exactly right about it.


----------



## Guest

pickybear said:


> I think it would be an impossible comparison. I do think saying one is 'far superior' than the other is a bit daft.
> 
> *Mozart had a facility with music while Beethoven struggled,* and this gives their music intrinsic differences out the gate. You could certainly hear Beethoven's music darken as he began to go deaf, and perhaps this gave his music a particular emotional power, but there are other times that I find the genius of Mozart's life affirming, mind-invading melodies exactly what I am in need of.
> 
> I will say that, when my father was dying, we all preferred to hear Mozart over the Moonlight sonata in that hospital room, as it brought lightness to the worst moments. This 'easy' quality which people criticize Mozart's music for, is to me actually what is exactly right about it.


This idea, if true, can be interpreted in more than one way. For example:

"If only Mozart had 'struggled', he might have written music that equalled Beethoven's. As it was, he just dashed off the first easy thing that came to mind."

Your example of the suitability of music for the occasion only goes to illustrate perfectly that these two composers hold different appeal for different listeners in different circumstances, that their 'greatness' is not universal, and the alleged 'superiority' of one over the other illusory.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> This idea, if true, can be interpreted in more than one way. For example:
> 
> "If only Mozart had 'struggled', he might have written music that equalled Beethoven's. As it was, he just dashed off the first easy thing that came to mind."
> 
> Your example of the suitability of music for the occasion only goes to illustrate perfectly that these two composers hold different appeal for different listeners in different circumstances, that their 'greatness' is not universal, and the alleged 'superiority' of one over the other illusory.


If we didn't know these works so well we could put samples in a barrel. They would be untitled and we would begin to play them on the piano (with nothing to complicate the soundwall). Could we then immediately see which works had more cleverness or an enduring value purely as a vehicle for expression?
Are the levels of value equal? What did they achieve with elements of music theory that they grew up with? The more I think about this the more I think it's a matter of mood


----------



## EdwardBast

pickybear said:


> I think it would be an impossible comparison. I do think saying one is 'far superior' than the other is a bit daft.
> 
> *Mozart had a facility with music while Beethoven struggled, and this gives their music intrinsic differences out the gate.* You could certainly hear Beethoven's music darken as he began to go deaf, and perhaps this gave his music a particular emotional power, but there are other times that I find the genius of Mozart's life affirming, mind-invading melodies exactly what I am in need of.


This is a persistent and misguided myth. Beethoven was a fluent improviser who created complex and dramatic music on the spot as easily as he could speak. He was famous for this fluency and spontaneous imagination. Composition came easy to him. But he wasn't content to do what was easy, to use the same kind of formal patterns in the same way over and over again. He challenged himself to try new structural ideas and to make each work in a given genre different from the last. Look at his piano sonatas from the Opus 31 set to his last sonata, or the last nine string quartets, noting the tremendous range of expression, formal layout, and approaches to unity from one to the next. Ambitious plans require effort in their execution and we can see the record of that effort in Beethoven's sketches. A similar record doesn't exist for Mozart because the vast majority of his sketches were destroyed.

Beethoven's music didn't darken as he went deaf. He composed darker works and lighter works, expanding his expression in all directions.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> This is a persistent and misguided myth.


Quite right. This incessant canard implies that Beethoven was some sort of gifted "farmer" who struggled in the mud and clay to finally come up with a sonic sculpture that passed muster whereas Mozart was an aristocratic "landowner" who conjured up mazes and beautiful gardens over the weekend. I have forgotten what I was trying to say with this rather tortured similie.



EdwardBast said:


> Beethoven's music didn't darken as he went deaf. He composed darker works and lighter works, expanding his expression in all directions.


Again, quite so. For the lighter touches, listen to his 6 Bagetelles (Op. 126), if not his quartet N° 16. I find the genius of Beethoven as equally life-affirming as Mozart. I do agree though with PickyBear that these Mozart _vs_. Beethoven comparisons are a bit daft.


----------



## KenOC

There are, of course, anecdotes showing Beethoven struggling with his musical materials in ways that Mozart might have found a bit odd. One of these has Beethoven in an upstairs room at Gneixendorf (as I remember) stomping around and shouting loudly for hour after hour "as if he was at war with all the demons of counterpoint." He was merely working out a few details of the big fugue that ends the _Credo _of the _Missa Solemnis_…


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> I do agree though with PickyBear that these Mozart _vs_. Beethoven comparisons are a bit daft.


I enjoy comparisons, but they do tend to devolve into apples and oranges affairs, or competitions in which no one wins anything.


----------



## PlaySalieri

pickybear said:


> I think it would be an impossible comparison. I do think saying one is 'far superior' than the other is a bit daft.
> 
> Mozart had a facility with music while Beethoven struggled, and this gives their music intrinsic differences out the gate. You could certainly hear Beethoven's music darken as he began to go deaf, and perhaps this gave his music a particular emotional power, but there are other times that I find the genius of Mozart's life affirming, mind-invading melodies exactly what I am in need of.
> 
> I will say that, when my father was dying, we all preferred to hear Mozart over the Moonlight sonata in that hospital room, as it brought lightness to the worst moments. This 'easy' quality which people criticize Mozart's music for, is to me actually what is exactly right about it.


You would have to be careful what Mozart you play to a dying man - you might congratulate yourself upon hearing the sunny opening movement of PC 23 - but the middle movement? Despair and melancholy is never that far away in many a Mozart work.


----------



## EdwardBast

TalkingHead said:


> I do agree though with PickyBear that these Mozart _vs_. Beethoven comparisons are a bit daft.


Yes, I heartily agree to that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> If we didn't know these works so well we could put samples in a barrel. They would be untitled and we would begin to play them on the piano (with nothing to complicate the soundwall). Could we then immediately see which works had more cleverness or an enduring value purely as a vehicle for expression?


How long are you going to indulge in this nonsense Mozart works don't have an enduring value purely as a vehicle for expression? Do I have to remind you again vast majority of Chopin's works are "flirtatious" stuff dedicated to countesses, baronesses, madamoiselles etc?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I enjoy comparisons, but they do tend to devolve into apples and oranges affairs, or *competitions in which no one wins anything*.


Yes, that's right. Let's give 'em what they want:

*The Beethoven vs Mozart sketch*

*Scene*: The "Pig's Bladder" _winstub_, in downtown Vienna, circa 1791. Zoom to Beethoven (LvB) at the table, already half-cut on cheap Palatinate white wine, talking to his friends Tony "Swindler" Schindler (TS), Ignaz "Fat-boy" Schuppanzigh (IS), and Joe "Duke" Lobkowitz (JL). Enter Mozart (WAM).

*WAM*: _What ho, chaps, how's it going?_
*
LvB*: _Whad he say?_
*
TS* (writing in a conversation book): _Herr Mozart gives greetings to you, Louis!
_*
LvB*: _Oh yeah? Tell him to sling his hook._ _And to take off his stupid powdered wig_.
*
JL*: _Oh come now, Louis, try and be friendly, he hasn't got long to live, don't you you know?_
*
LvB*: _Like I should care. Now all of yous, get the fxxk outa my face!_ [LvB throws plate of veal liver in gravy at the waiter]
*
WAM*: _Hey Louis, you making any progress on your latest string quartet? _
*
LvB*: _Whad he say?_
*
IS* (writing in a conversation book): _He asked how's it going with the B-flat quartet_.
*
LvB*: _You mean the one you can't get your stubby little fingers around, you fat *******?
_*
JL*: _Can I have the first performance of that at my palace, Louis? The usual fee?_
*
LvB*: _Shut up. And bring me another bottle. Now_.
*
WAM*: _You know Louis, I'm sure it'll be a great work, given that Papa Haydn showed you how to write quartets and all that._
*
LvB*: _Whad you say?_
*
WAM*: _I said ..._
*
LvB* (tossing the table aside, incandescent with rage): _I heard you, you pampered lick-spittle...
_
[LvB lunges at WAM, fisticuffs and much swearing ensues... LvB lays WAM out flat with an upper-cut to the jaw followed by a a knee blow to the groin ... WAM is out for the count]

[Etc., etc.,]


----------



## KenOC

TalkingHead said:


> Yes, that's right. Let's give 'em what they want:
> 
> *The Beethoven vs Mozart sketch*... WAM is out for the count]
> 
> [Etc., etc.,]


My money's on the Bonn Bruiser every time.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> My money's on the Bonn Bruiser every time.


Absolutely. That LvB was the first composer capable of using a plate of veal liver in gravy purely as a vehicle of expression.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> How long are you going to indulge in this nonsense Mozart works don't have an enduring value purely as a vehicle for expression? Do I have to remind you again vast majority of Chopin's works are "flirtatious" stuff dedicated to countesses, baronesses, madamoiselles etc?


My post must've been very stimulating for you to read. You don't understand it and then you attack me with it.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> Brahms: "But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven."


There doesn't appear to be any consensus on the exact meaning of this quote, but what is clear is that Brahms withheld his first symphony for at least fourteen years because he felt the weight of Beethoven on his shoulders.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> *There doesn't appear to be any consensus on the exact meaning of this quote,* but what is clear is that Brahms withheld his first symphony for at least fourteen years because he felt the weight of Beethoven on his shoulders.


at any rate - Brahms found one aspect of Beethoven's music inferior to Mozart - and this seems to have much to do with dissonance.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> My post must've been very stimulating for you to read. You don't understand it and then you attack me with it.


What did I not understand about your post? These days I see you acting weird and talking nonsense in many threads. You often seem to be trying to claim: "Mozart, Haydn were surpassed by their successors, therefore Chopin rules".
Tell you what I think, Chopin was a weirdo. - He criticized Johann Strauss Sr. and Lanner and the Viennese public as having "corrupt taste", but he copied their style to write his own waltzes. Chopin wrote joke pieces he would never publish, and at his deathbed he pleaded others to destroy them for him. (At least Mozart and Beethoven never did that, do I have to remind you again :lol
Chopin considered Liszt a sort of a "talentless copycat", but Liszt proved him wrong right after his death by writing Sonata in B minor, something Chopin himself could never write.

I said once: _"Just look what's going on in the general classical music community. Johann Strauss II is regarded as "not being a serious composer" for writing Wo die Zitronen blühn op. 364. Chopin is regarded as the "Poet of the Piano" for writing Waltz in C sharp minor Op.64 No.2."_
Honestly if I didn't know the pieces and were asked to pick the better piece upon first hearing, I would pick "Wo die Zitronen blühn op. 364".

Looking at the octave ostinato spam of Polonaise Op.53, or the "monophonic monotony" of Op.48 No.1, Op.35, Op.44, I always think Cherubini or Hummel should have given Chopin some lessons in proper composition.


----------



## hammeredklavier

pickybear said:


> You could certainly hear Beethoven's music darken as he began to go deaf, and perhaps this gave his music a particular emotional power, but there are other times that I find the genius of Mozart's life affirming, mind-invading melodies exactly what I am in need of.


There were contemporaries of Beethoven who also wrote some interesting stuff in that regard.
(I see it more as a cultural trend that led to the Romantic era).
Clementi's fourth symphony: 



Etienne Mehul's first symphony: 




Mozart is often tragically dramatic and emotional as well. 
Since we were talking about Idomeneo, I'll cite examples from that opera:


----------



## janxharris

PlaySalieri said:


> at any rate - Brahms found one aspect of Beethoven's music inferior to Mozart - and this seems to have much to do with dissonance.


It would seem so...but like Larkenfield I'm struggling to hear as Brahm's did (Mozart's Quartet was cited). Certainly, though, there are moments of stark dissonance.


----------



## hammeredklavier

PlaySalieri said:


> at any rate - Brahms found one aspect of Beethoven's music inferior to Mozart - and this seems to have much to do with dissonance.


Brahms discussed other things:

_"...You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."_
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> This is a persistent and misguided myth. Beethoven was a fluent improviser who created complex and dramatic music on the spot as easily as he could speak. He was famous for this fluency and spontaneous imagination. Composition came easy to him. But he wasn't content to do what was easy, to use the same kind of formal patterns in the same way over and over again. He challenged himself to try new structural ideas and to make each work in a given genre different from the last. Look at his piano sonatas from the Opus 31 set to his last sonata, or the last nine string quartets, noting the tremendous range of expression, formal layout, and approaches to unity from one to the next. Ambitious plans require effort in their execution and we can see the record of that effort in Beethoven's sketches. A similar record doesn't exist for Mozart because the vast majority of his sketches were destroyed.


Some good points, but there does seem to be _some_ evidence for what pickybear is getting at. Rosen suggests something similar:

"Beethoven's mastery of fugue required a considerable act of will. He never had Mozart's unsurpassed facility for voice-leading, and his early contrapuntal exercises display astonishingly awkward mistakes. Perhaps it was this very difficulty that stimulated his drastic rethinking of fugal style."


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> Some good points, but there does seem to be _some_ evidence for what pickybear is getting at. Rosen suggests something similar:
> 
> "Beethoven's mastery of fugue required a considerable act of will. He never had Mozart's unsurpassed facility for voice-leading, and his early contrapuntal exercises display astonishingly awkward mistakes. Perhaps it was this very difficulty that stimulated his drastic rethinking of fugal style."


Rosen's statement is stupid. It's like saying Dostoyevsky never had Tolstoy's unsurpassed facility at grammar. 

Assuming, dubiously, there is such a thing as "fugal style," could you please suggest how it is drastically rethought in the first movement of Beethoven's Quartet Op. 131 or the sonatas Op. 101, 106, or 109?


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> It would seem so...but like Larkenfield I'm struggling to hear as Brahm's did (Mozart's Quartet was cited). Certainly, though, there are moments of stark dissonance.


Well I suppose if both you and Larkenfield cant hear it then Brahms must be wrong.

Dissonance in Mozart's music is not infrequently touched upon on this board - I recall one member saying he preferred Mozart to Haydn as the latter's music is never dissonant.

As for the opening to Mozart's dissonance quartet - it wouldnt sound that out of place in the 20th C


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> What did I not understand about your post? These days I see you acting weird and talking nonsense in many threads. You often seem to be trying to claim: "Mozart, Haydn were surpassed by their successors, therefore Chopin rules".
> Tell you what I think, Chopin was a weirdo. - He criticized Johann Strauss Sr. and Lanner and the Viennese public as having "corrupt taste", but he copied their style to write his own waltzes. Chopin wrote joke pieces he would never publish, and at his deathbed he pleaded others to destroy them for him. (At least Mozart and Beethoven never did that, do I have to remind you again :lol
> Chopin considered Liszt a sort of a "talentless copycat", but Liszt proved him wrong right after his death by writing Sonata in B minor, something Chopin himself could never write.
> 
> I said once: _"Just look what's going on in the general classical music community. Johann Strauss II is regarded as "not being a serious composer" for writing Wo die Zitronen blühn op. 364. Chopin is regarded as the "Poet of the Piano" for writing Waltz in C sharp minor Op.64 No.2."_
> Honestly if I didn't know the pieces and were asked to pick the better piece upon first hearing, I would pick "Wo die Zitronen blühn op. 364".
> 
> Looking at the octave ostinato spam of Polonaise Op.53, or the "monophonic monotony" of Op.48 No.1, Op.35, Op.44, I always think Cherubini or Hummel should have given Chopin some lessons in proper composition.


You're a pianist who doesn't appreciate Chopin. That's remarkable.


----------



## Sandor36

EdwardBast said:


> Rosen's statement is stupid. It's like saying Dostoyevsky never had Tolstoy's unsurpassed facility at grammar.
> 
> Assuming, dubiously, there is such a thing as "fugal style," could you please suggest how it is drastically rethought in the first movement of Beethoven's Quartet Op. 131 or the sonatas Op. 101, 106, or 109?


"Fugal style" term has been used before as main topic, for example in this article:

"*Beethoven's Early Fugal Style*"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/937029?seq=1

Also in this PhD thesis:

"*Beethoven's Instrumental Fugal Style: an Investigation
of Tonal and Thematic Characteristics in the
Late-Period Fugues.*"

http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1894/1/DX195498_1.pdf

So Rosen seems to have point after all regarding Beethoven's Fugal Style differences.


----------



## janxharris

PlaySalieri said:


> Well I suppose if both you and Larkenfield cant hear it then Brahms must be wrong.


Not at all - Brahms' opinion is valid.



> Dissonance in Mozart's music is not infrequently touched upon on this board - I recall one member saying he preferred Mozart to Haydn as the latter's music is never dissonant.
> 
> As for the opening to Mozart's dissonance quartet - it wouldnt sound that out of place in the 20th C


I agree - like Beethoven's Op. 133 it is beyond it's time. The Mozart quartet is good and grows in my estimation every time I hear it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Rosen's statement is stupid. It's like saying Dostoyevsky never had Tolstoy's unsurpassed facility at grammar.


Good point. I think this is much like the "Schubert vs Beethoven in melody" debate. On one side, we have arguments _"Beethoven's melodies are meager."_ On the other, there are arguments _"Beethoven's melodies are good enough for the style of music he wrote"_.



EdwardBast said:


> Assuming, dubiously, there is such a thing as "fugal style," could you please suggest how it is drastically rethought in the first movement of Beethoven's Quartet Op. 131 or the sonatas Op. 101, 106, or 109?


I find that with Beethoven's fugues, there are two kinds: 
The first kind is mostly "homorhythmic" in texture. 
Op.131: looks more like a "chorale" than a "fugue" to me in overall texture. (The voice lines having the same rhythm move together in time and keep going in that fashion). It feels to me more like a typical string quartet movement with ample elements of imitation. 
Op.133: the dotted rhythm and triplets are dependent on each other.

The second kind is the ones where Beethoven applies a lot of contrapuntal devices like inversion, stretto, augmentation, but doesn't really turn out to be "coherent".
Op.106: 



Op.110: I think Beethoven originally intended to balance the initial fugue with the inversion fugue in weight, but the inversion fugue "breaks apart" too early.
There is evidence Beethoven also studied Mozart Fantasie K608. The Mozart Fantasie consists of an opening fugue and a closing double fugue that balance each other more ideally in my view.

Anyway, regardless whether they're really good as fugues or not, I consider Beethoven Op.131, Op.133 as masterpieces in terms of musical expression.


----------



## EdwardBast

Sandor36 said:


> "Fugal style" term has been used before as main topic, for example in this article:
> 
> "*Beethoven's Early Fugal Style*"
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/937029?seq=1
> 
> Also in this PhD thesis:
> 
> "*Beethoven's Instrumental Fugal Style: an Investigation
> of Tonal and Thematic Characteristics in the
> Late-Period Fugues.*"
> 
> http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1894/1/DX195498_1.pdf
> 
> So Rosen seems to have point after all regarding Beethoven's Fugal Style differences.


Of course Beethoven's fugues have an individual style. My question concerned the meaning of the term in the generic sense as used in the statement "drastic rethinking of fugal style." That is, what is the baseline style from which he deviated?


----------



## pickybear

> This is a persistent and misguided myth. Beethoven was a fluent improviser who created complex and dramatic music on the spot as easily as he could speak. He was famous for this fluency and spontaneous imagination. Composition came easy to him. But he wasn't content to do what was easy, to use the same kind of formal patterns in the same way over and over again. He challenged himself to try new structural ideas and to make each work in a given genre different from the last. Look at his piano sonatas from the Opus 31 set to his last sonata, or the last nine string quartets, noting the tremendous range of expression, formal layout, and approaches to unity from one to the next. Ambitious plans require effort in their execution and we can see the record of that effort in Beethoven's sketches. A similar record doesn't exist for Mozart because the vast majority of his sketches were destroyed.
> 
> Beethoven's music didn't darken as he went deaf. He composed darker works and lighter works, expanding his expression in all directions.


His deafness certainly was a struggle, and I would say that his music darkened in the sense that he had a hard time hearing high notes, and couldn't hear woodwinds, so the 'brightness' of earlier compositions disappeared for a period as he became more deaf. Of course the emotional range of his music is fantastic - and I wouldn't generalize either of their music in any serious way. There is much to Beethoven which is uplifting. But this struggle he did have with his hearing, must have been agony for a composer. I would imagine it marked him, and contributed to his work in a way that is unique to him.

I have always found his music more extreme in the emotional sense than Mozart, who by all accounts composed quickly and perhaps more intuitively, though I agree we will not know exactly how he wrote; but Mozart also seemed more sociable, lively, extroverted and wrote many not-so-serious compositions, while Beethoven seems to have been more the 'serious' artist, perfectionist, probably more introverted, reportedly spending long periods of time by himself because he was ashamed of his deafness.

I would think this all contributes to an artist's output.


----------



## hammeredklavier

pickybear said:


> I have always found his music more extreme in the emotional sense than Mozart, who by all accounts composed quickly and perhaps more intuitively, though I agree we will not know exactly how he wrote; but Mozart also seemed more sociable, lively, extroverted and wrote many not-so-serious compositions,







Are you familiar at all with Beethoven's incidental music? How is this more "serious" than the stuff I discussed in post #513?



pickybear said:


> while Beethoven seems to have been more the 'serious' artist, perfectionist, probably more introverted, reportedly spending long periods of time by himself because he was ashamed of his deafness.







How is this more perfect than


----------



## EdwardBast

pickybear said:


> I have always found his music more extreme in the emotional sense than Mozart, who by all accounts composed quickly and perhaps more intuitively, though I agree we will not know exactly how he wrote; but Mozart also seemed more sociable, lively, extroverted and wrote many not-so-serious compositions, while Beethoven seems to have been more the 'serious' artist, perfectionist, probably more introverted, reportedly spending long periods of time by himself because he was ashamed of his deafness.
> 
> I would think this all contributes to an artist's output.


I would hesitate to attribute the differences in expression and seriousness you cite to individual traits of the composers. Musical aesthetics was undergoing a drastic paradigm shift around the turn of the 19thc. Through the great work of Mozart and Beethoven it went from being regarded as a kind of sensual and decorative ear-tickling to a fine art plumbing the depths of the human soul and psyche. One is more likely to be a "serious artist" and to be seen as such the more society takes your art form seriously. When the highest aesthetic values are light, balance, beauty, and sensual pleasure, composers write great music fulfilling these values. When depth of personal expression and moving the levers of wonder and terror are regarded as central goals, stormier, willful music is more likely to be appreciated.


----------



## Roger Knox

EdwardBast said:


> I would hesitate to attribute the differences in expression and seriousness you cite to individual traits of the composers. Musical aesthetics was undergoing a drastic paradigm shift around the turn of the 19thc. Through the great work of Mozart and Beethoven it went from being regarded as a kind of sensual and decorative ear-tickling to a fine art plumbing the depths of the human soul and psyche. One is more likely to be a "serious artist" and to be seen as such the more society takes your art form seriously. When the highest aesthetic values are light, balance, beauty, and sensual pleasure, composers write great music fulfilling these values. When depth of personal expression and moving the levers of wonder and terror are regarded as central goals, stormier, willful music is more likely to be appreciated.


I agree, recognizing these ideas underpinned my music studies & continued in my later musical life.

As for which composer has had more global impact: (1) Beethoven in the 19th c., through ongoing influence on European Romanticism & in many non-European countries; (2) Mozart increasing in the 20th c., with the neo-classical movement, more performances of the vast catalogue, & artists like Rudolph Serkin emphasizing in pianism the depth & expressiveness of his music. But both Classical & Romantic sides of Beethoven kept him at the top; (3) hard to say in the later 20th/21st c. -- many people prefer pre-18th and/or post-20th centuries, non-Western, electronic/computer, popular, mixed media.


----------



## Ethereality

Mozart's instrumentation doesn't quite pack as much punch, attack, or expressive effect as Bach's and Beethoven's, simply due to the evolution of the larger symphony at his time which sounds collectively more faded--Beethoven steered around this problem. In some way, I think when you see past this (which is difficult to do because there aren't as many dynamically or instrumentally different compositions of Mozart's) it becomes easier to perceive his genius and perhaps superiority. As per the TC's Expert Top 50 here, Mozart is listed as #1, which seems quite possibly accurate to me. But a lot of his music simply doesn't have as much attack, and thus can be less effective on people for that reason, due to the time he lived, the symphonic environment he usually composed for. During the Classical period the symphony already sounded revolutionary compared to anything before, nobody expected it would be changed more drastically.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Mozart's instrumentation doesn't quite pack as much punch, attack, or expressive effect as Bach's and Beethoven's. In some way, I think when you see past this (which is difficult to do because there aren't as many dynamically or instrumentally varied recordings of his) it becomes easier to perceive his genius and perhaps superiority. As per the TC's Expert Top 50 here, Mozart is listed as #1, which seems quite possibly accurate to me.


So you're ranking by sharing the feelings that Mozart was able evoke (even with his disadvantages). It sets him ahead.

It seems like a valid approach. They're all so closely ranked that it really depends upon my mood.. ..unless we want to rank individual works by their strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Ethereality

Sorry wasn't sure what you meant by feelings, but moreso than him trying at expression, it is his truly complex forms and developments that may go ignored by people after a few listens because people prefer an overall different timbre to their music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Roger Knox said:


> As for which composer has had more global impact: (1) Beethoven in the 19th c., through ongoing influence on European Romanticism & in many non-European countries; (2) Mozart increasing in the 20th c., with the neo-classical movement, more performances of the vast catalogue, & artists like Rudolph Serkin emphasizing in pianism the depth & expressiveness of his music. But both Classical & Romantic sides of Beethoven kept him at the top; (3) hard to say in the later 20th/21st c. -- many people prefer pre-18th and/or post-20th centuries, non-Western, electronic/computer, popular, mixed media.


But even in the 19th century, Beethoven didn't have as much influence on Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini etc as Mozart did.
I've discussed Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Wagner (Harmonic Similarities in Wagner and Mozart) regarding this matter so much I probably don't need to go over again.
Berlioz (and probably Liszt) may have found Beethoven more important, but they didn't trash Mozart in the same way Ravel did Beethoven. Berlioz Mendelssohn thought that Haydn and Mozart were just as important as Beethoven. (https://books.google.ca/books?id=B5SlCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20) Mendelssohn's own second piano concerto for example quotes Mozart Clarinet Quintet.
Maybe by "global impact", you mean popularity with the global public. But for large part of the 19th century, global popularity of classical music outside of the European continent was minimal. Abraham Lincoln didn't know Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Mozart's instrumentation doesn't quite pack as much punch, attack, or expressive effect as Bach's and Beethoven's, simply due to the evolution of the larger symphony at his time which sounds collectively more faded--Beethoven steered around this problem. In some way, I think when you see past this (which is difficult to do because there aren't as many dynamically or instrumentally different compositions of Mozart's) it becomes easier to perceive his genius and perhaps superiority. As per the TC's Expert Top 50 here, Mozart is listed as #1, which seems quite possibly accurate to me. But a lot of his music simply doesn't have as much attack, and thus can be less effective on people for that reason, due to the time he lived, the symphonic environment he usually composed for. During the Classical period the symphony already sounded revolutionary compared to anything before, nobody expected it would be changed more drastically.


So after all your nonsense that Bach is one-dimensional because he doesn't use bangy rhythm and dynamics like Beethoven, you're now trashing Mozart? Hasn't it occurred to you, compared to Haydn's Theresienmesse for example, Beethoven's own Missa Solemnis just pales, and he should have studied Haydn's music more carefully? Haven't you wondered why Hummel laughed about Beethoven's work, and Verdi criticized the final movement of the ninth symphony?

Choral Fantasy Op.80:





9th Symphony 4th movement:





Missa Solemnis Op.123: Credo













If you're calling these sloppy attempts at control, "expressive effect and punch" surpassing Haydn and Mozart, I'll just have to laugh at you in the face and not take you seriously any more. :lol:


----------



## Ethereality

Ooo I think you completely misread my post sir hammeredklavier. See Luchesi's response. The key word I used was "instrumentation" of the classical symphony, not "compositional ability", so my post has the opposite meaning of which you read. One easily notices Haydn's early works packing much less of punch in instrumentation due to the symphonic needs of that time, yet has no bearing on their quality of classical expression, but are in fact works severe in underratededness. Whether or not I'm talking about the overall excellence of expression that exists within classical form, is a different topic from the distinction I made that listeners unfortunately draw to--the instrumentation or timbre of non-classical configurations, an unfortunate distraction. This is due to either their smaller size allowing for richer timbre (ie. Baroque) or their compositional leverage of symphonic punch and silence (ie. Romantic.) To a trained ear, this musical quality is not impressive by itself, but to others, they may not notice its basic simplicity.


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> So after all your nonsense that Bach is one-dimensional because he doesn't use bangy rhythm and dynamics like Beethoven, you're now trashing Mozart? Hasn't it occurred to you, compared to Haydn's Theresienmesse for example, Beethoven's own Missa Solemnis just pales, and he should have studied Haydn's music more carefully? Haven't you wondered why Hummel laughed about Beethoven's work, and Verdi criticized the final movement of the ninth symphony?
> 
> Choral Fantasy Op.80:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9th Symphony 4th movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missa Solemnis Op.123: Credo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're calling these sloppy attempts at control, "expressive effect and punch" surpassing Haydn and Mozart, I'll just have to laugh at you in the face and not take you seriously any more. :lol:


There's no substance to what you say. "Bangy" rhythm? Missa Solemnis pales? How so? What do these nonsensical links you provided mean? If Hummel and Verdi criticized Beethoven, so Gould, Ives and Berlioz did for Mozart. So what? What authority to ask somebody not to trash a composer do you think you have if you keep doing the same? Why should anyone take _you_ seriously, considering that all what you do all the time is attack major composers using some alien logic, and as if your personal biases should be taken as definitive truths? Why can't you be only a bit humble and just say "I don't really like any composer in classical music besides Mozart" instead of keep attacking other composers while trying to prove the existence of certain absolute weaknesses in their oeuvre that can viewed as qualities depending on the perspective? Instead, just be fair to yourself and say loud and clean "I don't like Beethoven", it will do you good, and nobody will have to complain about that.

By the way, I prefer Beethoven's _Choral Fantasy_ over any Mozart fantasy, I prefer Beethoven's _Ninth symphony_ over any Mozart symphony, and I favour Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis_ over any Mozart's mass with perhaps the single exception of the _Requiem_. So what?


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Sorry wasn't sure what you meant by feelings, but moreso than him trying at expression, it is his truly complex forms and developments that may go ignored by people after a few listens because people prefer an overall different timbre to their music.


If not feeling (as a concept it's wrong) then Mozart is showing us arithmetic integer relationships. And we're so pleased with ourselves when we detect them (in all the arts). In music there's only five comfortable integer relationships (the sixth becomes close to uncomfortable, but I don't think there's more than six) and they're not as obvious as in the visual arts and architecture.

Mozart and his contemporaries do this 'bestowing' on us - and are very exposed. They pound it home. In the Romantic era the composers were trying to avoid the obvious - while at the same time borrowing the successful innovations from Mozart's time.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Ethereality said:


> Mozart's instrumentation doesn't quite pack as much punch, attack, or expressive effect as Bach's and Beethoven's, simply due to the evolution of the larger symphony at his time which sounds collectively more faded--Beethoven steered around this problem. In some way, I think when you see past this (which is difficult to do because there aren't as many dynamically or instrumentally different compositions of Mozart's) it becomes easier to perceive his genius and perhaps superiority. As per the TC's Expert Top 50 here, Mozart is listed as #1, which seems quite possibly accurate to me. But a lot of his music simply doesn't have as much attack, and thus can be less effective on people for that reason, due to the time he lived, the symphonic environment he usually composed for. During the Classical period the symphony already sounded revolutionary compared to anything before, nobody expected it would be changed more drastically.


Attack?

I think you need to listen to more Mozart.

Try the 1st mvt of sy 25 in g minor.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> There's no substance to what you say. "Bangy" rhythm? Missa Solemnis pales? How so? What do these nonsensical links you provided mean?


Sorry, I was just making a point, Haydn and Mozart can be just as effective and powerful, albeit in a different way from Beethoven.



Allerius said:


> If Hummel and Verdi criticized Beethoven, so Gould, Ives and Berlioz did for Mozart. So what?


We talked about this sometime ago.




Luchesi said:


> Mozart and his contemporaries do this 'bestowing' on us - and are very exposed. They pound it home. In the Romantic era the composers were trying to avoid the obvious - while at the same time borrowing the successful innovations from Mozart's time.






















Haven't I told you many times before that Chopin's method of writing the same parts for both hands all the way is just a lazy way to go about doing things, and far far more obvious, boring in my view than Haydn and Mozart? 
"_Chopin is a composer for one right hand_" -Wagner


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Ooo I think you completely misread my post sir hammeredklavier. See Luchesi's response. The key word I used was "instrumentation" of the classical symphony, not "compositional ability", so my post has the opposite meaning of which you read. One easily notices Haydn's early works packing much less of punch in instrumentation due to the symphonic needs of that time, yet has no bearing on their quality of classical expression, but are in fact works severe in underratededness. Whether or not I'm talking about the overall excellence of expression that exists within classical form, is a different topic from the distinction I made that listeners unfortunately draw to--the instrumentation or timbre of non-classical configurations, an unfortunate distraction. This is due to either their smaller size allowing for richer timbre (ie. Baroque) or their compositional leverage of symphonic punch and silence (ie. Romantic.) To a trained ear, this musical quality is not impressive by itself, but to others, they may not notice its basic simplicity.


As I far as I remember even in the later era, Beethoven didn't write any significant work in these instrument combinations: 2 oboes, 1 clarinet, *3 basset horns, 1 contrabassoon,* 2 horns. (instrumentation for winds in Maurerische Trauermusik K477) Beethoven 5th and 9th symphonies have 1 contrabassoon in their instrumentation, but no basset horns. Mozart, Haydn didn't have any less "expressive effect" in instrumentation and variety than Beethoven: they were just different.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart, Haydn didn't have any less "expressive effect" in instrumentation and variety than Beethoven: they were just different.


I would still reword this. Mozart and Haydn have far enough expression. But the _immediate_ effects I've been referring to this whole time, were not as much as Beethoven. Like you said, these are different types we're distinguishing between: the subtlety of the larger symphony (more instruments with imperfect timing) is one major reason many here aren't more attracted to Classical composers, and *the reason for this is*, when you're hearing a Classical symphony, concerto or opera, you're supposed to be comparing the music _within_ its own development and boundaries. You're not comparing it as much with other pieces. This misunderstanding is why people _flee_ from Haydn, many don't understand (or haven't been taught) the technical purpose of classical music. A glimpse judgement towards what sounds like less expression, but failing to understand 18th century intention, and thus failing to understand the music. Period. It's not until composition started distinguishing itself with varieties of both broader and sharper dynamics and attacks, and at greater development and range (as well as Baroque with its inherently richer more intimate timbres), that now these Romantic dynamics are something people naturally draw to often without realization, however many have said it's a simplistic quality, considering such the emotional intent of Classical.



hammeredklavier said:


> As I far as I remember even in the later era, Beethoven didn't write any significant work in these instrument combinations: 2 oboes, 1 clarinet, *3 basset horns, 1 contrabassoon,* 2 horns.


This is true, I was mostly referring to the Baroque period instrumentation. The Classical symphony is known for its softness, but in reality this is only a perception. It has nothing to do with your or my opinion, it's a real perception that more people should get past.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I was just making a point, Haydn and Mozart can be just as effective and powerful, albeit in a different way from Beethoven.
> 
> We talked about this sometime ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't I told you many times before that Chopin's method of writing the same parts for both hands all the way is just a lazy way to go about doing things, and far far more obvious, boring in my view than Haydn and Mozart?
> "_Chopin is a composer for one right hand_" -Wagner


Chopin needed those sonorities and with the pianos of his time he could have them.

For me, Wagner's gimmicks in that piece aren't inspiring.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> As I far as I remember even in the later era, Beethoven didn't write any significant work in these instrument combinations: 2 oboes, 1 clarinet, *3 basset horns, 1 contrabassoon,* 2 horns.


A hugely significant shortcoming I'm sure.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Chopin needed those sonorities and with the pianos of his time he could have them.


Well, I think what Chopin really needed was some proper education in composition, like proper lessons from renowned masters such as Hummel or Cherubini and he really needed to stop being a new-age composer start being a real classical music composer for god's sake. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> I would still reword this. Mozart and Haydn have far enough expression. But the _immediate_ effects I've been referring to this whole time, were not as much as Beethoven.


Whatever.. Just believe whatever you want. Live in your wet dreams and revisionist propaganda. :lol: They won't change reality and real history ever. And your absurd assertions won't change my view on these masters either.


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, I think what Chopin really needed was some proper education in composition, like proper lessons from renowned masters such as Hummel or Cherubini and he really needed to stop being a new-age composer start being a real classical music composer for god's sake. :lol:


Chopin found his own way and produced beautifully written and poetic music, he had all he needed technically to produce his art. One can of course not like his work, but surely one also has to take into account his harmonic innovations, his many deeply moving and elegant themes and clever pianism in mitigation against such opinion. Forthright and unrelenting bias against Chopin feels like an injustice to him, his work and is also rather contrary to his cherished place amongst listeners and performers imv.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, I think what Chopin really needed was some proper education in composition, like proper lessons from renowned masters such as Hummel or Cherubini and he really needed to stop being a new-age composer start being a real classical music composer for god's sake. :lol:


Nah, he probably needed a good spanking as he was clearly a naughty boy.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, I think what Chopin really needed was some proper education in composition, like proper lessons from renowned masters such as Hummel or Cherubini and he really needed to stop being a new-age composer start being a real classical music composer for god's sake. :lol:


I'm not much of a fan of Chopin, and find him corny, but you gotta give credit where it is due. It's not to your advantage to be knocking them like that. You can say the same with me and Brahms, but it's more a matter of taste than anything. There is still lots to admire from both in their techniques.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm not much of a fan of Chopin, and find him corny, but you gotta give credit where it is due. It's not to your advantage to be knocking them like that. You can say the same with me and Brahms, but it's more a matter of taste than anything. There is still lots to admire from both in their *techniques.*





mikeh375 said:


> Chopin found his own way and produced beautifully written and poetic music, *he had all he needed technically* to produce his art. One can of course not like his work, but surely one also has to take into account his *harmonic innovations*, his many deeply moving and elegant themes and *clever pianism* in mitigation against such opinion. Forthright and unrelenting bias against Chopin feels like an injustice to him, his work and is also rather contrary to his cherished place amongst listeners and performers imv.


Don't be so quick to judge my comment. Look at Luchesi's first.

_"If not feeling (as a concept it's wrong) then Mozart is showing us arithmetic integer relationships. And we're so pleased with ourselves when we detect them (in all the arts)."_

So when Chopin uses his "techniques" (pianistic, or harmonic, or virtuousic, or whatever you want to call them), he's writing expressive music, and when Mozart (and Haydn) use their techniques, they're not writing expressive music, but merely "arithmetic relationships"? Think about it. So when Chopin goes through random progressions (that are not even interesting in my view) with both hands going in unison (rather pedantically) in the finale of his 2nd sonata, he's being totally expressive? Whereas when Mozart uses his techniques, he's merely expressing cold arithmetic? Not expressive music?

_"To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake."_ https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34


----------



## Ethereality

I will take Chopin over Schumann nowadays. While I feel Schumann made many smaller contributions, his overall approach is too cloying and overdone for me to take as seriously. Though as hammeredklavier points out, unlike Mozart, Chopin wasn't trying to balance intellect and design with emotion. Like some of my favorites, the 1st Piano Concerto, Ballade in G Minor, Chopin's music is purely emotional, reflective, and sometimes utterly profound.

22:25 - 24:35


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, I think what Chopin really needed was some proper education in composition, like proper lessons from renowned masters such as Hummel or Cherubini and he really needed to stop being a new-age composer start being a real classical music composer for god's sake. :lol:





> Whatever.. Just believe whatever you want. Live in your wet dreams and revisionist propaganda. They won't change reality and real history ever. And your absurd assertions won't change my view on these masters either.


Dr. Jekyll talks to Mr. Hyde.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Chopin wasn't trying to balance intellect and design with emotion. Like some of my favorites, the 1st Piano Concerto, Ballade in G Minor, Chopin's music is purely emotional, reflective, and sometimes utterly profound.


You can like whatever you want. But Luchesi's constant attempt to glorify Chopin as the Undisputed God Almighty Over Everyone Else is getting more and more baffling these days. Stuff like this strikes me as a really good finger exercise in scales. "School of Velocity." (And Luchesi tried to argue Mozart's work is only pedagogical, not artistic. Give me a break please. ROFL :lol









And people bash Liszt all the time about his pretentiousness, while praising Chopin as the Poet. It seems kind of unfair to me.



hammeredklavier said:


> I know to many listeners, Chopin rarely strikes as being bombastic. He may not have the overt "loudness" or "vulgarity" of the most bombastic composers out there, but he has this method of restating the original material in the recapitulation with more 'bass notes', more 'doublings' and more 'forte', without much ingenuity of motivic variation. To me, it sounds a little inflated as well.
> It's not at all vulgar (unlike some pieces of Liszt or Alkan for example), but sometimes leaves me wondering "Why make such a huge deal out of it? or "Are you done yet, Monsieur Chopin?"
> 
> original material: 3:30~5:00
> recapitulation: 9:50~11:30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the bass notes each time the main theme returns
> 0:09
> 1:42
> 3:33


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Don't be so quick to judge my comment. Look at Luchesi's first.
> 
> _"If not feeling (as a concept it's wrong) then Mozart is showing us arithmetic integer relationships. And we're so pleased with ourselves when we detect them (in all the arts)."_
> 
> So when Chopin uses his "techniques" (pianistic, or harmonic, or virtuousic, or whatever you want to call them), he's writing expressive music, and when Mozart (and Haydn) use their techniques, they're not writing expressive music, but merely "arithmetic relationships"? Think about it. So when Chopin goes through random progressions (that are not even interesting in my view) with both hands going in unison (rather pedantically) in the finale of his 2nd sonata, he's being totally expressive? Whereas when Mozart uses his techniques, he's merely expressing cold arithmetic? Not expressive music?
> 
> _"To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake."_ https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34


Mozart composed expressive music, but it was 40 years later when Chopin was perfecting his works. "Expressing cold arithmetic"? I don't think you understand, but why would you want Chopin to compose as did the minor composers like Hummel?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> You can like whatever you want. But Luchesi's constant attempt to glorify Chopin as the Undisputed God Almighty Over Everyone Else is getting more and more baffling these days. Stuff like this strikes me as a really good finger exercise in scales. "School of Velocity." (And Luchesi tried to argue Mozart's work is only pedagogical, not artistic. Give me a break please. ROFL :lol
> 
> View attachment 127640
> 
> 
> And people bash Liszt all the time about his pretentiousness, while praising Chopin as the Poet. It seems kind of unfair to me.


No one in this thread was talking about Chopin until you decided to come here and bash both him and member Luchesi (post #450 on Nov. 20).

Why don't you stick to saying insulting things about Beethoven?


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> Don't be so quick to judge my comment. Look at Luchesi's first.
> 
> _"If not feeling (as a concept it's wrong) then Mozart is showing us arithmetic integer relationships. And we're so pleased with ourselves when we detect them (in all the arts)."_
> 
> So when Chopin uses his "techniques" (pianistic, or harmonic, or virtuousic, or whatever you want to call them), he's writing expressive music, and when Mozart (and Haydn) use their techniques, they're not writing expressive music, but merely "arithmetic relationships"? Think about it. So when Chopin goes through random progressions (that are not even interesting in my view) with both hands going in unison (rather pedantically) in the finale of his 2nd sonata, he's being totally expressive? Whereas when Mozart uses his techniques, he's merely expressing cold arithmetic? Not expressive music?
> 
> _"To Schumann it seemed that Chopin had lost his way, and gotten too wrapped up in virtuosity for its own sake."_ https://books.google.ca/books?id=OYo7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34


HammeredK I think you've got the wrong forumite. My love of Chopin is _not_ at the expense of Mozart and Haydn. We are happy and respectful of each other in our little threesome.


----------



## AntonioSalieri

Mozart sure could write well for the voice, and wasn't his work within the genre of opera revolutionary? Sub-thread: is Fidelio even good?


----------



## Guest

AntonioSalieri said:


> Sub-thread: is Fidelio even good?


Well, Furtwangler seemed quite keen.



> Certainly, _Fidelio_ is not an opera in the sense we are used to, nor is Beethoven a musician for the theater, or a dramaturgist. He is quite a bit more, a whole musician, and beyond that, a saint and a visionary.


----------



## Aloevera

The reason why I tend to feel strongly on this matter because I think this debate sets the general compass of classical music, and perhaps music as a whole. In most classical lists, bach will get the number 1 spot, and then it is contested whether Mozart or Beethoven will get number 2. I strongly feel Mozart should get number 2. While I find Bach not all that inspiring, I don't have a problem with it being above Mozart for the same reason I feel Mozart should be above Beethoven. Bach, although I find to be a little boring (unless I'm playing it ) can appreciate the complexity in counterpoint and sense of maturity over the passions. I think I can only appreciate the merits of Beethoven only in so far as it is seated in number 3 behind Mozart. If that spot is contested, it just feels like like a confliction of values. In which I'd have to say Mozart and the music especially dealing with more religious ideas I think is more genuine with a more authentic sense of yearning. Beethoven, no doubt outdos Mozart in many ways by the natural sequence of musical history , seems to me more personally ambitious at the cost of sincerity . Because Beethoven outdos Mozart in certain ways, I think puts the musical landscape at jeopardy. That is, I don't think he manages to outdo Mozart in the ways that are most important. So putting aside favorite composers, which is based on opinions where things like reliability might factor into account, I think Mozart should be secured at number 2, and Beethovn number 3.


----------



## janxharris

argumentum ad populum


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> No one in this thread was talking about Chopin until you decided to come here and bash both him and member Luchesi (post #450 on Nov. 20).
> Why don't you stick to saying insulting things about Beethoven?


Right, but Luchesi is acting strangely these days. These days so many of his anti-Mozart-Haydn utterances lead to conclusions like: _"Romanticism is better, hence Chopin rules"._ Perhaps I'm being paranoid (as you say), but you can't blame me for Luchesi slowly showing his real intentions and talking like:



Luchesi said:


> If we didn't know these works so well we could put samples in a barrel. They would be untitled and *we would begin to play them on the piano* (with nothing to complicate the soundwall). Could we then immediately see which works had more cleverness or an *enduring value purely as a vehicle for expression?*


He talks about "piano" again.. (sigh.. you know where he's getting at)



Luchesi said:


> *In the Romantic era the composers* were trying to avoid the obvious - while at the same time borrowing the successful innovations from Mozart's time.


But I think it's time for him to realize even in the Romantic era, there were outstanding composers such as Wagner but also average ones (by "average", I mean "ok") such as Chopin. And NO, not all Romantic composers were successful in borrowing from their predecessors. Some were not skillful enough (not as good as Brahms and Wagner for example) in structure, harmony, counterpoint, all the aspects of music-making. (I acknowledge they still wrote fine music by "understanding" how to write for certain instruments in solo genres, like Paganini)



Luchesi said:


> I don't think you understand, but why would you want Chopin to compose as did the minor composers like Hummel?


I still maintain that Hummel piano concertos Op.85, Op.89, Op.113 are superior to Chopin's. Just listen to the way the third movements of Op.89, Op.113 open. I don't think Chopin could really meet Hummel's standards with his own concertos. And in his underrated Etudes (Op.125), Hummel employs richer technique of voice-leading than Chopin's. Chopin even took ideas for his fourth Ballade from Hummel Fantasie in E flat major Op.18 of 1805, (again stealing all the thunder from the Germanic masters). If all the international Chopin Competitions around the world promoted Hummel in the same level they do Chopin and allowed Hummel to be played alongside Chopin, all the Chopin aficionados will realize the truths. (That he's not the kind of godly inventor and divine creator they make him out to be)


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> argumentum ad populum


I'm impressed you could detect an argumentum at all.


----------



## Aloevera

hammeredklavier said:


>


Dang, I always assumed Hummel was a second rate composer, this has most definitely shifted my opinon


----------



## Xisten267

AntonioSalieri said:


> Mozart sure could write well for the voice, and wasn't his work within the genre of opera revolutionary? Sub-thread: is Fidelio even good?


This opera has been admired by many since it's creation, including great composers such as Schubert, Berlioz and Wagner. It was the first complete opera to be performed broadcast in the USA, the first opera to be performed in Berlin since the end of World War II, and the opera to be performed in the 40th anniversary of East Germany just four weeks before the fall of the Berlin Wall - events that show us the admirable reputation it has. It's a very successful opera by all standards, being staged frequently since it's composition. It's much more than just "good", it's a classic of it's genre.


----------



## Xisten267

Woodduck said:


> Why don't you stick to saying insulting things about Beethoven?


Oh noes! Don't remind him.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> And people bash Liszt all the time about his pretentiousness, while praising Chopin as the Poet. It seems kind of unfair to me.


I agree I do feel there is a certain sentiment towards that in general. I feel Liszt did everything better.


----------



## Luchesi

deleted - it was off-topic


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Right, but Luchesi is acting strangely these days. These days so many of his anti-Mozart-Haydn utterances lead to conclusions like: _"Romanticism is better, hence Chopin rules"._ Perhaps I'm being paranoid (as you say), but you can't blame me for Luchesi slowly showing his real intentions and talking like:
> 
> He talks about "piano" again.. (sigh.. you know where he's getting at)
> 
> But I think it's time for him to realize even in the Romantic era, there were outstanding composers such as Wagner but also average ones (by "average", I mean "ok") such as Chopin. And NO, not all Romantic composers were successful in borrowing from their predecessors. Some were not skillful enough (not as good as Brahms and Wagner for example) in structure, harmony, counterpoint, all the aspects of music-making. (I acknowledge they still wrote fine music by "understanding" how to write for certain instruments in solo genres, like Paganini)
> 
> I still maintain that Hummel piano concertos Op.85, Op.89, Op.113 are superior to Chopin's. Just listen to the way the third movements of Op.89, Op.113 open. I don't think Chopin could really meet Hummel's standards with his own concertos. And in his underrated Etudes (Op.125), Hummel employs richer technique of voice-leading than Chopin's. Chopin even took ideas for his fourth Ballade from Hummel Fantasie in E flat major Op.18 of 1805, (again stealing all the thunder from the Germanic masters). If all the international Chopin Competitions around the world promoted Hummel in the same level they do Chopin and allowed Hummel to be played alongside Chopin, all the Chopin aficionados will realize the truths. (That he's not the kind of godly inventor and divine creator they make him out to be)


This is all irrelevant to this thread. You're invading threads at random to play out a strange obsession with correcting a world that loves some music too much or too little for your liking.

If it needs to be said (it probably doesn't, but I'll say it anyway), Chopin is a more distinctive composer than Hummel, he's one of the greatest inventors of memorable melody in the history of music, his harmonic originality was a major influence on subsequent composers, he had an infallible ear for the sonorous potential of the piano, and he simply touches people deeply. Hummel wouldn't have equalled the soulful poetry of Chopin if he'd lived three lifetimes. He was of course an extremely accomplished composer and his music deserves to be better known. With so many recordings now available that seems to be happening. Why not start a thread on him instead of using him as a cudgel to beat up Chopin (and Chopin lovers) with? Or is beating things up too irresistible a pleasure?


----------



## Ethereality

I like the forum battles though. Keeping things in motion around here, despite the total hot air, impractically and hilarity, it's like listening to a rousing piece. Hammeredklavier plays electrifying music for us with his PC keyboard.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> I like the forum battles though. Keeping things in motion around here, despite the total hot air, impractically and hilarity, it's like reading a top-selling novel. Hammeredklavier plays music for us on his PC keyboard.


No matter what we say we're going to hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## Ethereality

Genoveva said:


> I think that talk about Beethoven being more "innovative" and/or more "daring" than Mozart is not very useful.
> 
> As has been pointed, innovation per se is not relevant to assessing the quality of a composer's output. It is much more to do with whether or not the music that is produced is any good, and if there is a significant amount of it. Of course, Beethoven met both of these criteria in abundance, so there is no doubt about his greatness, but his innovative skills don't add to that greatness, as to do so would be double-counting.
> 
> This doesn't mean that Beethoven wasn't more innovative than Mozart was. He may have been, but even if this is correct it's possible that this was partly because he realised that he couldn't produce anything significantly better, or even as good, than what Mozart had already achieved many years previously. To this extent, he may have felt that, rather than try to compete with Mozart (and Haydn), he needed to experiment with into newer forms and modifications of existing forms.
> 
> Whilst that is a possibility, I think it more likely, that Beethoven may have realised by the early 1800s (when he began his "middle period") that musical audiences/customers wanted something slightly different from what had gone on before. By that time, Mozart had been dead for about 10 years, and Haydn was an old man. In other words, he may have been responding in part or in main to what the market wanted, rather than spontaneously creating new styles, or changing characteristics of some existing styles, simply in the hope that that whatever he created might supplant the older forms.


This is a great point. However even though Beethoven's innovations may make his music arguably better to many, one _may_ feel the innovations themselves compared to Mozart's may not be anything nearly as great as they could've more forwardly influenced Classical, that is, if one notes Beethoven wasn't able to continue the Classical tradition in a new light onto Romantics, even though someone in Beethoven's place could've achieved this (only a speculation) by means of harmony and building new Classical techniques, you might ponder (if you find Classical music significantly better) as to why if Beethoven is the greatest, is everyone after him arguably much worse. Again it's subjective, but it's worth a question. The Classical period in its wake might've lasted much longer with more innovation, if Beethoven was not there and somebody else was. This is the hypothetical "alternate dimension" where x composer didn't exist, what's the likely route that music would've changed in ways we're not immediate to perceive.

Some may feel that Mozart is the value 99, and Beethoven is just 99 + 1, and that contributional "1" ruined all the good momentum, while others view Beethoven as a musical savior for mankind. But perhaps it's that all great periods end soon, based on the character faults of the contributors like Beethoven, Mozart, an imperfect evolution where the masters were not influential enough to preserve and inspire the form to continued generations, where it could've been. Genius is always born, but the_ culture, teaching and influence isn't_. My personal take is that nothing nearly as profound came out of early Romanticism.


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> This is a great point. However even though Beethoven's innovations may make his music arguably better to many, one _may_ feel the innovations themselves compared to Mozart's may not be anything nearly as great as they could've more forwardly influenced Classical, that is, if one notes Beethoven wasn't able to continue the Classical tradition in a new light onto Romantics, even though someone in Beethoven's place could've achieved this through harmony and building new Classical techniques, you might ponder (if you find Classical music significantly better) as to why if Beethoven is the greatest, is everyone after him arguably much worse. Again it's subjective, but it's worth a question. The Classical period in its wake might've lasted much longer with more innovation, if Beethoven was not there and somebody else was, but again this is just speculation. This is the hypothetical "alternate dimension" where x composer didn't exist, how could music have changed in ways we're not immediate to percieve.
> 
> Some may feel that Mozart is the value 99, and Beethoven is just 99 + 1, and that contributional "1" ruined all the good momentum, while others view Beethoven as a musical savior for mankind. But perhaps it's that all great periods end soon, based on the character faults of the contributors like Beethoven, Mozart, an imperfect evolution where the masters were not influential enough to preserve and inspire the form to continued generations, where it could've been. Genius is always born, but the_ culture, teaching and influence isn't_. My personal take is that nothing nearly as profound came out of early Romanticism.


Most days I hear the continuum from WAM to LvB. But after LvB, no continuum, just scattering to find ways to continue in the Romantic times. Schubert was lucky, because Schumann, Liszt and Chopin were very young as composers when LvB died. Where to go from here? What of musical forms, etc.? They proceeded as they felt their way, experiment to experiment. They had only a contemporary concept of what JSB and WAM had accomplished...and I've read that they tried to ignore the shadow of LvB.


----------



## Ethereality

I think Beethoven's themes and motifs were too beautiful to escape, composers lost track of the other building blocks.






Causing new expressions









They were spirited away by this new building block, rather. If Beethoven would've been a revolutionary in a different way, although we can only privilege ourselves to speculate how, looking at the diversity of classical works as to what routes were possible, then we might've seen the true Late Classical period.


----------



## juliante

I heard Beethoven's String Quartet 15 op 132 performed last Friday. Sorry Wolfgang, there's no contest.


----------



## EdwardBast

juliante said:


> I heard Beethoven's String Quartet 15 op 132 performed last Friday. Sorry Wolfgang, *there's no contest.*


You got that right. It's not a contest. It's two great composers creating wonderful string quartets in different eras and different styles.


----------



## janxharris

If there truly is no contest then there is no singular holy trinity.


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> If there truly is no contest then there is no singular holy trinity.


Probably the wrong forum for Catholic theology?


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> I think Beethoven's themes and motifs were too beautiful to escape, composers lost track of the other building blocks.
> 
> https://youtu.be6REIhA?t=220
> 
> Causing new expressions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were spirited away by this new building block, rather. If Beethoven would've been a revolutionary in a different way, although we can only privilege ourselves to speculate how, looking at the diversity of classical works as to what routes were possible, then we might've seen the true Late Classical period.


I like this video better, especially from about the 7 minute point.






It's always better to watch all the instruments in the orchestra playing. How they come together and separate, then come together again.






A young composer of Chopin's time would have to learn all about orchestration and then gain all the experience. It would be daunting. In that sense it would be easier to take off in a different direction. After all we're only human and there's only 24 hours in the day.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> If there truly is no contest then there is no singular holy trinity.


I like that. JSB is the omniscient creator. LvB is the intercessor for humans with all his threats and clarifications. WAM is the pervading spirit beaming good feelings and good luck for superstitious pagans. But the Holy Trinity was the 'everything' concept needed at the time, BUT these three composers are not everything in music. Think of what came later - Chopin and Scriabin, Debussy and Wagner, and Schoenberg and Reich(?). They forced the concepts to grow up.


----------



## DaveM

Luchesi said:


> I like that. JSB is the omniscient creator. LvB is the intercessor for humans with all his threats and clarifications. WAM is the pervading spirit beaming good feelings and good luck for superstitious pagans. But the Holy Trinity was the 'everything' concept needed at the time, BUT these three composers are not everything in music. Think of what came later - Chopin and Scriabin, Debussy and Wagner, and Schoenberg and Reich(?). They forced the concepts to grow up.


Schoenberg and Reich were a sign of grown up concepts vs. those of JSB, WAM an LvB?


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> If Beethoven would've been a revolutionary in a different way, although we can only privilege ourselves to speculate how, looking at the diversity of classical works as to what routes were possible, then we might've seen the true Late Classical period.


Your little dog is about to explain what true Late Classical period music sounds like. His observations will be invaluable in completing our understanding of the Classical style, since the music itself is beyond the range of human hearing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> This is all irrelevant to this thread. You're invading threads at random to play out a strange obsession with correcting a world that loves some music too much or too little for your liking.
> If it needs to be said (it probably doesn't, but I'll say it anyway), Chopin is a more distinctive composer than Hummel, he's one of the greatest inventors of memorable melody in the history of music, his harmonic originality was a major influence on subsequent composers, he had an infallible ear for the sonorous potential of the piano, and he simply touches people deeply. Hummel wouldn't have equalled the soulful poetry of Chopin if he'd lived three lifetimes. He was of course an extremely accomplished composer and his music deserves to be better known. With so many recordings now available that seems to be happening. Why not start a thread on him instead of using him as a cudgel to beat up Chopin (and Chopin lovers) with? Or is beating things up too irresistible a pleasure?


I accept this criticism. But when it comes to the subject of "Beethoven vs Mozart" , I find that "Romanticism" is often also a subtopic for debate, because Beethoven is regarded by many as the unofficial start of Romanticism. And our view on Romanticism affects our view on Beethoven as well to some extent. In my post #450 (Nov. 20), I was merely arguing (I actually meant) that Mozart isn't even the most romanticized among composers. Rather, I often find that Mozart's method of writing music quickly often backfires on his reputation, as his castigators often view it as a method of writing without putting much thought or care into composition.

Luchesi's statement _"Romantic composers were trying to avoid the obvious"_, strikes me as "Mozart and Haydn had weaknesses, but the Romantic composers never had any weaknesses." Since Luchesi often argues Chopin is so objectively infallible - Chopin surpassed his predecessors, but has not been surpassed by his successors, I saw fit to discuss Chopin as an example for my counterargument.

(If you think Chopin was really that great), who do you really think are the Romantic composers "not meeting standards and expectations?" Surely not all of them were objectively better than Mozart and Haydn, were they? Surely you don't believe in this nonsense that they were all gods, do you? Who/what do you think can be counterexamples for Luchesi's claim then?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> Think of what came later - Chopin and Scriabin, Debussy and Wagner, and Schoenberg and Reich(?). They forced the concepts to grow up.


If I were you, I would switch [Chopin] with Mendelssohn, [Scriabin] with Tchaikovsky, [Debussy] with Brahms, [Reich] with Mahler in that sentence.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> A hugely significant shortcoming I'm sure.


Not a significant shortcoming on Beethoven's part, but it is still something to keep in mind since it is speculated that Mozart's use of the basset horn and its timbral quality in works like the Gran Partita and Requiem did inspire composers such as Richard Strauss.






http://classicalopera.intelligenthe...8/2012-05-Ruhe-sanft-press-release.pdf#page=2
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Chris_Darwin/WebProgNotes/pdfs/MozartAdagioFugueK546.pdf
Also, Mozart wrote 'cellos and basses' as plural in the score of K546, hinting that he intended the piece for string kammerorchester. So Mozart clearly exploited instrumental effects and colors in diverse ways.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Your little dog is about to explain what true Late Classical period music sounds like. His observations will be invaluable in completing our understanding of the Classical style, since the music itself is beyond the range of human hearing.


Perhaps even more developed, different harmonies for a start? There are a lot of other beautiful harmonies out there (some they already infrequently used) that they could've established whole new standard forms based on.


----------



## Phil loves classical

This thread still going on? I stick with my position that in Beethoven, form was less a priority than expression than with Mozart and Haydn, in that he invented new forms of expression and he was willing to break the moulds, although not always successfully in my opinion, in his later years; while Mozart was more content to work with existing forms. Before Hammerklavier gets on my case, Mozart was able to find expression with existing forms in new ways.

I believe it's obvious that Beethoven's music is less stable for a longer period of time before resolution, and more elaborate than anyone before his time. When I learned his piano music, there was always at least an extra step before resolution than in Mozart, which i had to get used to.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Perhaps even more developed, different harmonies for a start? There are a lot of other beautiful harmonies out there (some they already infrequently used) that they could've established whole new standard forms based on.


There are plenty of possibilities for combining the elements of music that no one exploited fully. Mozart wrote plenty of chromatic passages, and he could have written more of them had he wanted to. But it's one of the features of what we call the Classical style that he and others didn't want to use that sort of harmony more than they did. It needed a change in sensibility for composers to make chromaticism a central feature of style, and the heavier use of it was part of a new sense of how music could be put together and what it could express. The "new standard forms" you speculate upon represented, historically speaking, something no longer Classicial.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> There are plenty of possibilities for combining the elements of music that no one exploited fully. Mozart wrote plenty of chromatic passages, and he could have written more of them had he wanted to. But it's one of the features of what we call the Classical style that he and others didn't want to use that sort of harmony more than they did. It needed a change in sensibility for composers to make chromaticism a central feature of style, and the heavier use of it was part of a new sense of how music could be put together and what it could express. The "new standard forms" you speculate upon represented, historically speaking, something no longer Classicial.







But an argument could also be made, [an early Romantic era composer] could have composed like a Berg sonata, but they didn't. So there needed to be a change in sensibility. Chromaticism is a vague term, there's a ton of different ways (divided by idioms) to create music in chromaticism. so how can we determine how chromatic Mozart Spatzenmesse in C K220 or Divertimento in D K334 are, compared to a typical piece by an early Romantic era composer when they follow different idioms in writing chromaticism? By the number of accidentals used? Number of modulations throughout the piece? 
You could be using "heavy" to mean something that's "clumsy" or "spammy" to others in some respects, like the particular passage at 2:45 (measure 71) in the above video for example, (which sounds slightly tiresome and static to me, but not as much as Berceuse Op.57). Whether or not this entire piece from start to finish is heavier chromaticism than Mozart K546? - is also a debatable topic.






Were Romantic composers skillful as Mozart in balancing diatonicism with chromaticism? (classical containment) How can we determine "complexity" in this case? What was Beethoven thinking when he said of Spohr: "'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music is marred by his chromatic melody." Was he "Classical" (the kind of mindset you described) in thinking? Why did "neo-classicism" suddenly became a thing after the era of Romanticism?


----------



## Ethereality

There are less 'modulating' ways to create new harmonic and rhythmic themes in Classical, especially regarding other chord structures and all the new types of song harmonies there are. Mozart would often resolve quickly, while Beethoven would resolve later but the whole picture wasn't necessarily as inventive or noteworthy where it could be. Beethoven and Mozart both had these genius moments however, where the level of development and creativity of themes and rhythms were high (like Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Beethoven's 5th) and those moments are crucial, because I do not think the limit (especially the thematic limit) needed to be maxed within a Classical work. I see in Spohr the potential of covering more ground by modulating to other _keys_ in Classical, but they must incorporate complimentary creative themes for these developments like I see starting to develop more in Mozart and Beethoven, and other Romantic composers, within Classical form--merely evolving the the structures of Classical to be more complex with more creative rhythmic motifs and separate statements. The logic being that, you follow the music where it leads you.

Right now I think there's a lot of potential in Classical music, as long as one stays broadly tied to it.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I accept this criticism. But when it comes to the subject of "Beethoven vs Mozart" , I find that "Romanticism" is often also a subtopic for debate, because Beethoven is regarded by many as the unofficial start of Romanticism. And our view on Romanticism affects our view on Beethoven as well to some extent. In my post #450 (Nov. 20), I was merely arguing (I actually meant) that Mozart isn't even the most romanticized among composers. Rather, I often find that Mozart's method of writing music quickly often backfires on his reputation, as his castigators often view it as a method of writing without putting much thought or care into composition.


I have never seen anyone claim that Mozart's "method of writing" shows that he didn't put much "thought or care into composition." I presume those are your words, and i don't know what you mean by them.



> Luchesi's statement _"Romantic composers were trying to avoid the obvious"_, strikes me as "Mozart and Haydn had weaknesses, but the Romantic composers never had any weaknesses."


You're kidding, right? Whatever Luchesi means by his words, he certainly doesn't mean what you're claiming. If you have to set up straw men like this to have an argument, you should give up arguing.



> Since Luchesi often argues Chopin is so objectively infallible - Chopin surpassed his predecessors, but has not been surpassed by his successors, I saw fit to discuss Chopin as an example for my counterargument.


Luchesi has not said either of those things. Again, they are straw men.



> If you think Chopin was really that great, who do you really think are the Romantic composers "not meeting standards and expectations?"


I have no idea what this question means. What "standards and expectations"?



> Surely not all of them were objectively better than Mozart and Haydn, were they? Surely you don't believe in this nonsense that they were all gods, do you? Who/what do you think can be counterexamples for Luchesi's claim then?


I don't get into such silly pseudo-arguments, and I'm not interested in what you think Luchesi thinks.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Before Hammerklavier gets on my case,






Hammerklavier? It's a good piano sonata


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe it's obvious that Beethoven's music is less stable for a longer period of time before resolution, and more elaborate than anyone before his time. When I learned his piano music, there was always at least an extra step before resolution than in Mozart, which i had to get used to.





Ethereality said:


> Mozart would often resolve to soon, while Beethoven would resolve later but it wasn't necessarily as inventive or noteworthy where it could be.


I know what you're saying, but that kind of composition reminds me too much of Beethoven's own Fantasie Op.77 to be honest. And I don't think it's because I lack "capacity" to understand. I baffled by some people telling me "you just have no capacity to appreciate the depth of Beethoven!" It's usually the Beethoven aficionados who go around saying things like "you don't _appreciate_ something because you don't _understand_ it". I'm baffled as to why:



Christabel said:


> I would put into that category the final piano sonatas by Beethoven.


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

And I think Mozart is also daring in certain ways, as Brahms pointed out:









_"Another departure from convention is that the solo exposition does not re-state the secondary theme from the orchestral exposition. Instead, a succession of new secondary thematic material appears. Musicologist Donald Tovey considered this introduction of new material to be "utterly subversive of the doctrine that the function of the opening tutti [the orchestral exposition] was to predict what the solo had to say.""_


----------



## Ethereality

And don't forget Haydn! All the emphasis on sound expression and drama that ensued during the 18th and early 19th century leading to Romanticism was unfortunate as the focus of influence the way I see it. I had to rephrase my above statement "There are less 'modulating' ways to create new harmonic and rhythmic forms in Classical, especially by using other chord structures, all the new types of song harmonies there are, and all the catchy rhythmic discoveries and creations humanity has affected." I mean I cited Beethoven's 5th as just a notable example of weaving through different themes, rhythms and harmonies within a single movement, but there are better examples and still much potential.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> But an argument could also be made, [an early Romantic era composer] could have composed like a Berg sonata, but they didn't.


What do you mean by "could have"? What early Romantic composer would have found Berg's idiom attractive or comprehensible? As an artist you "can" do only what makes sense to you.



> So there needed to be a change in sensibility.


Obviously.



> Chromaticism is a vague term, there's a ton of different ways (divided by idioms) to create music in chromaticism. so how can we determine how chromatic Mozart Spatzenmesse in C K220 or Divertimento in D K334 are, compared to a typical piece by an early Romantic era composer when they follow different idioms in writing chromaticism? By the number of accidentals used? Number of modulations throughout the piece?


By the way chromaticism functions in the music, structurally and expressively, achieved by its particular placement and its quantity.



> You could be using "heavy" to mean something that's "clumsy" or "spammy" to others in some respects,


It was perfectly obvious from the context of my statement what I meant. I was speaking of chromaticism as a "central feature of style." That should be clear enough. Who cares whether someone thinks a particular piece is clumsy?



> like the particular passage at 2:45 (measure 71) in the above video for example, (which sounds slightly tiresome and static to me, but not as much as Berceuse Op.57). Whether or not this entire piece from start to finish is heavier chromaticism than Mozart K546? - is also a debatable topic.


I prefer not to debate non-issues.



> Were Romantic composers skillful as Mozart in balancing diatonicism with chromaticism? (classical containment)


The balance shifted. Good composers in any style achieve a balance of elements that serves their needs and goals. Again, you're wanting to debate a non-issue.



> How can we determine "complexity" in this case?


How can we determine anything about music? By listening to it.



> What was Beethoven thinking when he said of Spohr: "'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music is marred by his chromatic melody." Was he "Classical" (the kind of mindset you described) in thinking?


Now that is an interesting question. I'd say he was "Beethovenian" in thinking. My guess is that for Beethoven every element in music needed to contribute to a strong structure, and that he felt the too liberal application of chromaticism in Spohr was merely sentimental and tended to weaken rather than strengthen the basic structure. If I'm right, it marks Beethoven as resistant to Romanticism in that respect. Then again, maybe he just didn't like Spohr.



> Why did "neo-classicism" suddenly became a thing after the era of Romanticism?


There was a reaction against contrapuntal complexity after the Baroque. The pendulum swings. Things get carried to an extreme and there's a reaction. Extravagant expressive gestures, orchestral luxuriance, and harmonic complexity and ambiguity can only be carried so far.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> It needed a change in sensibility for composers to make chromaticism a central feature of style.


Do you mind elaborating on this more ? My issue with Romanticism isn't its harmonic avenues, but the ways it goes about expressing them and tying together its measures, phrases and forms.

For example, despite Schumann's harmonic and melodic beauty in this piece, there's a lot of attention and response lacking vertically that may have lead to other avenues; but you're saying these avenues were not practical, they have been avoided for some reason?






For example, compare this with Beethoven Symphony 5. He was never as harmonically ambitious in development as Schumann, but I'd anticipate a lot of clever changes happening. 1:37 is a good spot for a complimentary thematic venture. *Beethoven* may have recapitulated a counter melody from 0:01 - 1:37 by turning it into a whole new motif at 1:37.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Who cares whether someone thinks a particular piece is clumsy?


I hate to say it, but I find it baffling when people overhype stuff that lacks proper depth of voice-leading and sense of control but instead relies on pretentious shock effects that might seem interesting at first but get boring after a few listenings (in my view) as the greatest harmonies ever written.
While I'm on the topic, I would like to comment that I'm baffled as to why there's so much hype about the early 19th century. If we shuffle Chopin's works and randomly pick one piece, we can get something "spammy" as Etude Op.25 No.10, Prelude Op.28 No.24 or something "Johann Strauss II-like" as the Mazurkas. Then I ask what's the "central feature of style" in this guy's oeuvre? Seriously it's no secret how many of those miniatures make up his entire oeuvre.
I feel that Schubert is a bit overhyped in this regard as well. Among his last three masses, Et incarnatus est from Mass No. 4 in C major, D. 452 is notable, but again I can cite like 10 moments from Mozart and Haydn that are far more interesting in this regard.

9:07~11:08










I don't think the distinction Classical vs Romantic is all that important when determining quality (in my view). I feel that there are only good composers vs average ones. And good ones are Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner. While listening to the Trout Quintet and Op.100 Piano Trio, Winterreise, and the impromptus, I often ask, why is it always Mozart and Haydn who get bashed for having written "tafelmusik" and "trivialities"? Schubert's 5th symphony is modelled after Mozart's 40th, but I don't hear in the Schubert piece the elements of "good things of Romanticism" some people always attribute to Schubert at the expense of Mozart and Haydn. I feel that some people often try to get average ones into the same bandwagon as good ones (such as Wagner) by using the general term, "the Romantic composers", just to make the average ones look better than they really are (in my view).


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> I like that. JSB is the omniscient creator. LvB is the intercessor for humans with all his threats and clarifications. WAM is the pervading spirit beaming good feelings and good luck for superstitious pagans. But the Holy Trinity was the 'everything' concept needed at the time, BUT these three composers are not everything in music. Think of what came later - Chopin and Scriabin, Debussy and Wagner, and Schoenberg and Reich(?). They forced the concepts to grow up.


Indeed - though we might quibble over which were/are composers of import that followed the 'three'.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Do you mind elaborating on this more ? My issue with Romanticism isn't its harmonic avenues, but the ways it goes about expressing them and tying together its measures, phrases and forms.
> 
> For example, despite Schumann's harmonic and melodic beauty in this piece, there's a lot of attention and response lacking vertically that may have lead to other avenues; but you're saying these avenues were not practical, they have been avoided for some reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, compare this with Beethoven Symphony 5. He was never as harmonically ambitious in development as Schumann, but I'd anticipate a lot of clever changes happening. 1:37 is a good spot for a complimentary thematic venture. *Beethoven* may have recapitulated a counter melody from 0:01 - 1:37 by turning it into a whole new motif at 1:37.


Why do you want Schumann to compose a different piece than the one he actually composed? And why post a piano reduction of a symphony rather than the work as written? Schumann was a great composer for the piano, and this is not something he would have written for the piano. It misrepresents him. I just don't see the point.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> And why post a piano reduction of a symphony rather than the work as written? Schumann was a great composer for the piano, and this is not something he would have written for the piano. It misrepresents him. I just don't see the point.


And it's a brilliant symphony with strong Classical roots and the potential to be compositionally better than Beethovens' if given the right changes. It was your earlier comment that didn't make sense: _"It needed a change in sensibility for composers to make chromaticism a central feature of style."_ Piano reduction is totally besides the point.



Woodduck said:


> Why do you want Schumann to compose a different piece than the one he actually composed?


I'll assume this is a rhetorical question and you're not interested in the topic I present. Fair enough, the question goes out to anyone else.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> I'll assume this is a rhetorical question and you're not actually interested in the topic I present. Fair enough, the question goes out to anyone else.
> 
> And it's a brilliant symphony with Classical roots and potential. Piano reduction is totally besides the point.


Schumann would be surprised to know that someone would say in 2019 that his third symphony had "potential."


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> And it's a brilliant symphony with strong Classical roots and the potential to be compositionally better than Beethovens' if given the right changes.


And you know this to be true? Can you show us the "right changes?" What's wrong with Beethoven's symphonies?


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Schumann would be surprised to know that someone would say in 2019 that his third symphony had "potential."


If someone did say that in 2019, I know I'd be interested as to why, and that's all that matters. Should I not be interested?

Fortunately however no one has said that. What was said is Classical potential, Beethovian potential:



Ethereality said:


> Right now I think there's a lot of potential in Classical music, as long as one stays broadly tied to it.





Woodduck said:


> Can you show us the "right changes?"


If I'm already imagining the changes and bringing it up, then of course I can show "examples" of possible changes. Is that what you're interested in me to show? Not theorizing or seeing the Beethovian parallels there?

I can understand if you're not interested in thinking about it and want a more concrete example.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> What's wrong with Beethoven's symphonies?


What's wrong with anyone's symphonies? In all seriousness, if you can answer this, then you have the answer to "What's wrong with arguably the best composers' symphonies."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> You're a pianist who doesn't appreciate Chopin. That's remarkable.


It's not at all remarkable that being a piano player doesn't necessarily make one biased toward Chopin. 
https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20
Alfred Brendel cites three composers as having made the most unforgettable use of chromaticism in history: 
Gesualdo, Mozart, Wagner. (Not Chopin)


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not at all remarkable that being a piano player doesn't necessarily make one biased toward Chopin.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20
> Alfred Brendel cites three composers as having made the most unforgettable use of chromaticism in history:
> Gesualdo, Mozart, Wagner. (Not Chopin)


He clearly has never heard Gesualdo.


----------



## juliante

EdwardBast said:


> You got that right. It's not a contest. It's two great composers creating wonderful string quartets in different eras and different styles.


I agree with your sentiments EdwardBast. However, in the context of this thread - it literally is a contest.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> If I were you, I would switch [Chopin] with Mendelssohn, [Scriabin] with Tchaikovsky, [Debussy] with Brahms, [Reich] with Mahler in that sentence.


I was going for the stages of harmonic innovation which came later.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> Schoenberg and Reich were a sign of grown up concepts vs. those of JSB, WAM an LvB?


I can see a growth and a maturation. That's what I find so interesting. But I understand that people have problems following the music of Schoenberg and Reich. How does one follow modern French poetry without a lot of experience with the French language and the existential explorations?


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> I have never seen anyone claim that Mozart's "method of writing" shows that he didn't put much "thought or care into composition." I presume those are your words, and i don't know what you mean by them.
> 
> You're kidding, right? Whatever Luchesi means by his words, he certainly doesn't mean what you're claiming. If you have to set up straw men like this to have an argument, you should give up arguing.
> 
> Luchesi has not said either of those things. Again, they are straw men.
> 
> I have no idea what this question means. What "standards and expectations"?
> 
> I don't get into such silly pseudo-arguments, and I'm not interested in what you think Luchesi thinks.


Thanks. Everyone who's been online will recognize these 'unsporting' attempts at debating. It's immediately seen as having no credibility.
I didn't want to correct him because I thought he might stop posting about what Mozart did.


----------



## Mandryka

Mandryka said:


> He clearly has never heard Gesualdo.


In fact he has heard Gesualdo and mentions him specifically.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> What's wrong with anyone's symphonies? In all seriousness, if you can answer this, then you have the answer to "What's wrong with arguably the best composers' symphonies."


To quote Anna Russell's Gilbert & Sullivan parody, "Things would be so different if they were not as they are!" But, in all seriousness, the suggestion that with a few changes a Schumann symphony could be transformed into a "better" composition than a Beethoven symphony is ridiculous. Your only vindication is to show us the recomposition which proves your assertion.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> But, in all seriousness, the suggestion that with a few changes a Schumann symphony could be transformed into a "better" composition than a Beethoven symphony is ridiculous.


This statement is not only baseless too and requiring a burden of proof, but it is not exactly what I said. I can see that perhaps you're lacking right now the imagination to be knowledgeable of this example. I don't doubt your conviction for music theory, as demonstrated by your resolute remarks here that lack to me any sense or hope of being able to understand music, but all I asked was for you to answer the question. What you pose are non-answers, which are good if I wanted to know that Woodduck doesn't have the answers, or that maybe he can't theorize or imagine something within an _artistic_ field that is easy for others to do.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> This statement is not only baseless too and requiring a burden of proof, but it is not what I said. I can see that perhaps you lack the imagination to be knowledgeable of this topic in any meaningful way. All I asked was for you to answer the question.


You've asserted that it's possible to write a "better composition" than Beethoven did in his symphonies, that this can be done by tweaking a Schumann symphony somehow, and that, by implication, you know how to do it.

All I'm saying is: go ahead and do it. If you can't do it, you're just breaking wind.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> You've asserted that it's possible to write a "better composition" than Beethoven did in his symphonies, that *this can be done* by tweaking a Schumann symphony somehow, and that, by implication, *you know how to do it. *
> 
> All I'm saying is: go ahead and do it. If you can't do it, you're just breaking wind.


This is still wrong. Firstly I said anything like this is within the realm of possibilities, as it's only been proven throughout time that (a) those who write great pieces, are (b) those who are ambitious in believing in the potential to do so. Can one take ideas from an older piece and change them, improve upon them? It's surely been done. What I can do is show potential examples of how to Beethovianize and Classicize the Schumann piece in order to continue this discussion, which is a discussion meant to be completely artistic and out in the open, not treated with such disdain. I'm not going to rewrite a whole symphony just to prove a point. It may be pointless to go down the dead-end road you're going, when the reasonable discussion was opened up about why chromaticism necessarily needs a Romantic sensibility. That was my question.

You're going way too much on the defense, unnecessarily, to have said anything interesting yet. Unless you have some larger point to make.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> This is still wrong. Firstly I said anything like this is within the realm of possibilities, as it's only been proven throughout time that (a) those who write great pieces, are (b) those who are ambitious in believing in the potential to do so. Can one take ideas from an older piece and change them, improve upon them? It's surely been done. What I can do is show potential examples of how to Beethovianize and Classicize the Schumann piece in order to continue this discussion, which is a discussion meant to be completely artistic and out in the open, not treated with such disdain. I'm not going to rewrite a whole symphony just to prove a point. It may be pointless to go down the dead-end road you're going, when *the reasonable discussion was opened up about why chromaticism necessarily needs a Romantic sensibility. That was my question*.


I've been trying to get something specific and concrete out of you as evidence that your speculations are meaningful and have some validity. You might take the fact that no one else is responding to those speculations as indicative of their vagueness. Perhaps English is not your native language? If it's just a problem of communication I apologize for seeming impatient.

As to your question, no one has claimed that chromaticism "needs a Romantic sensibility." I DID say that extensive use of chromaticism is not characteristic of the style we call "Classical," a style which places a high value on clarity, balance, symmetry and stability. Those values are served by a strong emphasis on tonicity and the harmonic relationships nearest to the tonic in the tonal hierarchy, with more remote relationships and ambiguous harmonies felt as destabilizing departures from "normalcy" and thus used judiciously. Romanticism came to value ambiguity and eccentricity for their own sake, which implied less need for clarity of harmonic direction, resolution, and frequent reinforcement of tonicity - hence, more chromaticism.


----------



## Fabulin

Writing a symphony "better" than the 3rd, 5th, or 9th is impossible, because anyone who would write a symphony in the style of Beethoven nowadays, even a comparable symphony, would be derided as obsolete at best, and a try-hard glory hound at worst. It would just not be accepted as a real equal to the symphonies of Beethoven due to the passage of time and generations of learning, which make Beethoven's achievement unsurpassable by proxy.

As for the technical side, it's just a matter of setting goals and putting in years of necessary work. Doable for any sufficiently gifted, classically trained composer, if properly motivated. To think otherwise is to ignore Beethoven's humanity, and consider him _supernatural_. Plain unreasonable.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> As to your question, no one has claimed that chromaticism "needs a Romantic sensibility." I DID say that extensive use of chromaticism is not characteristic of the style we call "Classical," a style which places a high value on clarity, balance, symmetry and stability. Those values are served by a strong emphasis on tonicity and the harmonic relationships nearest to the tonic in the tonal hierarchy, with more remote relationships and ambiguous harmonies felt as destabilizing departures from "normalcy" and thus used judiciously. Romanticism came to value ambiguity and eccentricity for their own sake, which implied less need for clarity of harmonic direction, resolution, and frequent reinforcement of tonicity - hence, more chromaticism.


I should like to add that, in some cases, unrefinedness, dumbing down of voice leading richness (due to undisplinedness of some composers) and emergence of prolonged quasi-minimalism (trills or tremolos that go on for minutes at a time) are features of the 19th century


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> I should like to add that, in some cases, unrefinedness, dumbing down of voice leading richness (due to undisplinedness of some composers) and emergence of prolonged quasi-minimalism (trills or tremolos that go on for minutes at a time) are features of the 19th century


I spoke of increased chromaticism as an attribute of musical style. Value judgments such as "unrefinedness," "dumbing down" and "undisciplinedness" are not stylistic attributes and therefore add nothing to the discussion. About the notion of "prolonged quasi-minimalism" I shall remain tactfully silent, unless you insist on going on about it.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> As to your question, no one has claimed that chromaticism "needs a Romantic sensibility." I DID say that extensive use of chromaticism is not characteristic of the style we call "Classical," a style which places a high value on clarity, balance, symmetry and stability. Those values are served by a strong emphasis on tonicity and the harmonic relationships nearest to the tonic in the tonal hierarchy, with more remote relationships and ambiguous harmonies felt as destabilizing departures from "normalcy" and thus used judiciously. Romanticism came to value ambiguity and eccentricity for their own sake, which implied less need for clarity of harmonic direction, resolution, and frequent reinforcement of tonicity - hence, more chromaticism.


Much thanks for your response. This is a view I intended on arguing against for the sake of healthy speculation and artistic devotion, as I think the line between Classical and Romantic could have a few interchangabilities where what's largely kept is classical structure, chromaticism, counterpoint, unique theme-building, affectual dynamic neglect, and Beethoven kind of proved this (as much as prior composers with their early progressiveness.) Equally, I largely disagree with the methodology of all composers after Beethoven, finding it inferior. Chromaticism with neglect of classical structure and heavy theme-referencing. I think Schumman 3-1 was a brilliant and revolutionary way to perhaps start approaching broader themes. I don't think Beethoven could've written such a catchy continuous line _personally_, especially once you listen further, I easily take this melody over > Ode to Joy. What is your opinion about these broad single themes? Although in my working memory to retort, I was first distracted by some gibberish so I'll recollect my thoughts and come back with other specific statements.



Woodduck said:


> Perhaps English is not your native language? If it's just a problem of communication I apologize for seeming impatient.


Hmm, well, it's a mystery to me why you thought I said 'make a few changes to a Schumann symphony and voila' after reading this, but I'm not in your mind so I have no idea what you read.



Fabulin said:


> Writing a symphony "better" than the 3rd, 5th, or 9th is impossible, because anyone who would write a symphony in the style of Beethoven nowadays, even a comparable symphony, would be derided as obsolete at best, and a try-hard glory hound at worst. It would just not be accepted as a real equal to the symphonies of Beethoven due to the passage of time and generations of learning, which make Beethoven's achievement unsurpassable by proxy.


Agreed, but within your wording there is also described a standard that not even the best classical music can live up to. The standard of popular opinion, modern culture, opinions that Bach evaded, a cultural recognition that classical is not a huge part of nowadays. In the past hundred years, Classical has been a much deader art, however if you're given a depressing burial and a hundred years time again, you could be properly acknowledged.


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not at all remarkable that being a piano player doesn't necessarily make one biased toward Chopin.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20
> *Alfred Brendel cites* three composers as having made the most unforgettable use of chromaticism in history:
> Gesualdo, Mozart, Wagner. (Not Chopin)





hammeredklavier said:


> I should like to add that, in some cases, unrefinedness, dumbing down of voice leading richness (due to undisplinedness of some composers) and *emergence of prolonged quasi-minimalism (trills or tremolos that go on for minutes at a time)* are features of the 19th century


Alfred Brendel also cites Beethoven's _Diabelli Variations_, a piece that contains beautiful use of trills and tremolos, as being "the greatest of all piano works." Just saying because I think that it's telling that your own source disagrees with you:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT24#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I hate to say it, but I find it baffling when people overhype stuff that lacks proper depth of voice-leading and sense of control but instead relies on pretentious shock effects that might seem interesting at first but get boring after a few listenings (in my view) as the greatest harmonies ever written.
> While I'm on the topic, I would like to comment that I'm baffled as to why there's so much hype about the early 19th century. If we shuffle Chopin's works and randomly pick one piece, we can get something "spammy" as Etude Op.25 No.10, Prelude Op.28 No.24 or something "Johann Strauss II-like" as the Mazurkas. Then I ask what's the "central feature of style" in this guy's oeuvre? Seriously it's no secret how many of those miniatures make up his entire oeuvre.
> *I feel that Schubert is a bit overhyped in this regard as well.* Among his last three masses, Et incarnatus est from Mass No. 4 in C major, D. 452 is notable, but again I can cite like 10 moments from Mozart and Haydn that are far more interesting in this regard.


I didn't "overhype" Schubert in the link you provided. There's no overhyping in acknowledging his greatness, and you should be aware by now that scholars and musicologist of our time have him in high esteem.

Alfred Brendel on Schubert:





Schubert according to the book "The Complete Classical Music Guide":

"One of music's greatest melodists, Schubert had a tragically short life, (...) his vast output evinces astounding fluency allied to extraordinary rich and varied musical imagination. (...) [his music's] slow dissemination in the 19th century limited it's influence, as harmonic turns - surprisingly advanced for the 1820's - appeared commonplace at their first hearing 40 years later"

Here's a book called *"Harmonic adventures on Schubert songs"*. The page I provided has Charles Rosen calling Schubert's harmony "errant and unpredictable."

If there's such thing as a "Schubert cult", please tell them to call me to their club for I want to join.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> I didn't "overhype" Schubert in the link you provided. There's no overhyping in acknowledging his greatness, and you should be aware by now that scholars and musicologist of our time have him in high esteem.
> Alfred Brendel on Schubert:





Allerius said:


> Alfred Brendel also cites Beethoven's _Diabelli Variations_, a piece that contains beautiful use of trills and tremolos, as "the greatest of all piano works." Just saying because I think that it's telling that your own source disagrees with you:
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT24#v=onepage&q&f=false


Thanks for all these quotes. My original point (said to Luchesi) was that being a piano player doesn't necessarily make one biased toward piano-oriented composers. Not that I actually agree with everything Brendel says.
And since you seem to like quoting Alfred Brendel so much you quote him twice in a row, maybe you could also read over his description on Mozart K475, K511, K533, K540, K594, K608 (I think he made a typo and wrote K616 instead of K608) and maybe reconsider your own opinion about them. 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20



Allerius said:


> One could also argue that K475, K511, K394 and K397 look conservative and almost unoriginal when compared to Beethoven's Choral Fantasia, Op. 80.





Allerius said:


> One could ask why are these alleged solo piano masterpieces by Mozart so obscure, considering that he is one of the most popular classical composers of all (he has been the most popular classical composer in the world in the last 12 months according to _Google Trends_'s statistics, above Beethoven and Bach). Perhaps most people just don't think that they are _that_ good, eh?


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Thanks for all these quotes. My original point (said to Luchesi) was that being a piano player doesn't necessarily make one biased toward piano-oriented composers. Not that I actually agree with everything Brendel says.
> And since you seem to like quoting Alfred Brendel so much you quote him twice in a row, maybe you could also read over his description on Mozart K475, K511, K533, K540, K594, K608 (I think he made a typo and wrote K616 instead of K608) and maybe reconsider your own opinion about them.
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20


Touché... Well, perhaps I've exaggerated and should not be attacking a major composer. But the same can be applied to you - it's worth noting that these quotes of mine are answers to you and your bad habit of bashing great composers. Let's both stop doing so and be happy, shall we?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not at all remarkable that being a piano player doesn't necessarily make one biased toward Chopin.
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=axpACgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20
> Alfred Brendel cites three composers as having made the most unforgettable use of chromaticism in history:
> Gesualdo, Mozart, Wagner. (Not Chopin)


Do you personally know anybody who shares your harsh opinions about Chopin?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> "Displine" is actually an integral part of Classicism as much as "clarity", "containment",
> "coherence" are.
> 
> http://www.lcsproductions.net/MusicHistory/MusHistRev/Articles/Neoclassicism.html
> _"The composers of the Neoclassic period focused their attention on elegance of style and purity of taste. In exalting the how over the what, they were led to the classical virtues of order, *discipline*, balance, and proportion."_
> 
> If you look at the Bach brothers (Christian, Emmanuel, Friedmann, Christoph), the Haydn brothers (Joseph, Michael), Adolph Hasse, or even Mozart's own father Leopold, or composers who are as obscure today as Mozart's predecessors or colleagues at the Salzburg cathedral such as Ernst Eberlin and Anton Adlgasser, -- none of these guys of the 18th century school were as bad at technical skills like form, orchestration, motivic working, or counterpoint as Chopin and Schubert. The Romantic era (the early period at least) was when the under-educated or under-disciplined could actually become "great" if they had _"Romantic self-expression"_ or whatever we call it.
> 
> This is corroborated by the article "On Ancient Languages: The Histrocial Idiom in the Music of Wolfgang Amade Mozart" by Ulrich Konrad:
> http://mrc.hanyang.ac.kr/wp-content/jspm/20/jspm_2006_20_10.pdf#page=7
> _"professional composers in Mozart's time were expected to have command over traditional rules and procedures; the goals of their professional training reflected this."_
> 
> Your claim that Romanticism shows an increase in chromaticism is actually true to an extent - it is true, when we're talking about late Romantic masters such as Mahler, and especially Wagner, in his explorations in tonal ambiguities.
> Yes, also there's tendency toward chromaticism in early Romanticism like Chopin in ways such as _"breakaway from conventional form"_ and _"modulation to distantly related keys"_,
> but "chromaticism" is not all about that.
> 
> -Nonharmonic tones, different melodic notes from the tones of the supporting harmony.
> -Modulation to new keys when the key signature doesn't change.
> -Chromatic lines and the associated contrapuntal techniques.
> -Variety in chromatic melodies using 12 tones of the chromatic scale: (gigue K574, symphony K504 slow movement, concerto K491, string quartet K421 last movement etc)
> 
> Is Chopin skillful in controlling all these elements of chromaticism? My answer is NO.
> So there's some truth to what I've said as well. There's a certain lack of discipline. (aka. "dumbing down of voice leading richness")
> 
> [video=youtup2kRTvaIm0[/video]
> [video=youtube;JhSjRjRbh8a6k[/video]
> [video=yoOTMgaA]https:/cxG-kOTMgaA[/video]
> 
> Would the supposed greatest harmonist of the early Romantic era, Chopin, have moved away from writing this stuff if he wanted? I don't think he could even if he wanted to. He criticized the Viennese public as having corrupt taste for liking Johann Strauss Sr. and Joseph Lanner. Perhaps he was jealous he couldn't compose quodlibets and operettas like them, but he still derived from their waltz style.
> 
> And I'm not sure what you mean by "central style" of a composer. By the same logic we consider Mozart's less chromatically-daring pieces his "central style", we can consider Chopin's lesser miniatures (which make up more than half of his output) Chopin's "central style". Is there a plausible reason to consider Chopin's Op.20, Op.25 No.11 his central style, but not consider Mozart's K511, K516, K546, K608 his central style?
> 
> In some ways, your comment strikes me as being only significant as a statement like: "jazz music has a different sensibility from common practice classical music. Jazz uses 7th and 9th chords differently from it."


"professional composers in Mozart's time were expected to have command over traditional rules and procedures; the goals of their professional training reflected this."

But the question always is, what did Chopin's audiences want?


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> "Displine" is actually an integral part of Classicism as much as "clarity", "containment",
> "coherence" are.
> 
> http://www.lcsproductions.net/MusicHistory/MusHistRev/Articles/Neoclassicism.html
> _"The composers of the Neoclassic period focused their attention on elegance of style and purity of taste. In exalting the how over the what, they were led to the classical virtues of order, *discipline*, balance, and proportion."_


The conversation is about style. "Discipline" is not a stylistic trait. All styles require discipline.



> If you look at the Bach brothers (Christian, Emmanuel, Friedmann, Christoph), the Haydn brothers (Joseph, Michael), Adolph Hasse, or even Mozart's own father Leopold, or composers who are as obscure today as Mozart's predecessors or colleagues at the Salzburg cathedral such as Ernst Eberlin and Anton Adlgasser-- none of these guys of the 18th century school were as *bad at technical skills like form, orchestration, motivic working, or counterpoint* as Chopin and Schubert. *The Romantic era (the early period at least) was when the under-educated or under-disciplined could actually become "great" if they had "Romantic self-expression" or whatever we call it. *
> 
> This is corroborated by the article "On Ancient Languages: The Histrocial Idiom in the Music of Wolfgang Amade Mozart" by Ulrich Konrad:_"professional composers in Mozart's time were expected to have command over *traditional rules and procedures*; the *goals* of their professional training reflected this."_


"Rules and procedures" essential to one artistic style may be less essential or irrelevant to another. You're confusing means with ends. The early Romantic composer you loathe were pursuing different ends, ends you obviously have no sympathy with ("Romantic self-expression[/I] or whatever we call it"). They had new things to say, and they found new ways to say it. Their music spoke to the people of their time. If it doesn't speak to you, no one cares.



> *Your claim that Romanticism shows an increase in chromaticism is actually true to an extent* - it is true, when we're talking about late Romantic masters such as Mahler, and especially Wagner, in his explorations in tonal ambiguities.
> Yes, also there's tendency toward chromaticism in early Romanticism like Chopin in ways such as _"breakaway from conventional form"_ and _"modulation to distantly related keys"_,
> but *"chromaticism" is not all about that.*


Why qualify my statement with "to an extent"? Everything exists "to an extent." What's your argument? My "claim" was simply that chromatic harmony is less central to the aesthetic of Classicism than to that of Romanticism. I don't think that statement is hard to grasp or controversial, and I elaborated on it in post #612. Of course it could be extensively illustrated with examples from Weber, Schubert, Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, Wagner, etc.



> -Nonharmonic tones, different melodic notes from the tones of the supporting harmony.
> Modulation to new keys when the key signature doesn't change.
> -Chromatic lines and the associated contrapuntal techniques.
> -Variety in chromatic melodies using 12 tones of the chromatic scale: (gigue K574, symphony K504 slow movement, concerto K491, string quartet K421 last movement etc)


Yes, Mozart used chromatic harmony quite effectively. So did Bach. So did Purcell. So did the Italian madrigalists. Is that supposed to prove something?



> Is Chopin skillful in controlling all these elements of chromaticism? My answer is NO.


Which of Chopin's works show a lack of skill in "controlling" the elements of chromaticism? Where is his harmony "uncontrolled"?



> So there's some truth to what I've said as well. There's a certain lack of discipline. (aka. "dumbing down of voice leading richness").


Let's see what you consider examples of "dumbed down voice-leading richness"...



>


These are miniature, stylized dances. Why are you even looking for "voice-leading richness"?



> Would the supposed greatest harmonist of the early Romantic era, Chopin, have moved away from writing this stuff if he wanted? I don't think he could even if he wanted to.


You can't be serious. "This stuff"? Does "this stuff" include sonatas, concertos, ballades, scherzos, barcarolles, polonaises...



> He criticized the Viennese public as having corrupt taste for liking Johann Strauss Sr. and Joseph Lanner. Perhaps he was jealous he couldn't compose quodlibets and operettas like them, but he still derived from their waltz style.


Chopin's waltzes are quite different from those of the Viennese dance composers.



> And I'm not sure what you mean by "central style" of a composer.
> By the same logic we consider Mozart's less chromatically-daring pieces his "central style", we can consider Chopin's lesser miniatures (which make up more than half of his output) Chopin's "central style". Is there a plausible reason to consider Chopin's Op.20, Op.25 No.11 his central style, but not consider Mozart's K511, K516, K546, K608 his central style?


I have said nothing about Mozart's or Chopin's "central style." In fact, I've never referred to the "central style" of any composer. What I said was that chromatic harmony is less central to Classicism than to Romanticism. Read and think more carefully.



> In some ways, your comment strikes me as being only significant as a statement like: "jazz music has a different sensibility from common practice classical music. Jazz uses 7th and 9th chords differently from it."


That's an idiotic comparison. I don't care how my comments strike you. Frankly, your endless, obsessive, uncomprehending mission to tear down music you're unable to enjoy strikes _me_ as utterly perverse and toxic.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> Writing a symphony "better" than the 3rd, 5th, or 9th is impossible, because anyone who would write a symphony in the style of Beethoven nowadays, even a comparable symphony, would be derided as obsolete at best, and a try-hard glory hound at worst. It would just not be accepted as a real equal to the symphonies of Beethoven due to the passage of time and generations of learning, which make Beethoven's achievement unsurpassable by proxy.
> 
> As for the technical side, it's just a matter of setting goals and putting in years of necessary work. Doable for any sufficiently gifted, classically trained composer, if properly motivated. To think otherwise is to ignore Beethoven's humanity, and consider him _supernatural_. Plain unreasonable.







beethoven tenth by cooper


----------



## Ethereality

Luchesi, my appreciation of Chopin has grown so much in the past few years, it's astounding. It seems like people who criticize him are missing so much of the very basics of harmony and voice-leading. Is he your favorite composer?


----------



## Luchesi

Ethereality said:


> Luchesi, my appreciation of Chopin has grown so much in the past few years, it's astounding. It seems like people who criticize him are missing so much of the very basics of harmony and voice-leading. Is he your favorite composer?


The discovery of Chopin lead me to CM when I was young. He was the gateway composer for many, as I remember. When you're taking lessons to be able to play the current popular songs, the melodies of Chopin are a next step above, but still fairly easy to follow.

Now in my life my list would be;
Mozart, his piano concertos and chamber music.

Bach and Beethoven for their concertos and keyboard music and chamber music.

Then Chopin


----------



## pickybear

Ethereality said:


> Mozart's instrumentation doesn't quite pack as much punch, attack, or expressive effect as Bach's and Beethoven's, simply due to the evolution of the larger symphony at his time which sounds collectively more faded--Beethoven steered around this problem. In some way, I think when you see past this (which is difficult to do because there aren't as many dynamically or instrumentally different compositions of Mozart's) it becomes easier to perceive his genius and perhaps superiority. As per the TC's Expert Top 50 here, Mozart is listed as #1, which seems quite possibly accurate to me. But a lot of his music simply doesn't have as much attack, and thus can be less effective on people for that reason, due to the time he lived, the symphonic environment he usually composed for. During the Classical period the symphony already sounded revolutionary compared to anything before, nobody expected it would be changed more drastically.


I love this forum because I learn a lot, even when I stand by initial assertions.. People here will debate whether the sky is blue.

IMO debating the power of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach or making comparisons is probably a fruitless endeavor; each were geniuses in their own right whose music has held so much power over the centuries and influenced so many that it's impossible to compare except over the most granular details and specifics around technical innovation etc, but a piece of music's emotional power is purely subjective.

Each of these composers have created music which brings tears to my eyes, enough said really.


----------



## Luchesi

pickybear said:


> I love this forum because I learn a lot, even when I stand by initial assertions.. People here will debate whether the sky is blue.
> 
> IMO debating the power of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach or making comparisons is probably a fruitless endeavor; each were geniuses in their own right whose music has held so much power over the centuries and influenced so many that it's impossible to compare except over the most granular details and specifics around technical innovation etc, but a piece of music's emotional power is purely subjective.
> 
> Each of these composers have created music which brings tears to my eyes, enough said really.


Yes, so why do we do it? Why do we try to rank them when it's a fool's game? Talking about music, dancing around architecture..

When you're new to classical music the world is so large that you need to categorize, and to rank your preferences - just to save time, if for nothing else in the long run.

A friend of mine was listening to Electric Light Orchestra and tried to get me to revere those recordings. I still remember those debates fondly.


----------



## souio

I would say Mozart for pleasant melodies and Beethoven for emotional release. 

There's a reason why on "peaceful classical compilations" you get like 20 Mozart pieces and.. Fur Elise lol.

Nothing like Moonlight Sonata's third movement to meditate to while studying :lol:


----------



## Xisten267

souio said:


> I would say Mozart for pleasant melodies and Beethoven for emotional release.
> 
> There's a reason why on "peaceful classical compilations" you get like 20 Mozart pieces and.. Fur Elise lol.
> 
> *Nothing like Moonlight Sonata's third movement to meditate to while studying* :lol:


People who like metal and think that classical music is only about relaxing and meditating really should try this:






There's of course some great storm and drive in Mozart aswell, not just pleasant melodies.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^









Although there's a lot of controversy in the comments on the videos, about how the metal artists "butcher" classical music, I'm not really opposed to this stuff, as it helps to draw metal fans into classical music.


----------



## gellio

No ones works, in any art form, can send me to tears or cause me to want to dance in pure joy like Beethoven's. No ones works, in any art form, put me it utter shock and awe like Mozart's. I could not, nor would I want to, live without either of them.


----------



## Machiavel

hammeredklavier said:


> ^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although there's a lot of controversy in the comments on the videos, about how the metal artists "butcher" classical music, I'm not really opposed to this stuff, as it helps to draw metal fans into classical music.


Atonal music is easier to listen than thses noises especially the dies irae


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

1961 bollywood film song inspired by Mozart's 40th symphony. (1st mov.)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

I think you can (and should) only make a judgement if you have listened *extensively* to both. I get the feeling that this might not be the case with everyone who comments.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

As of late neither are in my top 10 composers and linger just outside between 10-15.


----------



## ClassicalMaestro

I won't compare the two because I love them both. But Beethoven idolized Mozart and was a major influence on him.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Which of the two's music can you listen to over and over again and not become bored with or over familiar with?


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> ^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although there's a lot of controversy in the comments on the videos, about how the metal artists "butcher" classical music, I'm not really opposed to this stuff, as it helps to draw metal fans into classical music.


I couldn't take it seriously, and it's not entertaining even in a funny way to me. Luckily it's not hard to get it out of my system. I do like some metal (Slayer's Angel of Death and Iron Maiden's Be Quick or Be Dead are absolute masterpieces!), but this doesn't 
work, and bad for both genres IMO.


----------



## Russell Chee

Allegro Con Brio said:


> As of late neither are in my top 10 composers and linger just outside between 10-15.


Really?! Are most of your composers 20th-century  I've never really been able to get into modernist/postmodern music, despite enjoying 20th-century art and literature very much. The most adventurous I've been is like ... Mahler's 7th. Or Stravinsky - both of whom I know are basically 'classic' by now. I remember attending a Berg Violin Concerto a few years ago (bear in mind, I was only 12!) and literally not understanding anything and being incredibly relieved when Dvorak's New World came after the interval (Gustavo Dudamel - what a privilege to have such a big-name conductor in a small city like mine!)


----------



## Russell Chee

Wilhem Theophilus said:


> Which of the two's music can you listen to over and over again and not become bored with or over familiar with?


I would say Mozart. Mozart has more of an inevitability in his music. But it really depends - they composed so widely that you can definitely find something that you don't become "bored with" - Beethoven's 32 sonatas, his late string quartets, his symphonies, his concerti; Mozart's operas, concerti, late symphonies, chamber music etc. Also, maybe it depends on your mood. I don't think someone in a funk would enjoy the finale of the Haffner, and likewise with someone upbeat and the Eroica's funeral march.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Russell Chee said:


> Really?! Are most of your composers 20th-century  I've never really been able to get into modernist/postmodern music, despite enjoying 20th-century art and literature very much. The most adventurous I've been is like ... Mahler's 7th. Or Stravinsky - both of whom I know are basically 'classic' by now. I remember attending a Berg Violin Concerto a few years ago (bear in mind, I was only 12!) and literally not understanding anything and being incredibly relieved when Dvorak's New World came after the interval (Gustavo Dudamel - what a privilege to have such a big-name conductor in a small city like mine!)


1. Bach
2. Brahms
3. Mahler
4. Schubert
5. Sibelius
6. Chopin
7. Ravel
8. Dvorak
9. Bruckner
10. Shostakovich

Beethoven is often in my top 10, but I tend to get tired of his music very quickly. I find it doesn't wear nearly as well as my absolute favorites. Mozart has been stuck at No. 15 or so for a long time.

As far as modern music, don't give up! As little as seven months ago I was convinced that it wasn't for me, then I started opening my mind to the incredible colors and soundscapes of the second Viennese school which opened up a whole new world of music for me. Try listening to Webern's Six Pieces for Orchestra and imagining each musical gesture as a new application of paint to a canvas.


----------



## millionrainbows

Allerius said:


> People who like metal and think that classical music is only about relaxing and meditating really should try this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's of course some great storm and drive in Mozart aswell, not just pleasant melodies.


I like his periodic, petulant hair-flips.


----------



## millionrainbows

Machiavel said:


> Atonal music is easier to listen than thses noises especially the dies irae


YEAH, he's a doody-face!


----------



## Russell Chee

Allegro Con Brio said:


> 1. Bach
> 2. Brahms
> 3. Mahler
> 4. Schubert
> 5. Sibelius
> 6. Chopin
> 7. Ravel
> 8. Dvorak
> 9. Bruckner
> 10. Shostakovich
> 
> Beethoven is often in my top 10, but I tend to get tired of his music very quickly. I find it doesn't wear nearly as well as my absolute favorites. Mozart has been stuck at No. 15 or so for a long time.
> 
> As far as modern music, don't give up! As little as seven months ago I was convinced that it wasn't for me, then I started opening my mind to the incredible colors and soundscapes of the second Viennese school which opened up a whole new world of music for me. Try listening to Webern's Six Pieces for Orchestra and imagining each musical gesture as a new application of paint to a canvas.


Oh :lol: the rest of your list sounds very similar to mine. I presume you tend to go in for the more introspective kind of stuff then? Then yeah I could see why Beethoven would tire you out. Mozart down there because you find his music too superficial?

I'm liking how high Brahms is for you though  dare I gather from your pic that the Gilels Brahms concertos are also a great recording in your view? I was so pleased to find them in a CD shop in Japan, my first CD purchase!!

Okay, I'll try that out! Do you have any suggested recordings? I know Karajan is supposed to be decent in the Second Viennese School; I also read suggestions that I listen to early Schoenberg (Verklarte Nacht, then Five Pieces for Orchestra) to get into this music, but hmm. I must say that I liked Bartok a lot more than I was expecting to? Which was pleasantly surprising. But then I heard a Lutoslawski piece in concert and I realised how old-fashioned my tastes still are :lol:


----------



## Coach G

Beethoven vs. Mozart?

Sometimes I think that classical music enthusiasts can be likened to pet lovers. Some are dog people and some are cat people, then you have a few that fall into the more uncommon categories who are attracted to guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, birds, fish, turtles, lizards, tarantulas, snakes, and so forth. Likewise there are Beethoven people and there are Mozart people, with a few that go the way of Brahms, Wagner, Bach, etc. I was a Beethoven person from early on, and still am. For decades Mozart mostly bored me, and I tended to avoid Mozart in favor of Beethoven who I found more heroic and powerful. Now that I'm well into middle age, I find myself gravitating to Mozart more and more, and really enjoying the seamless beauty, balance, and the emotional clarity of Mozart's material.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Russell Chee said:


> Oh :lol: the rest of your list sounds very similar to mine. I presume you tend to go in for the more introspective kind of stuff then? Then yeah I could see why Beethoven would tire you out. Mozart down there because you find his music too superficial?
> 
> I'm liking how high Brahms is for you though  dare I gather from your pic that the Gilels Brahms concertos are also a great recording in your view? I was so pleased to find them in a CD shop in Japan, my first CD purchase!!
> 
> Okay, I'll try that out! Do you have any suggested recordings? I know Karajan is supposed to be decent in the Second Viennese School; I also read suggestions that I listen to early Schoenberg (Verklarte Nacht, then Five Pieces for Orchestra) to get into this music, but hmm. I must say that I liked Bartok a lot more than I was expecting to? Which was pleasantly surprising. But then I heard a Lutoslawski piece in concert and I realised how old-fashioned my tastes still are :lol:


Yes, I guess I generally lean toward less "bombastic" sounding stuff. I do like epic, long dramas (like Mahler!) but just when they are balanced enough. Don't get me wrong, Beethoven's late quartets, Archduke trio, Diabelli Variations, and 9th symphony are among my favorite works of all time with several other works that I love. In fact he may very well replace Shostakovich as No. 10 on my list...depends on the day. I wouldn't call Mozart superficial, but I think my struggles with some of his music (certainly not all...the two clarinet works are music from heaven) stems from the fact that I don't much care for the Classical Period aesthetic. I've heard it said that one can better understand the beauty and purity of Mozart's music as one ages, and I'm still young so maybe that could explain it

Yes, the Gilels Brahms recordings are brilliant! I may slightly prefer his version of the 2nd concerto with Reiner/CSO due to the added energy but the more magisterial Jochum version works its magic as well. It shouldn't be a surprise that he is my favorite Beethoven pianist as well.

As far as the Second Viennese School, yes, Karajan is a great place to start! IMO he really makes the music sound like the extension of late Romanticism that it is. Some more good Webern recordings I've heard are from Sinopoli/Dresden and Dohnanyi/Cleveland. I certainly had old-fashioned tastes as well for my first couple years of exploring CM, but I've found that being open to new sonic landscapes can reveal great rewards with due patience. Messiaen is another great modern composer to see if you connect with.

Sorry for the derailment of the thread...


----------



## Luchesi

Coach G said:


> Beethoven vs. Mozart?
> 
> Sometimes I think that classical music enthusiasts can be likened to pet lovers. Some are dog people and some are cat people, then you have a few that fall into the more uncommon categories who are attracted to guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, birds, fish, turtles, lizards, tarantulas, snakes, and so forth. Likewise there are Beethoven people and there are Mozart people, with a few that go the way of Brahms, Wagner, Bach, etc. I was a Beethoven person from early on, and still am. For decades Mozart mostly bored me, and I tended to avoid Mozart in favor of Beethoven who I found more heroic and powerful. Now that I'm well into middle age, I find myself gravitating to Mozart more and more, and really enjoying the seamless beauty, balance, and the emotional clarity of Mozart's material.


Yes, a good example of why talking about what we 'like' and 'don't like' should be done with the caveat that we will change every decade or so. Things happen, things change, we change..


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm getting back to my roots with Beethoven. He seems to be more the artist and Mozart the entertainer.


----------



## Xisten267

Both are geniuses and both have given me hours and hours of intense musical pleasure. I need both.


----------



## DaveM

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm getting back to my roots with Beethoven. He seems to be more the artist and Mozart the entertainer.


So, Mozart is more the entertainer and less the artist?


----------



## Captainnumber36

DaveM said:


> So, Mozart is more the entertainer and less the artist?


In my opinion, yes.


----------



## DaveM

Captainnumber36 said:


> In my opinion, yes.


I can see how one might see him as an entertainer given particularly his operas, but to not see him at least equally, if not more, as an artist escapes me.


----------



## Captainnumber36

DaveM said:


> I can see how one might see him as an entertainer given particularly his operas, but to not see him at least equally, if not more, as an artist escapes me.


Can you explain your position? I still prefer Mozart. As I've said time and time again, I think his work is touched by the divine.


----------



## DaveM

Captainnumber36 said:


> Can you explain your position? I still prefer Mozart. As I've said time and time again, I think his work is touched by the divine.


I think you should figure it out. Think about what the characteristics of an advanced artist would be. You think his 'work is touched by the divine'. Isn't that the result of a consummate artist?


----------



## SanAntone

Both Mozart and Beethoven were great composers: a number of Mozart's operas are masterpieces; Beethoven excelled in solo piano, string quartet, orchestral works. His works exhibit a rigorous and economical process of development, but not without a quality of unpredictability.

If I had to vote I'd vote for Beethoven since I listen to his music more than Mozart's.


----------



## ORigel

Symphonies: Good margin Beethoven 
Solo String Concertos: Slight edge Mozart
Solo wind concertos: Uncontested Mozart
Solo keyboard concertos: Good margin Mozart
Multiple instrument concertos: Good margin Mozart
Concert Overtures: Beethoven
Entertainment Orchestral: Overwhelming Mozart

Piano sonatas: Overwhelming Beethoven
Other solo keyboard: Good margin Beethoven

String quartets: Overwhelming Beethoven
Other chamber: Good margin Mozart

Sacred works: Good margin Mozart

Operas: Overwhelming Mozart


----------



## Captainnumber36

DaveM said:


> I think you should figure it out. Think about what the characteristics of an advanced artist would be. You think his 'work is touched by the divine'. Isn't that the result of a consummate artist?


I feel Beethoven stronger, and think he expresses deeper emotion in his work. Mozart was starting to express more in his later years, but never fully realized it imo.


----------



## chu42

I wonder if there is a way to come to conclusion that is easier to see. In this case I'd make my own system of comparison which divides genres into relatively equal groups (combining elements such as solo wind concerti, solo keyboard concerti, etc. into one group as they are not as significant as "symphony" for example. And then I will give a composer up to three points in each category, or none if it is a tie. Because we do not judge composers by their insignificant works, I won't compare the genres that neither composer wrote major works in (Beethoven's piano miniatures for example, or Mozart's serenades, divertimentos, and what have you).

This, of course, is all my personal opinion. 

Symphonies: Beethoven (+2)
Concerti: Mozart (+1)
Choral works: Mozart (+2)
Operas: Mozart (+3)
String quartets: Beethoven (+2)
Misc. chamber: Mozart (+2)
Solo piano works: Beethoven (+2)

Overall results: Mozart (+2)

Of course, this kind of comparison heavily favors the generalist over the specialist, as a specialist can only get a maximum of 3 points over a generalist in single categories while a generalist can win points uncontested in several categories. 

Of course, Beethoven and Mozart were both generalists and yet so good at what they did that they would be considered a specialist in almost every category that they wrote major works for. 

Even though I prefer Beethoven myself, this sort of "less biased" comparison is still fun as a measure of which composer actually added more to the repertoire and I frankly do not think Mozart is at all beatable in this sort of comparison, as he truly represented both quantity and quality. 

I suppose Bach is a contender as well but Bach lived when many of these categories (quartets, sonatas, symphonies, etc.) hardly even existed yet. Brahms too wrote great works in many categories but his output is too small to compete with Mozart.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I suppose Beethoven is just more dramatic and Mozart is more youthful and energetic in his younger years and blissful and mighty in his later years (thinking of the 41st symphony).

They make you feel in different ways.

Neither are really favorites though. I much prefer Satie.


----------



## Luchesi

Symphonies: Beethoven (+2)
Concerti: Beethoven(+1)
Choral works: Mozart (+2)
Operas: Mozart (+3)
String quartets: Beethoven (+2)
Misc. chamber: Mozart (+1)
Solo piano works: Beethoven (+3)

Overall results: Beethoven (+2) (I thought it would be higher)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Captainnumber36 said:


> I suppose Beethoven is just more dramatic and Mozart is more youthful and energetic in his younger years and blissful and mighty in his later years (thinking of the 41st symphony).
> 
> They make you feel in different ways.
> 
> Neither are really favorites though. I much prefer Satie.


:lol::lol::lol: He's trolling us all!


----------



## jdec

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> :lol::lol::lol: He's trolling us all!


Expect a thread of his titled "Satie is my Enemy" in the future.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> Expect a thread of his titled "Satie is my Enemy" in the future.


Sorry for being such a hassle. I'm starting to solidify on what I like.


----------



## SanAntone

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> 1.) Who is the bigger "genius" in your opinion and why?


I think of genius as unquantifiable, like infinity. Both Mozart and Beethoven wrote works of genius; once you reach that level, there is no ranking one above the other.



> 2.) Who has made superior music (in your opinion) and why?


They both wrote some of the greatest music ever created.



> 3.) Who has had more of a global impact?


I have no idea. They have both had a huge impact.

Currently I've been listening to Beethoven more than Mozart, but in a month, or year, it could easily reverse.


----------



## Kreisler jr

1) not a very sensible question, mostly because "genius" is such a vague term and often connected to dubious legendary stunts like Mozart noting down that Allegri piece or Beethoven stunning audiences with improvisations based on an upside down bass part of some lesser composers or whatever.

2) equal

3) Beethoven 
Mozart did have influence, mostly on Beethoven among great composers (and a bunch of lesser ones such as Hummel or Lortzing) and some subtle influence later on. But after Beethoven his instrumental music largely "screened off" Mozart's and Haydn's and almost defined what instrumental music could (and should) be for a century. Some of Mozart's supreme achievements in piano concerto and opera remained known or even in the repertoire. But the style in the early 19th century changed quickly from opera buffa and Singspiel towards romantic opera, Grand Opéra and proto-Wagnerian musical drama, and Italian opera didn't much need or use Mozart as inspiration. And, maybe also due to changes in piano building the piano concerto developed into virtuoso concerto on the one hand and "symphonic concerto" on the other, both rather different from Mozart's style (although of course some of his late concertos were symphonic in scale)


----------



## Bulldog

Luchesi said:


> Symphonies: Beethoven (+2)
> Concerti: Beethoven(+1)
> Choral works: Mozart (+2)
> Operas: Mozart (+3)
> String quartets: Beethoven (+2)
> Misc. chamber: Mozart (+1)
> Solo piano works: Beethoven (+3)
> 
> Overall results: Beethoven (+2) (I thought it would be higher)


My take:

Solo Instrumental - Beethoven (+1)
Chamber - Beethoven (+1)
Orchestral - Tie
Vocal - Mozart (+2)


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

SanAntone said:


> I think of genius as unquantifiable, like infinity. Both Mozart and Beethoven wrote works of genius; once you reach that level, there is no ranking one above the other.
> 
> They both wrote some of the greatest music ever created.
> 
> I have no idea. They have both had a huge impact.
> 
> Currently I've been listening to Beethoven more than Mozart, but in a month, or year, it could easily reverse.


Yeah I'd agree with everything in this post.


----------



## Art Rock

Why not?

Symphonies: Beethoven (+1)
Concerti: Mozart (+2)
Choral works: Mozart (+3)
Operas: Mozart (+2)
String quartets: Beethoven (+2)
Misc. chamber: Mozart (+3)
Solo piano works: Beethoven (+3)

Total: Mozart +4. Sounds about right for composers who hover around #10 (WAM) and around #25-30 (LVB).


----------



## DaveM

On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best:
Mozart: 10
Beethoven: 10


----------



## Xisten267

Let me try:

Symphonies: Beethoven (+3)
Concerti: Mozart (+1)
Sacred vocal works: Mozart (+1)
Operas: Mozart (+3)
Chamber music: Beethoven (+2)
Solo keyboard works: Beethoven (+3)
Other*: Mozart (+1)

Total: Beethoven (+2).

Both composers are amongst my absolute favorites, and have been on my top 5 for a long time, although I still connect more with Beethoven. I greatly respect both.

*: Divertimenti, ballets, serenades, incidental music, lieder, unique forms (such as the _Choral fantasia_) etc.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am probably the only one who thinks Beethoven's Missa solemnis comfortably balances out all Mozart sacred choral works, so that the former gets even an advantage with the Mass in C (which I also prefer to all sacred Mozart except for the c minor Mass K 427) and I don't think Mount of Olives is so bad to deduct points.  I also couldn't get more than a draw for misc. chamber because despite love for Mozart's quintets, Kegelstatt and a handful of violin sonatas, I feel almost like slighting Beethoven's violin, cello sonatas, trios and misc. by settling for an impasse.

Symphonies: Beethoven (+2)
Concerti: Mozart (+2)
Sacred vocal works: Beethoven (+1)
Operas: Mozart (+2) (although I personally listen probably more to Fidelio than to any Mozart opera)
Chamber music: Beethoven (+2) [string quartets +2, misc. +0]
Solo keyboard: Beethoven (+3) (This would be +10 if the scale admitted it)
Other: Mozart (+1) (this seems impossible to weigh properly but there is just so much more stuff here from Mozart, I guess)

Beethoven (+3)


----------



## Enthusiast

Comparing Mozart's mature symphonies with Beethoven's I find I am sometimes in a Mozart mood and sometimes in a Beethoven mood. I think, though, that there has not been a greater symphonist than Beethoven.


----------



## marlow

Depends what you compare. As an opera composer Mozart knocks Beethoven out the park.
In terms of piano sonatas it is the other way round. But with piano concertos Mozart has it. 
So we could go on….
Pointless really.
Just sit down and wallow in the genius of both as the mood takes you.


----------



## Emperor of the North

While I am a Beethoven guy, I love Mozart almost as much. I look at the two of them and any discussion of who was better or more important a bit along the lines of an argument over religion or politics. Maybe just another form of the old McCartney or Lennon debate. There really isn't a correct answer to either or any. I'd say Beethoven was the more influential of the two (or anyone else for that matter) and more of an innovator, but Mozart did lay the foundation for Beethoven to build upon. Mozart wrote the better operas, but I'm not much of an opera fan anyway. Both wrote great orchestral and chamber works that are timeless. Like having a preference for listening to the Beatles or Rolling Stones, I'll just gladly take them both and be grateful I have such great options from which to choose at any time.


----------



## Luchesi

Logically speaking, Beethoven is probably better (more effective as artistic expression), because he had the jump in years (but he was slightly limited by being hearing-impaired and then deaf). Beethoven lived long enough to be retrospective.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I think pitting these two composers against the other is stupid and does a disservice to their music. No matter one's own preference, as Bartók said _"Competitions are for horses, not artists."_ and he's absolutely correct.


----------



## Rogerx

This topics can go one for years as I see, always choosing, I don't and won' t . Music comes and goes trough the day.


----------



## Luchesi

Neo Romanza said:


> I think pitting these two composers against the other is stupid and does a disservice to their music. No matter one's own preference, as Bartók said _"Competitions are for horses, not artists."_ and he's absolutely correct.


But I think we need to thoroughly reduce and examine them to be able to appreciate why they have the positions they have. How else?


----------



## poconoron

Both were incomparable geniuses. For me, I have a slight preference for Mozart.

Operas - Mozart, no contest. BTW, I consider the genre to be the most demanding on a composer.
Piano concertos - Mozart by considerable margin; he laid the framework for Beethoven and others to follow.
Sacred music and other vocal (concert arias and such)- Mozart had the edge here IMHO.
Piano solo works - Beethoven by a considerable margin.
Symphonies - Beethoven by a considerable margin; for me, there are no better symphonies than Beethoven.
Chamber music - this may be a draw or slight edge to Beethoven (although I personally enjoy Mozart's more).
Entertainment music (divertimenti, dances, etc.) Mozart takes this rather easily.

These are my personal favorite composers - my listening time between the 2 is 80-20% in favor of Mozart. Although I am not a Big fan of opera - Mozart's are incomparable to me.


----------



## Luchesi

poconoron said:


> Both were incomparable geniuses. For me, I have a slight preference for Mozart.
> 
> Operas - Mozart, no contest. BTW, I consider the genre to be the most demanding on a composer.
> Piano concertos - Mozart by considerable margin; he laid the framework for Beethoven and others to follow.
> Sacred music and other vocal (concert arias and such)- Mozart had the edge here IMHO.
> Piano solo works - Beethoven by a considerable margin.
> Symphonies - Beethoven by a considerable margin; for me, there are no better symphonies than Beethoven.
> Chamber music - this may be a draw or slight edge to Beethoven (although I personally enjoy Mozart's more).
> Entertainment music (divertimenti, dances, etc.) Mozart takes this rather easily.
> 
> These are my personal favorite composers - my listening time between the 2 is 80-20% in favor of Mozart. Although I am not a Big fan of opera - Mozart's are incomparable to me.


It's interesting that so many folks have nearly the same opinions about these guys, who lived decades apart. Seemingly they had very different dispositions, and, they had specific artistic concerns of their time in the classical and romantic hopes for the future.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Luchesi said:


> But I think we need to thoroughly reduce and examine them to be able to appreciate why they have the positions they have. How else?


How about just _listening_ to their music and gain satisfaction that way? Why is it important to debate about who is greater or more preferable when the end result is we listen to what we want? If you want to waste your precious time examining why you prefer one composer over the other, then knock yourself out. While you're doing that, I'll be listening and gaining more knowledge than you ever would by running your mouth about who you prefer.


----------



## DaveM

Neo Romanza said:


> How about just _listening_ to their music and gain satisfaction that way? Why is it important to debate about who is greater or more preferable when the end result is we listen to what we want? If you want to waste your precious time examining why you prefer one composer over the other, then knock yourself out. While you're doing that, I'll be listening and gaining more knowledge than you ever would by running your mouth about who you prefer.


And so the reason for being on a classical music forum is??


----------



## Neo Romanza

DaveM said:


> And so the reason for being on a classical music forum is??


We all can talk about the music we love, but, my point is that a person doesn't have to turn something into a "vs. debate" and this is all I'll say about this topic.


----------



## Luchesi

Neo Romanza said:


> How about just _listening_ to their music and gain satisfaction that way? Why is it important to debate about who is greater or more preferable when the end result is we listen to what we want? If you want to waste your precious time examining why you prefer one composer over the other, then knock yourself out. While you're doing that, I'll be listening and gaining more knowledge than you ever would by running your mouth about who you prefer.


Because it saves others the time required to learn many points, all together instead of piecemeal over time. I learn from every discussion.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Luchesi said:


> Because it saves others the time required to learn many points, all together instead of piecemeal over time. I learn from every discussion.


If a person is unwilling to put in the time to learn this music, then they should go back to listening to Iggy Pop or whoever the hell they were listening to before deciding to explore classical. It's that simple.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Neo Romanza said:


> If a person is unwilling to put in the time to learn this music, then they should go back to listening to Iggy Pop or whoever the hell they were listening to before deciding to explore classical. It's that simple.


I don't disagree. There are many other aspects of the music to discuss that are far more interesting! Also, how a thread title is phrased makes a difference.


----------



## Luchesi

Neo Romanza said:


> If a person is unwilling to put in the time to learn this music, then they should go back to listening to Iggy Pop or whoever the hell they were listening to before deciding to explore classical. It's that simple.


It seems odd to me.
You don't want us to discuss this, because you might surf over here and read some of the posts.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Because it saves others the time required to learn many points, all together instead of piecemeal over time.


I disagree with you 110% - the time listening to music _is_ the learning process: finding the composers and works that resonate strongest with the listener. Lists are no replacement and in fact can be a waste of time directing a listener to works which someone thinks is great but which a listener may not find interesting.

I'm all for a random, open-ended journey with no expectations.


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> And so the reason for being on a classical music forum is??


There isn't just one reason why each of us is here on TC. Some are here to learn, some to share, some for their love of opera, some to take control, some to call attention to themselves, some to debate, etc. I assume there's a wide variety of reasons for participation.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I disagree with you 110% - the time listening to music _is_ the learning process: finding the composers and works that resonate strongest with the listener. Lists are no replacement and in fact can be a waste of time directing a listener to works which someone thinks is great but which a listener may not find interesting.
> 
> I'm all for a random, open-ended journey with no expectations.


As I read your post,
I wonder if we learn anything by just listening.. What is it that we learn, and hold on to? Maybe you mean we learn of a notion like the sweep of a classical piece. Do we learn feelings with music? Maybe we learn experiences (indescribable) with the 'learning' of music.

Next, I think any music will resonate with anyone in the world. Music has been composed and designed to do that in every century.

Do we really disagree this fundamentally?


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> As I read your post,
> I wonder if we learn anything by just listening.. What is it that we learn, and hold on to? Maybe you mean we learn of a notion like the sweep of a classical piece. Do we learn feelings with music? Maybe we learn experiences (indescribable) with the 'learning' of music.
> 
> Next, I think any music will resonate with anyone in the world. Music has been composed and designed to do that in every century.
> 
> Do we really disagree this fundamentally?


We learn by listening which music we find more interesting, more enjoyable, that resonates with us more than other works or composers. If you like to read about composers's lives, or analyses of their works, and you value this kind of learning, that is something else entirely.

I have always felt that music must move a listener on its own, without any biographical or analytical information. That external information can be an interesting adjunct later, but first one must find the music that touches their mind and heart just by listening.

At least this is what has worked for me.


----------



## 59540

Beethoven and Mozart aren't competing. I love them both.


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> We learn by listening which music we find more interesting, more enjoyable, that resonates with us more than other works or composers. If you like to read about composers's lives, or analyses of their works, and you value this kind of learning, that is something else entirely.
> 
> I have always felt that music must move a listener on its own, without any biographical or analytical information. That external information can be an interesting adjunct later, but first one must find the music that touches their mind and heart just by listening.
> 
> At least this is what has worked for me.


That's interesting. What did you learn first? Can you remember?


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> That's interesting. What did you learn first? Can you remember?


The first Classical composer I was attracted to was *George Gershwin*, this was when I was about 11 or 12. I briefly liked *Rimsky-Korsakov,* _Scheherazade_, because the local supermarket was giving away albums of the "Greatest Music ever Written" if my mother bought enough groceries. I also remember reading Lives of the Great Composers, in my later teens, probably high school - but only later did I hear much of the music.

The real exposure came when I entered music school and Bach, Beethoven, Liszt, Wagner, Purcell, Schubert, Mozart all entered my world. Bach was an early favorite, and still is. As I went through school of course I studied theory, form, history, and heard a lot of recitals by the other students and faculty.

I always bought the Schwann catalog and would order records from a local store, which is how I discovered composers off the beaten track.

I still read biographies and books on composers's music, style, etc., but keep that information in a different part of my brain when I am listening to the music, which I absorb through almost exclusively through my sense of hearing.


----------



## pianozach

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!

Composer DEATH MATCH!!

Mozart vs. Beethoven!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Neo Romanza said:


> We all can talk about the music we love, but, my point is that a person doesn't have to turn something into a "vs. debate" and this is all I'll say about this topic.


do what is good for you then and let others do what is good for them


----------



## Luchesi

PlaySalieri said:


> do what is good for you then and let others do what is good for them


People worry that dry writing about composers will dilute the joy and what's ethereally intangible (if that's a proper phrase) in their music. I agree that it's a pitfall, but it's only temporary and soon it seems that the listener is on a higher level with what's available. We only have what's come to us from the greats and they're not writing any more. How many ways can we enjoy these rare creations? Can we analyze them into something bland and uninteresting? I can see why new listeners might need to try it to see for themselves.


----------



## GMB

I began in Classical Music by collecting Mozart and Beethoven CDs. It is Mozart who has lasted, amazingly. I have very little Beethoven left, just a few piano sonatas and a token 9th symphony
I have an enormous range of Mozart from piano and violin sonatas, through all his chamber music,concertos of all sorts, favourite symphonies and choral works.
Beethoven has been surpassed by Chopin and Liszt in piano, and Bruckner and Mahler in symphonies ie the Romantics. 
Then of course all the 20th Century composers I collect, from Debussy and Stravinsky onwards. Whatever happened to Beethoven? He got left behind!
And yet still in my collection I have more Mozart CDs than any other composer,and I don't collect his operas!
That is the magic and the mystery of Mozart! I can't explain it and I can't analyse the appeal of his music to me and to countless others.
So, enjoy your Beethoven, you fans, but realise Mozart still shines bright with us!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Easily Beethoven. My favourite, among Brahms, Bach and Sibelius, composer. While I love some of Mozart's music, namely his last few symphonies and some chamber music (quartets and quintets), most of his music sounds just pleasant to my ears.


----------



## GMB

It shows how subjective/psychological music is.
I always say Mozart is like a mirror, he is as superficial or profound as the listener is.
I am fascinated by the psychology of music, particularly wordless music.
I believe in the importance of being on the same wave-length of any composer or artist. If you are, it's amazing how far you can take that artist.If not, I recognize i'm not on the same wave-length and move on.[Like JSB-sorry!]


----------



## EdwardBast

GMB said:


> I began in Classical Music by collecting Mozart and Beethoven CDs. It is Mozart who has lasted, amazingly. I have very little Beethoven left, just a few piano sonatas and a token 9th symphony
> I have an enormous range of Mozart from piano and violin sonatas, through all his chamber music,concertos of all sorts, favourite symphonies and choral works.
> Beethoven has been surpassed by Chopin and Liszt in piano, and Bruckner and Mahler in symphonies ie the Romantics.
> Then of course all the 20th Century composers I collect, from Debussy and Stravinsky onwards. Whatever happened to Beethoven? He got left behind!
> And yet still in my collection I have more Mozart CDs than any other composer,and I don't collect his operas!
> That is the magic and the mystery of Mozart! *I can't explain it and I can't analyse the appeal of his music to me and to countless others.*
> So, enjoy your Beethoven, you fans, but realise Mozart still shines bright with us!


So you think Bruckner's symphonies surpassed Beethoven's? And that Liszt's piano music overshadowed Beethoven's? Interesting.  I'd ask you to explain these odd confessions but since you've already said you can't I won't bother.


----------



## SanAntone

EdwardBast said:


> So you think Bruckner's symphonies surpassed Beethoven's? And that Liszt's piano music overshadowed Beethoven's? Interesting.  I'd ask you to explain these odd confessions but since you've already said you can't I won't bother.


I think he was saying that he listens to Chopin and Liszt more than Beethoven's sonatas, and Bruckner and Mahler more than Beethoven's symphonies. "Surpassed" in the sense of the number of CDs in his collection.


----------



## GMB

EdwardBast said:


> So you think Bruckner's symphonies surpassed Beethoven's? And that Liszt's piano music overshadowed Beethoven's? Interesting.  I'd ask you to explain these odd confessions but since you've already said you can't I won't bother.


You got out of bed the wrong side this morning! I said who can explain the magic and mystery of MOZART's music?And please don't say it's easy listening! Not if you listen properly! As to your boy,Beethoven, I didn't say he wasn't a great composer but that I have moved on,up to comtemporary music now, thanks to Talk Classical.Music did exist before Your Boy and it still goes on thankfully.Beethoven didn't invent music nor did he end it. I've come across other Beethoven FANatics like you before and I do think it's unhealthy! Try getting out more!There is a whole world of music beyond Beethoven.You might even enjoy it!


----------



## Xisten267

GMB said:


> You got out of bed the wrong side this morning! I said who can explain the magic and mystery of MOZART's music?And please don't say it's easy listening! Not if you listen properly! As to your boy,Beethoven, I didn't say he wasn't a great composer but that I have moved on,up to comtemporary music now, thanks to Talk Classical.Music did exist before Your Boy and it still goes on thankfully.Beethoven didn't invent music nor did he end it. I've come across other Beethoven FANatics like you before and I do think it's unhealthy! Try getting out more!There is a whole world of music beyond Beethoven.You might even enjoy it!


I acknowledge both as geniuses, but I still prefer Beethoven, and the attitude of some mozarteans towards the master of Bonn sometimes makes me feel cold towards Wolfgang.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

By sheer no. of works that I like, I'd have to give it to Mozart, but that wouldn't be fair since Mozart was more prolific.

So I'll choose an arbitrary genre, my favorites from that genre and compare:

genre: symphony
favorite Mozart: 41st
favorite Beethoven: 5th

I like Jupiter more than the 5th, sorry Beethoven.


----------



## Xisten267

4chamberedklavier said:


> By sheer no. of works that I like, I'd have to give it to Mozart, but that wouldn't be fair since Mozart was more prolific.
> 
> So I'll choose an arbitrary genre, my favorites from that genre and compare:
> 
> genre: symphony
> *favorite Mozart: 41st*
> favorite Beethoven: 5th


Do you have a favorite recording for the _Jupiter_? It's the only late Mozart symphony that I'm not entirely satisfied with the performances I know.


----------



## Luchesi

GMB said:


> You got out of bed the wrong side this morning! I said who can explain the magic and mystery of MOZART's music?And please don't say it's easy listening! Not if you listen properly! As to your boy,Beethoven, I didn't say he wasn't a great composer but that I have moved on,up to comtemporary music now, thanks to Talk Classical.Music did exist before Your Boy and it still goes on thankfully.Beethoven didn't invent music nor did he end it. I've come across other Beethoven FANatics like you before and I do think it's unhealthy! Try getting out more!There is a whole world of music beyond Beethoven.You might even enjoy it!


We know Dr. Bast so well that it's weird to hear your take on his questions. I would definitely ask the same questions. Liszt over LVB's 3rd period concepts and successes? Bruckner symphonies, well, they went in a different direction for the times.

Of course, older music fans have heard these quick comparisons for a long time.


----------



## GMB

It's perfectly acceptable to collect other composers than your favourite,LvB,without the arrogance and contempt shown by this Dr Bast.I collect a lot of composers, up to twenty, because none of them satisfy me fully.I love the range and diversity of these composers.It's not a competition between them, as LvB fanatics seem to think, as if it's Heavy-Weight boxing and you're his promoter!It wasn't long ago that JS Bach was hailed as " the Greatest " and everyone had to touch their forelocks to him! I'm not a fan of his either! Sacrilege,Heresy!
I'm not disrespecting Beethoven here at all, although I am disappointed that he doesn't do it for me anymore and I have therefore moved on to other wonderful composers in the repertoire.It's LvB's fanatical fans I'm having trouble with and that is what this thread is about!
I wish you and Dr Bast no ill-will, however, and hope you go on enjoying Your Boy,Beethoven!


----------



## EdwardBast

GMB said:


> It's perfectly acceptable to collect other composers than your favourite,LvB,without the arrogance and contempt shown by this Dr Bast.I collect a lot of composers, up to twenty, because none of them satisfy me fully.I love the range and diversity of these composers.It's not a competition between them, as LvB fanatics seem to think, as if it's Heavy-Weight boxing and you're his promoter!It wasn't long ago that JS Bach was hailed as " the Greatest " and everyone had to touch their forelocks to him! I'm not a fan of his either! Sacrilege,Heresy!
> I'm not disrespecting Beethoven here at all, although I am disappointed that he doesn't do it for me anymore and I have therefore moved on to other wonderful composers in the repertoire.It's LvB's fanatical fans I'm having trouble with and that is what this thread is about!
> I wish you and Dr Bast no ill-will, however, and hope you go on enjoying Your Boy,Beethoven!


I see now, with SanAntone's assistance, that you were speaking of surpassed in entries in your CD collection. I thought you were making a more general statement. My apologies for the misunderstanding. As for my position on Beethoven and Mozart, that is perfectly clear from my numerous other posts in this thread. You have no idea what it is but your imagination has filled in the blanks for you.


----------



## GMB

EdwardBast said:


> I see now, with SanAntone's assistance, that you were speaking of surpassed in entries in your CD collection. I thought you were making a more general statement. My apologies for the misunderstanding. As for my position on Beethoven and Mozart, that is perfectly clear from my numerous other posts in this thread. You have no idea what it is but your imagination has filled in the blanks for you.


Thanks for your message.I think there were misunderstandings on my side as well and I apologise if you think I was being rude.I truly respect Beethoven and his place in music history.I can see how knowledgeable you are on Beethoven and music and I hope I can learn from you and others on Talk Classical.I am new here and look forward to reading more and learning more in future.Once again, I apologise if you thought I was being rude or ignorant.Respect.


----------



## Xisten267

GMB said:


> I truly respect Beethoven and his place in music history.


Then stop calling him somebody's boy.


----------



## GMB

Xisten267 said:


> Then stop calling him somebody's boy.


Where did you come from??!! I was ironically comparing boxing promotors way of talking about " my boy " in advance of a fight. LvB fans do seem very aggressive/protective on his behalf, far more than fans of other composers! You can say you like or dislike any other composer without getting that reaction from their fans.I was winding up the fans, not LvB himself.However, on a web-site like this I should be more careful how I express myself.I do sincerely apologise for my use of language and shall be more careful in future.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Xisten267 said:


> Then stop calling him somebody's boy.


Look at this (I just think it's funny):


Captainnumber36 said:


> Mozart. Such a clever clever boy!





Captainnumber36 said:


> his sugar gets too sweet after a while.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Xisten267 said:


> Do you have a favorite recording for the _Jupiter_? It's the only late Mozart symphony that I'm not entirely satisfied with the performances I know.


I'm quite fond of the one by conducted by Gardiner with the English Baroque Soloists. Mainly for its first movement (some of the instruments are more audible), & the tuning.

(here are links to each movement because youtube didn't auto-generate a playlist)


----------



## desushchik8

Beethoven was deaf but he wrote better music


----------



## Rogerx

desushchik8 said:


> Beethoven was deaf but he wrote better music


First welcome to Talk Classical 
He was not deaf all his life but any way, Mozart left a bigger oeuvre behind dying so very young .


----------



## janxharris

Interesting they left in the seriously bad bum note at 1.22 of the Mozart Jupiter (IV).


----------

