# What pieces do or do not live up to their hype?



## Weston

These days with forums and other internet sources we have the opportunity to read about pieces long before actually hearing them. Sometimes that can cloud our judgment in either a positive or negative way. 

Do you have any pieces you read a lot about, looked forward to hearing, and then were let down? Or the other way around -- are there any pieces you got sick of hearing about and then found they do live up to the hype?

For me, the biggest let down has to be Symphonie Fantastique, and Berlioz in general. I just haven't perceived what the big deal is.

The biggest pleasant surprise for me was reading about Rautavaara here. So many people were championing his music, I thought it couldn't live up to expectations. However his symphonies do, especially the No. 8 "The Journey."


----------



## kv466

For me,...Bolero.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Yes, I agree with you about Berlioz' _Symphonie Fantastique_. It's overrated, which is not to say I don't enjoy it. I do enjoy it.

Other pieces include Schoenberg's violin concerto, opus 36.

Weston, I admire your honesty when you described "...it couldn't live up to expectations". I have no problems whatsoever with those words. Others might do.



Weston said:


> ...I thought it couldn't live up to expectations.


----------



## Sid James

Got THIS disc of music of fairly obscure Danish composer *Rued Langgaard* (1893-1952) touted as being the best thing since sliced bread by various people on THIS thread here on TC. These works, written in the 1940's & '50's sounded like they were a rehash of things in music that had happened half a century before in the 1880's & '90's. Took it back to the store for exchange after a couple of listens.

However, I don't mind composers who have a more "traditional" or "conservative" idiom/style, as long as they engage me to some level, eg. if they have flair or do it in an interesting/unique way. Korngold comes to mind as being like this, his music was not exactly of it's time, but the quality of it was of a very high level (Richard Strauss, amongst others, admired Korngold greatly, say no more).

Anyway, this is partly the reason why I stick with the "big names" in their respective fields. This can be a "niche" field like specialty in only one instrument, the composer doesn't necessarily have to be an "all rounder." Eg. people here like stlukes mentioned the lute composer Sylvius Leopold Weiss, got a disc of his stuff, superb. Again, as with R. Strauss' high opinion of Korngold, J.S. Bach was a big admirer of Weiss' music at the time. Other composers' views of their contemporaries doesn't necessarily legitimise their worth or value, but when I read things that add up to "balanced consensus," I'm seldom, if ever, dissappointed. As for the opinions of those who come across to me as kind of "groupies" it rarely leads to anything fruitful.

Having said that, there are some discs of Langgaard's art-songs & choral things which I may well get into at a later stage, only with the proviso that I can maybe hear them before I buy them (which is also a wise things to do, esp. with things that are obscure, I don't have money to waste on cd's which will gather dust on my shelves)...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> Took it back to the store for exchange after a couple of listens.


 They let you do that? Or you made up a reason for exchange?


----------



## clavichorder

I don't know what your guys's deal is about symphony fantastique, nothing against you, but I love symphony fantastique! It think its a truly remarkable piece. Put it in its historical context! That thing came out in the late 1820s for crying out loud! It has such a vastness to it, its truly a giant.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> They let you do that? Or you made up a reason for exchange?


No, they were fine with it. For the reason I gave which is I didn't like the music. I'm a regular customer there & I don't usually return things. But I think it's their policy that it's ok to return things for whatever reason to get an exchange (not refund), as long as the customer does this within 14 days. That time, I decided to get a Charles Ives disc in exchange, & it has been one of my favourites ever since, his songs are superb.

& BTW - I just read the Langgaard thread again, briefly. One of the members was there "pushing" for people to buy the box set of all of his symphonies! Glad I didn't do something that "rash," but anyway I never buy huge boxed sets, but that's another story...


----------



## Art Rock

Myaskovsky's sixth symphony was pushed in the top symphonies thread. I had never heard it, and I decided to get it. Completely lives up to the "hype" - a masterpiece.


----------



## Xaltotun

Of course this thread is more about the listener's ears than the quality (or lack thereof) of the music, but the biggest personal disappointments for me have thus far been Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Bach's Mass in B minor. With such well-respected works from well-respected composers, I'll just refuse to believe my ears and put the blame squarely on myself. But I cannot help that no matter who's to blame, I felt disappointed and cheated when I heard those two works.


----------



## mmsbls

Several years ago I bought a CD with Bruckner's 4th and 8th symphonies. I listened to them a few times and was not overly impressed. After seeing many people push his symphonies on various threads, I started listening to several more of his symphonies. Finally I purchased a boxed set of all 9. They are wonderful. I agree wholeheartedly that he is a great symphonist.

On the other side, Berg's violin concerto has been touted as the greatest violin concerto of the 20th century. I have listened several times trying to find what others see, but so far I've come up empty.


----------



## Sid James

To be more *positive* than negative (me jumping to my experience with that Langgaard disc), here are a few I can think of (but these composers, unlike Langgaard, are well-known in most if not all classical circles) -

*Hovhaness* - Bought things by him after reading a bit about him on this forum & elsewhere, I have been pleased with his things on the whole.

*Ives* - Same as above.

*John Cage* - Ditto (& no, I'm not "trolling," I'm serious)

*Beethoven's late quartets* - Actually got his Op. 130 & 131 (the _Grosse Fuge_) after reading the thread on TC asking of people's opinions on it. Good result, have since got a set of all of the late quartets, & even got a chance to hear the Op. 132 live. Good result all round, those who say these works are "impenetrable" & "dauntingly complex" are I think kind of making some people scared of hearing them (which was me initially, but that quickly changed, which is good).

*George Enescu* - Partially as a result of some long-time advocates on TC (eg. World Violist), I got a disc of his violin sonatas after only having heard his two_ Romanian Rhapsodies_. No complaints for me here, on the contrary, it's all good.

*Stravinsky's neo-classical works* - Was previously in the camp that he kind of was a "sell-out" going back more to tradition after _The Rite of Spring_, now I really like these works.

My opinions/thinking about music has definitely become less ideological & more "centred" in the past year or more, although I was always kind of eclectic, but now I'm that even more. But I've mainly done things off "my own bat" so to speak, I like many composers that are rarely mentioned on these forums...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

4'33'' doesn't really live up to its negative hype. It's rather nice, I listen to it every day.


----------



## Curiosity

Sid James said:


> *Beethoven's late quartets* - Actually got his Op. 130 & 131 (the _Grosse Fuge_) after reading the thread on TC asking of people's opinions on it. Good result, have since got a set of all of the late quartets, & even got a chance to hear the Op. 132 live. Good result all round, those who say these works are "impenetrable" & "dauntingly complex" are I think kind of making some people scared of hearing them (which was me initially, but that quickly changed, which is good).


Same. Tackling the late quartets was daunting after all I'd heard of them. To my surprise I liked all of them pretty much immediately. It took me longer to crack the Razumovsky's actually. B's late quartets are challenging and have incredible depth but they are not overly inaccessible in my opinion. There's an abundance of beautiful music within all of them.


----------



## Sid James

regressivetransphobe said:


> 4'33'' doesn't really live up to its negative hype. It's rather nice, I listen to it every day.


:tiphat: Interesting way of putting it, reversing negative hype into a positive! Good one...


----------



## Aramis

> Yes, I agree with you about Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. It's overrated


No, it's not.


----------



## jurianbai

I am sorry, but I also think the similar negative with Berlioz's S.F. and also Harriot in Italy, which I read Paganini highly admired the work for its viola composition.

In string quartet, unfortunately I dissapointed with *Max Reger'*s cycle. I have read good recommendations from friends here, I believe it is a good piece, but I just didn't meet what I am thinking before. However, his violin + piano sonata is a click .

(R) Schumann's violin concerto also can go to this negative category. I think it's a bit repetitive.


----------



## itywltmt

I think this is an interesting question, and wonder what constitutes "hype" (or non-hype). I think there are pieces that have garnered so-called "acceptance" and found their way to the repertoire, and others less-heralded. Dunno if that maps to hype/non-hype...

Where there is hype, however, is on "individual performances" or even on "artist specialties" - statements like "so and so is a Chopin specialist".

Case in point, going back to Berlioz, Sir Colin Davis is thought of as a "Berlioz specialist", and though I don't generally dislike his recordings, I find so many more conductors (Ozawa, Dutoit and others from "his generation") seem to have recorded far superior performances.

I would agree, however, that some works are overexposed and/or over-recorded. _Symphonie Fantastique_ may very well be one of them, but I don't see an adequate litmus test for that: there seems to be no shortage of Beethoven symphony recordings, for example, and there are probably as many that "say something" as there are that don't, yet people don't call those works either overexposed, overrecorded or overhypoed.

At the end of the day the marketplace (the basic dog-eat-dog economics) dictates things, and it generally culls the herd.

My thoughts, not necessarily yours.


----------



## Klavierspieler

regressivetransphobe said:


> 4'33'' doesn't really live up to its negative hype. It's rather nice, I listen to it every day.


I listen to it all the time!


----------



## Klavierspieler

I am a bit disappointed with the Moonlight, it's a wonderful work, but others of his sonatas deserve more attention than it. Same goes for the Pathetique.


----------



## Tapkaara

Sid James said:


> Got THIS disc of music of fairly obscure Danish composer *Rued Langgaard* (1893-1952) touted as being the best thing since sliced bread by various people on THIS thread here on TC. These works, written in the 1940's & '50's sounded like they were a rehash of things in music that had happened half a century before in the 1880's & '90's. Took it back to the store for exchange after a couple of listens.
> 
> However, I don't mind composers who have a more "traditional" or "conservative" idiom/style, as long as they engage me to some level, eg. if they have flair or do it in an interesting/unique way. Korngold comes to mind as being like this, his music was not exactly of it's time, but the quality of it was of a very high level (Richard Strauss, amongst others, admired Korngold greatly, say no more).
> 
> Anyway, this is partly the reason why I stick with the "big names" in their respective fields. This can be a "niche" field like specialty in only one instrument, the composer doesn't necessarily have to be an "all rounder." Eg. people here like stlukes mentioned the lute composer Sylvius Leopold Weiss, got a disc of his stuff, superb. Again, as with R. Strauss' high opinion of Korngold, J.S. Bach was a big admirer of Weiss' music at the time. Other composers' views of their contemporaries doesn't necessarily legitimise their worth or value, but when I read things that add up to "balanced consensus," I'm seldom, if ever, dissappointed. As for the opinions of those who come across to me as kind of "groupies" it rarely leads to anything fruitful.
> 
> Having said that, there are some discs of Langgaard's art-songs & choral things which I may well get into at a later stage, only with the proviso that I can maybe hear them before I buy them (which is also a wise things to do, esp. with things that are obscure, I don't have money to waste on cd's which will gather dust on my shelves)...


I, too, was let down by Langgaard but I had discovered him a while before he was "hyped" in the forum. I have his 1st, 2nd and 3rd symphonies as well as his Music of the Spheres. It's good, I suppose, but not great music. I agree it lacks originality. That that originality is requisite for good music, but it's overblown stuff in a Mahlerian vein, and perhaps that is why I am prevented from really getting into it. Nielsen was clearly a better, more original Danish composer.

And goodness, I would never tell anyone to buy a box set of anything! Such things are too expensive for the risk!


----------



## Ukko

clavichorder said:


> I don't know what your guys's deal is about symphony fantastique, nothing against you, but I love symphony fantastique! It think its a truly remarkable piece. Put it in its historical context! That thing came out in the late 1820s for crying out loud! It has such a vastness to it, its truly a giant.


I too enjoy the Symphonie Fantastique. Even the program doesn't diminish my enjoyment. To blow a little smoke around the historical context, consider the approximately contemporaneous Symphony in C by Bizet.


----------



## Ukko

Xaltotun said:


> Of course this thread is more about the listener's ears than the quality (or lack thereof) of the music, but the biggest personal disappointments for me have thus far been Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Bach's Mass in B minor. With such well-respected works from well-respected composers, I'll just refuse to believe my ears and put the blame squarely on myself. But I cannot help that no matter who's to blame, I felt disappointed and cheated when I heard those two works.


I think I may understand your reaction to the Rite of Spring (even though I have loved it from first hearing). In a way, those sounds are messages that are more 'elemental' than 'musical'.


----------



## Aramis

> I agree it lacks originality.


I don't.

I remember the time whe he was widely discussed here and reached for his stuff. Among rather solid number of his symphonies not all are masterpieces but there are real gems, like Fall of the Leaf or, perhaps a little too long but brilliant without doubt, 1st, Mountain Pastorals. Or the Heaven Rending - the long chord in coda is one of most memorable moments in orchestral music I know. He certainly was old fashioned but not unoriginal. And for sure you can't said he's hyped - he had his 5 minutes on this boards but he is underrated and little known in the world.

I would consider myself a fan of him.


----------



## Argus

Opera, but that goes without saying.

There are loads of composers who I find rubbish who are hyped up, but there are some composers who, according to my tastes, I should like more.

Mahler. Even when I was more into big Romantic symphonic stuff I never got the Mahler hype. Empty.

Messiaen. Okay but nowhere near as great as he gets talked up as.

Feldman. Again not bad, but his works are so damn long with such microscopic dynamic change, development and contrast. I know that was his schtick but it ain't half boring at times. Then again he isn't _that_ hyped.


----------



## TxllxT

Reading this thread I guess the real letdown didn't come from Berlioz nor from the Symphonie Fantastique, but from having listened to a mediocre recording/concert and having got a prejudgment from it. I don't get it why to generalise so bluntly. There exist worlds of difference between horribly played Fantastiques and an excellent one


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Argus said:


> Mahler. ... Empty.


Don't believe Argus' *LIES*


----------



## Pieck

Klavierspieler said:


> I listen to it all the time!


You have to hear my remix I made of Beethoven's 9th and 4'33, you'll love it!


----------



## Argus

regressivetransphobe said:


> Don't believe Argus' *LIES*


Well, his music is fuller than 4'33'' and about as memorable.

All I've got to say about Mahler is:

Where's the beef?


----------



## tdc

regressivetransphobe said:


> Don't believe Argus' *LIES*


The sad thing is I think Argus actually believes he is telling the truth...I've come to the conclusion after reading many of his posts on music and art in general this person deserves our pity, more so than our wrath. If there is anything in music or art that can labeled as 'spiritual' or 'other worldy', or even just merely as 'deep', Argus is completely oblivious to these things.


----------



## Argus

tdc said:


> The sad thing is I think Argus actually believes he is telling the truth...I've come to the conclusion after reading many of his posts on music and art in general this person deserves our pity, more so than our wrath. If there is anything in music or art that can labeled as 'spiritual' or 'other worldy', or even just merely as 'deep', Argus is completely oblivious to these things.


Your wrath?:lol:

I don't like Mahler. That is the truth. I don't believe that, I know it.

'Spiritual', 'other worldly', 'deep'? Maybe I'm just not some airy-fairy ponce. I like music, not what I think music should be.


----------



## tdc

Argus said:


> 'Spiritual', 'other worldly', 'deep'? Maybe I'm just not some airy-fairy ponce.


This is an interesting part of your post, so lets just say one day you had an experience with music that was so profound, the only way you could describe it was being 'deep'. Would you then consider yourself an 'airy-fairy ponce' for having felt that way? Would you try and suppress the feeling? Do you then think perhaps it could be your own insecurities about yourself here that is preventing you from enjoying music in a deeper way? Think about why Mozart stirs up so much (negative feelings) in yourself? Maybe the reason is his music just represents a part of _yourself_ you are unwilling to accept?


----------



## Argus

tdc said:


> This is an interesting part of your post, so lets just say one day you had an experience with music that was so profound, the only way you could describe it was being 'deep'. Would you then consider yourself an 'airy-fairy ponce' for having felt that way? Would you try and suppress the feeling? Do you then think perhaps it could be your own insecurities about yourself here that is preventing you from enjoying music in a deeper way? Think about why Mozart stirs up so much (negative feelings) in yourself? Maybe the reason is his music just represents a part of _yourself_ you are unwilling to accept?


I like Mozart. Once I stopped trying to hear his music in a certain way and allowed the sound of the soggy **** cheeks to come to the forefront, it all sort of clicked together in my mind.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> I like music, not what I think music should be.


You meant to say you love Black Sabbath, but hate Mozart, Mahler, opera etc. Let's make that very clear for us to read. We wouldn't want to misunderstand where Argus is coming from, would we? Do yourself some justice here.


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You meant to say you love Black Sabbath, but hate Mozart, Mahler, opera etc. Let's make that very clear for us to read. We wouldn't want to misunderstand where Argus is coming from, would we? Do yourself some justice here.


Can't you read. In my post above I say 'I like Mozart'. It's right at the start of the post. It's a short post, only two sentences long, so you should find it nice enough to read.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> Can't you read. In my post above I say 'I like Mozart'. It's right at the start of the post. It's a short post, only two sentences long, so you should find it nice enough to read.


It's very intellectually challenging for me to understand your posts clearly about what you like or dislike when it comes to classical music. I only understand plain well that you like BS (Black Sabbath) music.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

With the new thread title in mind, I think Mahler 9 lives up to the hype tenfold. Ninefold. Ho ho. It's just as structurally concrete as it is cathartic, beautiful, etc. etc. other cliches. Unrelated anecdote: I remember one day my old hippie-dippyish music professor played a long excerpt at high volume and waxed poetic about how music is "vibration" as the desks shook. The other classes didn't appreciate it much.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It's very intellectually challenging for me to understand your posts clearly about what you like or dislike when it comes to classical music.

As a teacher I can assure you that it does indeed take a bit of time and effort before you can begin to "understand" the thinking patterns of the pre-pubescent.


----------



## Weston

Please, folks. I hope we are joking in this thread and not bashing others' tastes, though I realize it's hard to say something is disappointing without bashing the tastes of those who enjoy it. The topic was about the effects of our foreknowledge and preconceptions (or "hype" for brevity) on our reaction to a piece. 

Besides, I'm a huge Tony Iommi fan, well into middle age, for reasons I would have trouble putting into words and wouldn't expect others, especially classical music buffs, to embrace. It's apples and orangutans. I would however have expected more open minds from people who are otherwise so knowledgeable.


----------



## violadude

Like Sid and Tapkaara I was pretty disappointed with Langgaard as well. I liked the first 3 or 4 symphonies, but after that I feel like the music got to a point where it felt empty to me. A lot of people compared him to Mahler and when I think of Mahler I think of all the eccentricities of his music (such as quite unique orchestration and purposeful use of banalities) and the way he uses his symphonies to make grand philosophical statements about life and death. So I guess I was kind of expecting that from Langgaard as well, but it seems to me that the comparison was quite shallow and the only thing they really have in common is "big romantic period music." Maybe I'm not listening close enough though.

Symphonie Fantastique didn't live up to its hype well for me either. I think this mostly has to do with the program. The problem I have with it, and a lot of program music, is that I just can't accurately hear what the music is supposed to be. Or...perhaps I feel that the Symphonie Fantastique is just to tame for its subject matter. For example, I would expect a witches sabbath to sound very horrifying...what I hear in the final movement of Symphonie Fantastique kind of sounds like a Loony Toons version of a witches sabbath. Or for example the March to the Scaffolds movement, there are the funeral march parts, which I'm fine with. But there are also parts of the piece that sound like triumphant music, which would be odd coming from someone who was about to have their head cut off. 

I'll offer another new piece that I don't think lived up to its hype as the pieces I used have already been mentioned. Schumann's Carnaval was a piece I had always read much praise about, not on here, but elsewhere. When I listened to the pieces I found them kind of odd. I guess they didn't really click because I just couldn't really tell what kind of emotion Schumann was going for in most of them, they seemed kind of nondescript to me. Although I haven't listened to them in a while so that might have changed by now.


----------



## waldvogel

In some people's opinion _The Art of the Fugue_ is the culmination of Bach's work. It works its way through canon, 2, 3, 4, 5, and finally 6-part counterpoint to a stunning demonstration of the power of the human mind.

Unfortunately, it has a monotonous, symmetrical theme whose only advantage is that it is flexible enough to mutate in all of those ways. And that annoying theme is ALWAYS there somewhere in the music, for all of the 876 hours required to play _The Art of the Fugue_. To top it off, since Bach died with the work still incomplete, there are versions completed by musicologists that are even stupefyingly longer.

It's the only piece by Bach that I don't like at all. _The Musical Offering_ is a much more successful exploration of counterpoint, with a theme that actually qualifies as a good melodic idea.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

violadude said:


> I'll offer another new piece that I don't think lived up to its hype as the pieces I used have already been mentioned. Schumann's Carnaval was a piece I had always read much praise about, not on here, but elsewhere. When I listened to the pieces I found them kind of odd. I guess they didn't really click because I just couldn't really tell what kind of emotion Schumann was going for in most of them, they seemed kind of nondescript to me. Although I haven't listened to them in a while so that might have changed by now.


I have this problem with a lot of Schumann. His piano writing strikes me as a little... dry, unidiomatic? I really enjoy his concerto, but otherwise he's kind of a hard nut to crack for me, for being one of the "legends". Maybe I'm spoiled from going backwards in time in a lot of ways.


----------



## jalex

regressivetransphobe said:


> I have this problem with a lot of Schumann. His piano writing strikes me as a little... dry, unidiomatic? I really enjoy his concerto, but otherwise he's kind of a hard nut to crack for me, for being one of the "legends". Maybe I'm spoiled from going backwards in time in a lot of ways.


Have you listened to Kinderszenen?


----------



## Polednice

Whoah, whoah, whoah, guys!! Let's just put things into perspective with regards to Argus's original post on this thread by acknowledging that Mahler actually _does_ suck. 

Schumann is somebody whose piano music I am just falling deeplier and deeplier in love with (I know 'deeplier' isn't a word, but I want it to be, so it is as of.... now!). I can completely understand why it might be underwhelming at first because that's exactly how I found it for such a long time, but I've never experienced a greater pay-off for continued effort with a composer.

A recent experience: I was very much let down by Britten's _Turn of the Screw_. When the Guardian streamed it live from Glyndebourne this week, I tuned in but could only bear to watch 45 minutes of it. There was hype around the direction, which I did actually think was hugely clever, but the hype it didn't live up to was the one I created myself because I just love Henry James's original so much. I thought that, out of context, I'd find Britten's music stunning, and he certainly achieves precisely what he means to achieve with it, but I just didn't agree with his approach. I came to the conclusion that opera is just too 'shouty' a form for the Screw to ever be properly adapted, so I don't think it was any particular fault on Britten's part; I was just disappointed that where in the story there is subtlety, psychological thrills and questioning, in the opera there was overbearing melodrama which I felt removed an extremely important layer of ambiguity.


----------



## Sid James

*@ tapkaara, violadude, Aramis* re langgaard -

I agree with the first two member's comments to the effect that his music is heavily upholstered, kind of "beefed up." I don't remember that anyone on that thread compared him to Nielsen. Anyway, as people have said, these things depend on one's tastes. & in my case, often the mood, headspace, vibe that I'm in. At the time I got that Langgaard disc, I was trying to get into music from 1900-1950. Even composers that I'd heard initially & had difficulty with I could put them on the backburner & more recently I've grown to love their stuff (eg. Zemlinsky & Bax). With these guys, from the first listen, I could hear that, sure their music did have a kind of romantic garb, but I thought "never judge a book by it's cover." In the case of that Langgaard disc, all I heard was pure rehash. As for what Aramis says, as I said before, Langgaard's smaller scale works may well do the trick for me, given time & when I buy them. One of the works on the disc of his music that I returned to the shop was like a 3 minute choral piece written as a "rant" against Nielsen, who Langgaard was really bitter about having the limelight in Denmark. I was a bit judgemental, I thought why would you want to put that into music, I mean it seems kind of childish behaviour to me, to be honest.
*
@ those who think Berg's & Schoenberg's violin concertos don't live up to the hype* -

It took me a while to understand these works and go beyond the first quite baffled listen. I can now follow the trajectory of the Berg esp. He starts & ends with the orch. "tuning," in the first part there are a lot of his favourite waltz tunes, the second part opens with chaos, dark, stormy, and then I think the woodwinds usher in the Bach chorale tune which leads to a kind of calmer resolution. As for the Schoenberg, the first two movements are pretty fragmented, but the last movt., has this dance tune on the violin, which is interrupted by a snare drum (signifying war?) & after that the violin seems to me to be damaged, a casualty of the fractured world, & as for the ending, sometimes I "feel" resolution, other times I think it's up in the air. So I like the Schoenberg for asking more questions that could be answered, even by someone like Hilary Hahn who plays it like a dream.

*@ issues of Berlioz's Fantastique* -

I know it's been over-exposed, maybe over-hyped, but still I think it's a revolutionary work. I doubt that Wagner would have developed his lietfmotif (leading theme/s) technique without foreknowledge of what Berlioz was doing in this & other works. Having known it for like 20+ years now, I rarely listen to it now, but I still get it out once in a while & heard it live last year (& I agree, it's bloody hard to bring this off live, so in that way it can be a let-down, many things can go wrong when playing this piece, you can maybe edit a recording, but in the live context, it's a totally different ball game, slip-ups are likely to happen, even with the best orchestras & conductors)...


----------



## presto

Schubert’s symphony No 9
Nick named The Great....I’m still struggling to discover the greatness in it!


----------



## Tapkaara

I am surprised that Berlioz and the Symphonie fantastique have really been a big let down to so many. It's not my favorite work, but I agree with Sid that it was revolutionary and there's a lot of cool things going on in it. Why are people so let down by it, I wonder?

Someone remarked that the sabbath scene was not "horrifying" enough. True, I also expected a savage bacchanal, probably something akin to Night on Bald Mountain or Carmina Burana or Le Sacre, but even with all of Berlioz's inventiveness, could music of such a sort been written in the 1830s by ANYONE? I am not sure even Berlioz could have pushed orchestral expression THAT far at the time. (An analogy that works for me is: could the Texas Chainsaw Massacre have been produced, gore and all, in the 1930s? We had to wait for that!) Also, perhaps a horrifying effect was not desired...perhaps a more sardonic and somewhat whimsical mood is really what Berlioz had in mind...and what he delivered.

Anyway, if you listen to SF and expect something along the lines of total Wagnerian epicness, I can see the set-up for disappointment. But in the proper context, Berlioz's symphony truly is "fantastic."

Harold in Italy sucks.


----------



## Pieck

waldvogel said:


> In some people's opinion _The Art of the Fugue_ is the culmination of Bach's work. It works its way through canon, 2, 3, 4, 5, and finally 6-part counterpoint to a stunning demonstration of the power of the human mind.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has a monotonous, symmetrical theme whose only advantage is that it is flexible enough to mutate in all of those ways. And that annoying theme is ALWAYS there somewhere in the music, for all of the 876 hours required to play _The Art of the Fugue_. To top it off, since Bach died with the work still incomplete, there are versions completed by musicologists that are even stupefyingly longer.
> 
> It's the only piece by Bach that I don't like at all. _The Musical Offering_ is a much more successful exploration of counterpoint, with a theme that actually qualifies as a good melodic idea.


1. I love AOF's theme.
2. Maybe you need a different attitude. A lot of people say that modern music is only intelectual, and there's a phrase that goes 'who said that music should be beautiful?'. Maybe you should try to listen to it like you would if it was a modern avant-garde piece or something. You'll find it very satisfying to the intelect. At least I do.


----------



## samurai

Mozart's *Jupiter* *Symphony. *I have done a complete 180 degree pivot on this one. When I first heard it, I thought it "wasn't all that" as the kids say today. However, upon re-listening to it {specifically tonight}, I have completely changed my mind. Maybe it's because the second time around it was Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker performing it, but I have come to see--oops, I mean hear--what the hype is all about. It is a magnificent and exultant work, and I am so happy that I decided to "give it another shot". Indeed, I can envision {enhear?} it becoming one of my "go to" listening pieces in the future. Amazon, here I come!


----------



## Tapkaara

samurai said:


> Mozart's *Jupiter* *Symphony. *I have done a complete 360 degree pivot on this one. When I first heard it, I thought it "wasn't all that" as the kids say today. However, upon re-listening to it {specifically tonight}, I have completely changed my mind. Maybe it's because the second time around it was Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker performing it, but I have come to see--oops, I mean hear--what the hype is all about. It is a magnificent and exultant work, and I am so happy that I decided to "give it another shot". Indeed, I can envision {enhear?} it becoming one of my "go to" listening pieces in the future. Amazon, here I come!


Did you mean 180 degrees?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I think the atonal opera _Wozzeck_ by Berg _does_ live up to its hype. Premiered in 1925, although composition started in 1914, I think it does atonal and avant-garde music much more justice than numerous other atonal works, vocal or not.


----------



## Sid James

you're dead right, hc, it was the first "atonal" work i heard in my teens & i connected to it on the first listen. it's a gripping story, so directly told. when i got that recording of wozzeck which i still own, on berlin classics under herbert kegel, i was living at home. my mother, who also had no/little experience with this type of music, could also appreciate it easily. another work like this that i've come to know & appreciate more recently is schoenberg's moses und aron, the second act esp. has visceral impact on me...


----------



## samurai

@ Tapkaara, Upon giving this some thought I think you are absolutely right. 180 degrees it was and shall be then. Thanks for picking that up! I am now going to edit that entry.


----------



## Kopachris

I'm not terribly impressed by Beethoven's 9th symphony, myself. From how it was described to me, it was supposed to be an epic musical journey of epic proportions, but it was sometimes too repetitive for me. I much prefer Tchaikovsky's 4th.

Mozart's Requiem, on the other hand, lives up to the hype and much more for me.


----------



## Tapkaara

samurai said:


> @ Tapkaara, Upon giving this some thought I think you are absolutely right. 180 degrees it was and shall be then. Thanks for picking that up! I am now going to edit that entry.


Happy to be of service.


----------



## Sid James

Kopachris said:


> ...Mozart's Requiem, on the other hand, lives up to the hype and much more for me.


What about his _"Great" Mass in C_? Have you heard it? What do you think?...


----------



## jalex

Kopachris said:


> I'm not terribly impressed by Beethoven's 9th symphony, myself. From how it was described to me, it was supposed to be an epic musical journey of epic proportions, but it was sometimes too repetitive for me.


Where exactly was it too repetitive for you? The scherzo?


----------



## Aramis

violadude said:


> But there are also parts of the piece that sound like triumphant music, which would be odd coming from someone who was about to have their head cut off.


From the program:

_The procession advances to the sound of a march that is sometimes sombre and wild, and sometimes brilliant and solemn, in which a dull sound of heavy footsteps follows without transition the loudest outbursts._

It all makes sense. Most disappointments come from misundertsanding. Some expect things that THEY think should be in this symphony instead of trying to dig what it really is. The first movement is peak of musical expression, almost psychologically written portrait of a man haunted with obsessive passion. I suppose you have to got obsessive passions yourself to fully understand it but even if you don't, try to approach the music not only as lyrical expression of love dreams and longings but as, like I said, picture of psychical state.


----------



## Art Rock

Berlioz' SF was one of the first pieces I discovered for myself in 1986, and it has always remained a favourite. Wonderful contrast of movements and stunningly original for its time.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> ...
> 
> Harold in Italy sucks.


I like the rest of your post, but with that comment, you may well have ushered in a "Berlioz haters" club here on TC, just as we've had similar whipping boys recently (John Cage & Xenakis esp.). SHAME ON YOU! :lol:


----------



## violadude

Aramis said:


> From the program:
> 
> _The procession advances to the sound of a march that is sometimes sombre and wild, and sometimes brilliant and solemn, in which a dull sound of heavy footsteps follows without transition the loudest outbursts._
> 
> It all makes sense. Most disappointments come from misundertsanding. Some expect things that THEY think should be in this symphony instead of trying to dig what it really is. The first movement is peak of musical expression, almost psychologically written portrait of a man haunted with obsessive passion. I suppose you have to got obsessive passions yourself to fully understand it but even if you don't, try to approach the music not only as lyrical expression of love dreams and longings but as, like I said, picture of psychical state.


I guess so, I just didn't understand why there would be triumphant moments in a movement that has nothing triumphant about it in the story.


----------



## Sid James

Well, the mob witnessing & getting excited about the guy getting guillotined probably thought of it as a kind of "triumphant" or at least entertaining or exciting thing, I guess?...


----------



## Xaltotun

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think I may understand your reaction to the Rite of Spring (even though I have loved it from first hearing). In a way, those sounds are messages that are more 'elemental' than 'musical'.


Wonderfully expressed, Hilltroll72! I really think that you hit the nail there - that's what it sounds like. I actually think that with these words, I might be able to actually learn to appreciate it! I've observed that to appreciate a certain piece of music, I often just need the right framework, right mindset... This simple sentence just might be it for this work.


----------



## Sid James

Xaltotun said:


> ...I've observed that to appreciate a certain piece of music, I often just need the right *framework*, right* mindset*...


Yes, they're good words & often use words like "vibe" or "headspace" to approximate these feelings (in real life as well). Sometimes things "gel" with me, or kind of lukewarm, or don't due to things I can't explain, just due to things like my mood/s, dispositions, etc...


----------



## hespdelk

violadude said:


> Like Sid and Tapkaara I was pretty disappointed with Langgaard as well. I liked the first 3 or 4 symphonies, but after that I feel like the music got to a point where it felt empty to me. A lot of people compared him to Mahler and when I think of Mahler I think of all the eccentricities of his music (such as quite unique orchestration and purposeful use of banalities) and the way he uses his symphonies to make grand philosophical statements about life and death. So I guess I was kind of expecting that from Langgaard as well, but it seems to me that the comparison was quite shallow and the only thing they really have in common is "big romantic period music." Maybe I'm not listening close enough though.
> 
> Symphonie Fantastique didn't live up to its hype well for me either. I think this mostly has to do with the program. The problem I have with it, and a lot of program music, is that I just can't accurately hear what the music is supposed to be. Or...perhaps I feel that the Symphonie Fantastique is just to tame for its subject matter. For example, I would expect a witches sabbath to sound very horrifying...what I hear in the final movement of Symphonie Fantastique kind of sounds like a Loony Toons version of a witches sabbath. Or for example the March to the Scaffolds movement, there are the funeral march parts, which I'm fine with. But there are also parts of the piece that sound like triumphant music, which would be odd coming from someone who was about to have their head cut off.
> 
> I'll offer another new piece that I don't think lived up to its hype as the pieces I used have already been mentioned. Schumann's Carnaval was a piece I had always read much praise about, not on here, but elsewhere. When I listened to the pieces I found them kind of odd. I guess they didn't really click because I just couldn't really tell what kind of emotion Schumann was going for in most of them, they seemed kind of nondescript to me. Although I haven't listened to them in a while so that might have changed by now.


I've always liked Langgaard's symphonies from the first hearing (haven't gotten to know all of them yet though). I think the comparison to Mahler stands in some ways, but is misleading. Langgaard's eccentricities are of a different sort.. there is irony and bitterness there that brings him closer to Shostakovich in some ways, but their sound worlds are very different.

I am another person who was underwhelmed with Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique for a long long time.. until I found an old recording conducted by Jean Martinon which really revealed the work to me.. It is a truly remarkable piece and way ahead of its time. I still struggle with many of his other works though..


----------



## presto

hespdelk said:


> I am another person who was underwhelmed with Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique for a long long time.. until I found an old recording conducted by Jean Martinon which really revealed the work to me.. It is a truly remarkable piece and way ahead of its time. I still struggle with many of his other works though..


It is an amazing work, especially when you find out he was only 17 when he composed it.
For me it seems to take off in the last two movements, it's one of those works that gets better as it goes along.


----------



## Aramis

Sid James said:


> Well, the mob witnessing & getting excited about the guy getting guillotined probably thought of it as a kind of "triumphant" or at least entertaining or exciting thing, I guess?...


I remember reading a description of the brassy part of this movement as crowd's laughter. Indeed, it has something grotesque about it but I'm not sure if it's "authorised" view. Can't remember the source.



> It is an amazing work, especially when you find out he was only 17 when he composed it.


What? 17? You mean 27 I guess.


----------



## Tapkaara

Aramis said:


> I remember reading a description of the brassy part of this movement as crowd's laughter. Indeed, it has something grotesque about it but I'm not sure if it's "authorised" view. Can't remember the source.
> 
> What? 17? You mean 27 I guess.


I believe he was talking about Langgaard when he wrote his 1st symphony, not Berlioz.


----------



## Kopachris

jalex said:


> Where exactly was it too repetitive for you? The scherzo?


Mostly the orchestration, except for the latter part of the 4th movement (after the choir comes in). The beginning is great and the ending is great, but the middle stuff starts to sound the same after a while. The breaks between movements aren't very clear--using some different tone colors (esp. woodwinds) to indicate new themes would have helped.


----------



## Argus

Weston said:


> Please, folks. I hope we are joking in this thread and not bashing others' tastes, though I realize it's hard to say something is disappointing without bashing the tastes of those who enjoy it. The topic was about the effects of our foreknowledge and preconceptions (or "hype" for brevity) on our reaction to a piece.
> 
> Besides, I'm a huge Tony Iommi fan, well into middle age, for reasons I would have trouble putting into words and wouldn't expect others, especially classical music buffs, to embrace. It's apples and orangutans. I would however have expected more open minds from people who are otherwise so knowledgeable.


It's cool. It's just that HC likes to mention Black Sabbath at every opportunity (closet metalhead) and Stlukes seems to be struggling with another of his delusions, this time about me being a pre-pubescent boy.

I do think Mahler is a bit of a damp squib though. I wanted Wagner without the silly opera bits but he didn't deliver. I suppose there is always Bruckner to fill that role. Mahler isn't terrible in many ways but I can listen to an hour long symphony and not remember a single thing about what I just listened to. Or was Mahler attempting an early form of ambient music?


----------



## itywltmt

Argus said:


> I do think Mahler is a bit of a damp squib though. I wanted Wagner without the silly opera bits but he didn't deliver. I suppose there is always Bruckner to fill that role. Mahler isn't terrible in many ways but I can listen to an hour long symphony and not remember a single thing about what I just listened to. Or was Mahler attempting an early form of ambient music?


Ouch! You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but isn't that a tad harsh? How can anybody listen to, say, the final movement of the Resurrection symphony and not be moved (to tears in my case)? Hard to imagine leaving a performance of Mahler's Second without some of those motes ringing in your head for weeks!


----------



## Argus

itywltmt said:


> Ouch! You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but isn't that a tad harsh? How can anybody listen to, say, the final movement of the Resurrection symphony and not be moved (to tears in my case)? Hard to imagine leaving a performance of Mahler's Second without some of those motes ringing in your head for weeks!


I'd like to relisten to that symphony but I am not in a big Romantic symphony phase at this point in time and trying to listen to it now will only depreciate it further in my estimations. I don't think being unmemorable is necessarily a bad characteristic, but in the case of someone like Mahler, I don't think he intended his music to be such.


----------



## Aramis

I find Mahler very memorable. Sure, he sometimes goes into weird, lunatic stuff with little to remember from it except the general impression it made upon you but he was creative melodist and there are many themes that I remembered very well after first listenings.


----------



## jalex

Kopachris said:


> Mostly the orchestration, except for the latter part of the 4th movement (after the choir comes in). The beginning is great and the ending is great, but the middle stuff starts to sound the same after a while. The breaks between movements aren't very clear--using some different tone colors (esp. woodwinds) to indicate new themes would have helped.


I really think you need to give this another listen because I have no idea what your complaint. Beethoven's orchestration is as masterful as ever in the ninth, and the themes are introduced variously - IIRC 1st movement: them one is introduced tutti, theme two by winds; 2nd movement: scherzo theme by strings in first section then woodwind in second, trio theme by horns; movement three: both themes are heard first time in strings but also in woodwinds when they appear again.

If you can't tell when a new movement begins then you can't be listening with any attention whatsoever. The time signature changes between the first two movements, and the character changes completely between the others.


----------



## Kopachris

jalex said:


> I really think you need to give this another listen because I have no idea what your complaint. Beethoven's orchestration is as masterful as ever in the ninth, and the themes are introduced variously - IIRC 1st movement: them one is introduced tutti, theme two by winds; 2nd movement: scherzo theme by strings in first section then woodwind in second, trio theme by horns; movement three: both themes are heard first time in strings but also in woodwinds when they appear again.
> 
> If you can't tell when a new movement begins then you can't be listening with any attention whatsoever. The time signature changes between the first two movements, and the character changes completely between the others.


Maybe it's just my recording, then, because I've listened to it attentively at least a dozen times.


----------



## pjang23

Can you say Tchaikovsky piano concerto no.1? 

The work is truly self-aware: It opens with hype and is hyped by fans, but fails to live up to expectations and is frankly a disappointing virtuosic bore. :tiphat:


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Argus said:


> It's cool. It's just that HC likes to mention Black Sabbath at every opportunity (closet metalhead)


As someone who has liked Black Sabbath for the majority of my life, I think I've heard that band referenced here more than anywhere else.

I guess you've heard Mahler's 6th? In my opinion there's no fluff at all, it juggles themes seamlessly. It's transporting to me, but you don't like what you don't like.


----------



## itywltmt

pjang23 said:


> Can you say Tchaikovsky piano concerto no.1?
> 
> The work is truly self-aware: It opens with hype and is hyped by fans, but fails to live up to expectations and is frankly a disappointing virtuosic bore. :tiphat:


Actually, Tchaikovsky had a not too dissimilar reaction from Rubenstein when he played the piece for him. He called it "vulgar", and Tchaikovsky's (very defensive) reaction was to "not change a note of it". Admittedly, Tcahikovsky wasn't a great pianist (Rubenstein was) but though the piece has achieved its fair share of notiriety, it is flawed - e.g., the first movement goes in a very different direction once the opening theme fades away... I think had Tcahiokovsky used an opening theme closer to the rest of the tone of the movement, it would work better.

I hold judgement on hype vs non-hype, as I still maintain that the _performers _make or break a piece a lot more than the piece itself...


----------



## Argus

regressivetransphobe said:


> I guess you've heard Mahler's 6th? In my opinion there's no fluff at all, it juggles themes seamlessly. It's transporting to me, but you don't like what you don't like.


I've definitely heard his 2nd, not impressed, and his 5th, listenable but really long and kind of bland (even the famous adagietto), and one other non-vocal one, either the 6th or 7th.

To listen to an hour+ of something I'm not in the mood for won't do it justice either.


----------



## Aramis

itywltmt said:


> e.g., the first movement goes in a very different direction once the opening theme fades away... I think had Tcahiokovsky used an opening theme closer to the rest of the tone of the movement, it would work better


It worked because he didn't. They say that this concerto has nothing to offer but the opening theme - that's probably because they except the obvious - repeating the successful tune over and over again, developing it all the way. If he had do it they would accusse him of sticking to the catchy tune and therefore being uncreative. This work fully deserves it's fame, it's true masterpiece and one of few works coming from Mighty Handful aesthetic to achieve true recognition and that alone makes it worth of it.


----------



## Ukko

Argus said:


> I'd like to relisten to that symphony but I am not in a big Romantic symphony phase at this point in time and trying to listen to it now will only depreciate it further in my estimations. I don't think being unmemorable is necessarily a bad characteristic, but in the case of someone like Mahler, I don't think he intended his music to be such.


I actually don't think any of Mahler's symphonies are Romantic; they don't _feel_ Romantic. He is certainly targeting the emotions. but the weaponry is significantly modified. There are 'pregnant' pauses - C.P.E. Bach and his crowd used those, but Mahler changes the 'after' from the 'before' much more than C.P.E. did. Melodies morph in ways that no Romantic composer would think of - or use if he did. Solo instruments and small choirs are used to more significant effect than the Romantics were apt to do.

Enough. I'm putting myself to sleep, and I've still got work to do today.


----------



## Ukko

Aramis said:


> It worked because he didn't. They say that this concerto has nothing to offer but the opening theme - that's probably because they except the obvious - repeating the successful tune over and over again, developing it all the way. If he had do it they would accusse him of sticking to the catchy tune and therefore being uncreative. This work fully deserves it's fame, it's true masterpiece and one of few works coming from Mighty Handful aesthetic to achieve true recognition and that alone makes it worth of it.


Considering the great orchestrator that PIT was to become, the orchestral part in that concerto is... well, it is not good.


----------



## itywltmt

Aramis said:


> It worked because he didn't. They say that this concerto has nothing to offer but the opening theme - that's probably because they except the obvious - repeating the successful tune over and over again, developing it all the way. If he had do it they would accusse him of sticking to the catchy tune and therefore being uncreative. This work fully deserves it's fame, it's true masterpiece and one of few works coming from Mighty Handful aesthetic to achieve true recognition and that alone makes it worth of it.


If you have the inclination, I would suggest you find a recording of Montreal pianist and composer Andre Matieu's Third piano concerto (AKA Concerto de Quebec) composed in the early 1940's. There is a performance available at the Canadian Music Centre with Mathieu as soloist, as well as a much lauded "reconstruction" by Alain Lefevre on Analekta. Mathieu was, I believe, not yet 16 when he wrote it and the reason why I bring this up is for the following:

Although the piece is quite good (and I won't qualify it by saying "for a 16 year old") it is flawed, like Tchaikovsky's, because it can't "settle on a theme". It sounds like a collage (albeit lovely, fresh and ingenious) of a bunch of "attenpts". Not saying that PIT's is as muddled, but I think there's something to be said about, say, Brahms concerti (which are contemporary to PIT's) that have a semblance of uniform tone.

Just saying.


----------



## TresPicos

Did: Schubert's 9th symphony, Lalo's cello concerto, Messiaen's Quartet for the end of time, Pettersson's 7th symphony, Rachmaninov's 2nd/3rd piano concertos

Did not: Beethoven's 3rd symphony, Symphonie Not So Fantastique, Ravel's Daphnis & Chloe, Debussy's Clair de lune, Dvorak's cello concerto, Fauré's nocturnes


----------



## Sid James

I think there's a tendency to "bash" Tchaikovsky's PC#1 because it's just so famous. Everybody knows it. But I've heard so many classical fans diss it, that dissing it has become more of a cliche than liking it!

Basically I agree with Aramis on this one. The thing about not bringing back the big theme is not a problem for me. In any case, it can be said to be kind of ahead of it's time, eg. many contemporary pieces don't even have a "theme," they're highly fragmented, let along bring a theme back, it's basically irrelevant to many composers now. So old Pyotr Ilych was ahead of the game on that, maybe?...


----------



## jalex

TresPicos said:


> Did: Schubert's 9th symphony, Lalo's cello concerto, Messiaen's Quartet for the end of time, Pettersson's 7th symphony, Rachmaninov's 2nd/3rd piano concertos
> 
> Did not: Beethoven's 3rd symphony, Symphonie Not So Fantastique, Ravel's Daphnis & Chloe, Debussy's Clair de lune, Dvorak's cello concerto, Fauré's nocturnes


 Our tastes could hardly be more different.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I think Prokofiev's Piano Concertos, and Shostakovich's Symphonies still have that hype today. Great crowds come to watch it, and enthusiastically applause and cheer when it's over. The Rach 2s (PC and Symphony) may be the same.


----------



## Weston

For those who may be puzzled about not liking *Berlioz* and the _Symphonie Fantastique_, I'm thinking again it may have been because I read about him before hearing it. Somewhere I had read that he considered himself a genius, and that he went around proclaiming he was "dying." I don't remember where I read this. He wouldn't be the first melodramatic composer who regarded himself highly, nor the last. It just may have clouded my judgment of the music. SF is not a horrible piece of music. It just doesn't resonate with me.

*Mahler* doesn't repulse me either. I usually enjoy his symphonies while they are playing, but then they leave no impression. It could be that they are white elephants -- in the US, that's slang for something a little cumbersome that you don't know what to do with and have trouble getting rid of. (I don't know if that is a universal idiom.) It could be the Mahler symphonies are too big for me to really perceive with the time, energy and attention span I have available today. I listen to them, but I don't really hear them.

I have no *Langgaard* in my collection but people's reaction to him reminds me of my reaction to *Raff*. His work should have been right down my ally, but on hearing it just doesn't click. For me it seems merely okay. It's not bad enough to trade in, not great enough to remember for humming in the shower. I only have Raff's Symphony No. 6 and a few short orchestral pieces to go on, so maybe these are not the best examples.


----------



## Art Rock

Try Raff 5 (Lenore).


----------



## violadude

One more word about Langaarrd before I leave him alone. I had bought the complete symphonies, and I was rather upset at him for starting two symphonies (7 and 13 I believe) with the EXACT SAME THING! It's exactly the same except for some minor differences in orchestration. It's not a particularly good theme either...it sounds kind of cheesy.

Ok my Langaarrd rant is complete.


----------



## Sid James

Which makes me think,* violadude*, I often hear bits of one Mahler symphony in another of his symphonies (esp. in terms of the first five so-called "Wunderhorn" symphonies). But these old ideas only come for a fraction of a moment, they don't hang around long, it's only a very short reference, often played on different instruments, etc. I wonder if what Langgaard was doing was kind of in imitation of this? But what you're describing sounds like pure regurgititation, which I just made a poll/thread about! In any case, he may just have been trying out the same idea in a different context for effect. Playing around. From what little I know of him, he had little chance of getting his symphonies performed, so I don't think he really gave a toss about what people would think about this repetition. But my main gripe with those two last symphonies of his was the strong "rehash" factor, in terms of which -



> ...Ok my Langaarrd rant is complete...


- & mine as well, if it was a rant or not (but I'm glad we can now discuss these criticisms openly here without being out and out abused, as in former "hairier" times on this forum). What a relief the moderation of most if not all our current members is, in comparison anyway...


----------



## violadude

Well here are the two symphonies of Langaarrd that begin the same way, Sid You can decide for yourself what he was trying to do. I don't know what it is about this but it just irks me how they start exactly the same way.

I know what you mean about Mahler's self quotations, but I feel when he does that he is a bit more clever about it....


----------



## Sid James

Yes, *violadude*, I can hear what you mean exactly. To be fair, he does do different things after that introduction in the two works (I heard over 5 minutes or more of the beginning of each symphony). But this is the first time I've heard his music since that "encounter" 12-18 months ago, & it reminds me why his music didn't gel with me. Oh well, it's fine, there's plenty of other composers out there, plenty of other fish in the sea. & as I said, I'm still open to hearing the man's smaller-scale works, I'll jump on youtube to do a search of those when I have time later...


----------



## Aramis

> Somewhere I had read that he considered himself a genius, and that he went around proclaiming he was "dying."


:SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Berlioz's biography is more interesting and unreal to read than the most fantastic fiction stories from romantic era. For me it's plus.


----------



## superhorn

I would nominate Virgil Thomson's inane opera "Four Saints in Three Acts".
The music is ridiculously simplistic and pretentiously "naive" ,and the whole thing stuck me as insufferably pretentious. Now, an absurdist opera with no plot might be amusing, but Thomson failed to deliver.
Gertrude Stein's nonsense verses are often quite clever, but the whole thing is the musical equivalent of pablum. When I heard the Nonesuch recording, it put me to sleep.
Prokofiev sneeringly called it "Four Notes in Three Acts".


----------



## Tapkaara

superhorn said:


> I would nominate Virgil Thomson's inane opera "Four Saints in Three Acts".
> The music is ridiculously simplistic and pretentiously "naive" ,and the whole thing stuck me as insufferably pretentious. Now, an absurdist opera with no plot might be amusing, but Thomson failed to deliver.
> Gertrude Stein's nonsense verses are often quite clever, but the whole thing is the musical equivalent of pablum. When I heard the Nonesuch recording, it put me to sleep.
> Prokofiev sneeringly called it "Four Notes in Three Acts".


And that hack Thompson had the gall to berate Sibelius so ardently. I feel it is safe to say that the Finnish master is much better known and widely revered than Virgil Thompson.


----------



## Sid James

Tapkaara said:


> And that hack Thompson had the gall to berate Sibelius so ardently.


A lot of critics jumped on the bandwagon of one "side" versus the other back then (mid c20th, esp. post-war). Sibelius was not immune to this, neither was Schoenberg. But we now see that these "battles" were basically ideological & had little to do with the actual music in question.



> ...I feel it is safe to say that the Finnish master is much better known and widely revered than Virgil Thompson.


Sibelius is better known, yes (probably always has been, but his reputation took a bit of a dive for a while post-1945). But Thomson also made a big impact on American music, esp. with bringing fine music to the people in the form of film scores. A number of these films scores garnered top prizes, incl. a Pullitzer or two. Thomson's music has recently been revived, eg. Naxos has bought out quite a bit of his stuff (incl. a DVD), as has EMI & Hyperion. So he's no slouch of a composer that's for sure, but when you're also a critic, you basically have to throw your hat in the ring somewhere, it's the nature of the job (& esp. was in that post-war "culture wars" era, which is now largely over).

In terms of Thomson's music, everything I've heard from him so far has been of a high quality. A favourite of mine is the orch. suite from _Louisiana Story_. A number of great conductors have recorded his music, from Ormandy, to Marriner, Slatkin to name a few. I haven't heard "Four Saints in Three Acts" but I'm not that interested in any case, I'm not a huge opera fan.

This would be safe to say - as far as composers who doubled as critics, Thomson (in terms of the quality of his best music) is on the same level as say Berlioz, Schumann, Hugo Wolf. Recordings of his music are widely available, I don't know if it has entered the concert hall, but it's not so important, imo. In any case, who knows of the music of another critic of the time (& a far worse ideologue than Thomson) Theodore Adorno? I have never come across any piece of music by him, and I've read that at best he offered a watered down verison of Schoenberg. I think Thomson's music is very good & has "made it" to some degree, unlike Adorno's...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

The Swan is my least favorite part of The Carnival of the Animals, aside from a couple of the really banal ones. It's just so unfeeling.


----------



## Sid James

I suppose it depends on how_ The Swan _is played. I think it can be kind of schmaltzed up & over-sugared/syrupy. But all performances I've heard - incl. one live last year - did it kind of middle of the road, not too high on the emotion, not too low. The whole thing is quite a technically brilliant work, eg. the counterpoint between the 2 pianos, maybe that's what you're getting at a bit also? But I just like it's sense of fun, with or without narration, it's pretty good (& he even put an Aussie element in there - the kangaroo!)...


----------



## kv466

Having been a member of many local arts groups throughout the years, I've sat witness to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring more than a handful of times...sighhhh...I swear, I've tried to like it!...it even works for me with some 1940's toons playing in the background but somehow I've sat and listened to Dukas many times without visuals and it's worked and I've enjoyed it...still, the piece is so huge as far as people playing it and people loving it that I still hold out that someday I might just 'get it'. We shall see.


----------



## Sid James

I think a problem with_ The Rite of Spring _is that it's been copied to death, esp. in film music. Eg. there are parts of John Williams' _Star Wars _soundtracks that sound basically exactly the same. In any case, I got to know _The Rite _20 or more years ago, and now I hardly listen to it, probably because of having heard it many times on repeat back then, but the same can be said of a lot of things I got to know at a young age...


----------



## Weston

regressivetransphobe said:


> The Swan is my least favorite part of The Carnival of the Animals, aside from a couple of the really banal ones. It's just so unfeeling.


I agree The Swan has been overdone, but of course it is far better than The Pianists, but that was suppose to be awful. My favorite part would have to be Aquarium.


----------



## fartwriggler

This'll probably provoke howls of protest, but I can't see what all the fuss is about over Beethoven's Late Piano Sonatas....


----------



## jalex

fartwriggler said:


> This'll probably provoke howls of protest, but I can't see what all the fuss is about over Beethoven's Late Piano Sonatas....


I protest.


----------



## Sid James

Heresy!!! :lol:


----------



## Kopachris

fartwriggler said:


> This'll probably provoke howls of protest, but I can't see what all the fuss is about over Beethoven's Late Piano Sonatas....


I agree. His earlier ones are better.


----------



## starthrower

I don't know if it's been mentioned but I'll pick Gorecki's 3rd Symphony. What a bore!


----------



## Art Rock

Posts like that make me long for a dislike sign.....


----------



## Curiosity

Schubert's 4th is probably the most uninteresting, bland symphonic work I've sat through.


----------



## violadude

Art Rock said:


> Posts like that make me long for a dislike sign.....


Posts like _this_ make me glad there's a like sign.


----------



## Sid James

Curiosity said:


> Schubert's 4th is probably the most uninteresting, bland symphonic work I've sat through.


Really? I see it as one of his finest. Heard it live last year, and talking to the conductor afterwards, she said it was one of the most (if not the most) difficult of his symphonies to perform, esp. pull off live. Something about the cross-rhythms in one of the movements, I think the finale. Apart from that, I've always liked this work, and I'm glad now that it's getting more live airings here than ever before. Maybe it was seen as kind of too daunting for orchestras to handle before, that's the only impediment I see to it's relative neglect in the past...


----------



## fartwriggler

Having earlier slammed Beethoven's late Piano sonatas,I've gotta say they're starting to grow on me.They tend to ramble tho'- none of the focus of Schubert's sonatas (to which they are greatly inferior IMHO) Still, with Ludwig van more than any other major composer, I often don't get it to begin with-think his stuff can take some time to reveal it's secrets.Overrated? Most of Mahler's stuff, most 20th century classical, Brahms' ' Ein Deutsche Requiem' and they're just for starters....
(apologies if I've ruffled a few feathers, just feeling like being a little controversial:lol:!)


----------



## jalex

fartwriggler said:


> Most of Mahler's stuff


How did you find the first symphony?


----------



## fartwriggler

Gotta confess, have'nt got round to giving it a listen yet-but I shall do so with an open mind!


----------



## Curiosity

fartwriggler said:


> none of the focus of Schubert's sonatas (to which they are greatly inferior IMHO)







I've actually observed lack of cohesiveness/focus combined with a wealth of thematic material to be pretty much a defining characteristic in Schubert's works. Common issue with romantic composers perhaps but I'm not the first person to observe it in Schubert's case. A far cry from Beethoven's mastery of economy, unity, and yes, focus. Your criticisms are misdirected. It's an absolute insult to compare Schubert's late sonatas to Beethoven's imo. I'd rank them with B's Op.2 perhaps, and that's being generous.


----------



## Artemis

Curiosity said:


> I've actually observed lack of cohesiveness/focus combined with a wealth of thematic material to be pretty much a defining characteristic in Schubert's works. Common issue with romantic composers perhaps but I'm not the first person to observe it in Schubert's case. A far cry from Beethoven's mastery of economy, unity, and yes, focus. Your criticisms are misdirected. It's an absolute insult to compare Schubert's late sonatas to Beethoven's imo. I'd rank them with B's Op.2 perhaps, and that's being generous.


That's interesting. Can you possibly refer me to any professional assessments (e.g. quality magazine reports, interviews with well-regarded painists, etc) which support your contention that Schubert's late piano sonatas lack cohesiveness or focus ,and that they don't deserve comparison with Beethoven's late sonatas.

Only, as I'm sure you may appreciate, we get enough more than enough amateurish opinion on this forum, and it's nice now and then to see whether individuals can back up their allegations with a few hard facts based on something at least a bit more objective, at least in the context of the type of very strong allegations that your are prone to make.

I would only add that your denigratory comment about the quality and general perception of Schubert's piano writing does not accord with any professional assessment I have ever seen, and furthermore it doesn't accord with the general voting patterns among people who bother to participate in forum-based polls on favourite piano solo works, etc.


----------



## Webernite

I'm surprised Curiosity aims the "lack of cohesiveness" argument at Schubert's piano sonatas rather than at, say, the piano trios or the symphonies. The piano sonatas generally strike me as structurally completely sound (some of them are actually modelled on Beethoven sonatas). Yes, the late ones are long. But lacking in cohesiveness? I don't see that. Same with the _Wanderer_ Fantasy.

I really don't see how anyone could say that Beethoven's Op. 2 is better than Schubert's D. 664, let alone Schubert's last three sonatas.


----------



## tdc

Webernite said:


> I really don't see how anyone could say that Beethoven's Op. 2 is better than Schubert's D. 664, let alone Schubert's last three sonatas.


I really like Beethoven's op. 2 sonatas. I am not saying you are wrong or that these Beethoven works are better than Schubert's late sonatas, but I'm curious as to why you think the early Beethoven piano sonatas are not as good?


----------



## Artemis

Webernite said:


> I'm surprised Curiosity aims the "lack of cohesiveness" argument at Schubert's piano sonatas rather than at, say, the piano trios or the symphonies. The piano sonatas generally strike me as structurally completely sound (some of them are actually modelled on Beethoven sonatas). Yes, the late ones are long. But lacking in cohesiveness? I don't see that. Same with the _Wanderer_ Fantasy.
> 
> I really don't see how anyone could say that Beethoven's Op. 2 is better than Schubert's D. 664, let alone Schubert's last three sonatas.


Of course I agree with you.

Re my post 115, I can't wait to find out whether there exists any professional support for the notion that Schubert's late sonatas lack cohesiveness and are no better than Beethoven's first efforts in Op 2.

You mention D 664 (piano sonata no 13). I would say that D 625 (no 11) is also good. The sonatas become even better from from D 784 (no 14) onwards in my opinion. Of course, it's the last three - nos 19, 20, 21 - that attract most of the attention, but they're not my favourites, as I happen to like nos 15, 16, 17 best of all. I wouldn't be surprised to find at least a few other Schubert fans think along similar lines.

When all is said and done, only about 10 of Beethoven's 32 sonatas are that popular: nos 8, 14, 17, 21, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31 and 32. Many of the others attract far less interest. Taking these 10 sonatas, which I accept are extremely good, and I'm by no means knocking any of them, but they don't appeal to me as much as do the last 10 of Schubert as a group. It's a personal thing entirely but I find Schubert's piano writing generally more appealing than Beethoven's. This has not always been the case, in fact the reverse was true until a few years ago, but I've grown to appreciate Schubert much more of late, not just in solo piano but across the entire range.


----------



## Webernite

tdc said:


> I really like Beethoven's op. 2 sonatas. I am not saying you are wrong or that these Beethoven works are better than Schubert's late sonatas, but I'm curious as to why you think the early Beethoven piano sonatas are not as good?


I like many of Beethoven's early piano sonatas, but D. 664 has much more ingratiating thematic material and I don't think Schubert's development section is worse than the development sections Beethoven gave us early in his career. I'd agree that the mature Beethoven had a better grasp of structure than Schubert ever had, but I don't think Schubert's grasp was as poor as some people here seem to think. What Schubert does with his thematic material never strikes me as uninventive.


----------



## Polednice

Curiosity said:


> I've actually observed lack of cohesiveness/focus combined with a wealth of thematic material to be pretty much a defining characteristic in Schubert's works. Common issue with romantic composers perhaps but I'm not the first person to observe it in Schubert's case. A far cry from Beethoven's mastery of economy, unity, and yes, focus. Your criticisms are misdirected. It's an absolute insult to compare Schubert's late sonatas to Beethoven's imo. I'd rank them with B's Op.2 perhaps, and that's being generous.


In all seriousness, and with no malice - and please answer honestly - have you actually ever listened to Schubert's piano sonatas? And with more than minimal effort? I would take Schubert over Beethoven any day, and I don't mean anything negative about Beethoven with that.


----------



## Sid James

I'm not as highly familiar with Schubert's output as members Artemis, Webernite or Polednice are, but I do know enough to dispel what member curiosity was saying above. Beethoven more or less developed the Austro-German traditions going back through his teacher Haydn to Mozart, Handel, J.S. Bach & probably some others. On the other hand, Schubert with his lyrical talent, esp. for songs, makes me think of possible connections between him and "lighter" composers of that time, eg. Boccherini. Of course, Schubert was also highly connected to his native traditions, being Viennese. But like Boccherini, Schubert seems to have an interest in developing melody and tunes also a bit like the Italians, maybe more flexibly, not getting as bogged down in heavy counterpoint, etc. But I like both Beethoven & Schubert equally, it's just that they developed their music in different ways. Comparing Schubert's and Beethoven's late quartets makes me come to this conclusion in some ways (my exposure to their late piano sonatas has not been as in-depth as with their SQ's).

& BTW - Beethoven also liked the Italian tradition in some ways, eg. he was a big admirer of his contemporary Cherubini, actually preferred his _Requiem in C_ over that of Mozart, and he also admired Handel greatly (& as we know, Handel spent much time in Italy & was highly influenced by the musical cultures/traditions there)...


----------



## Artemis

Sid James said:


> I'm not as highly familiar with Schubert's output as members Artemis, Webernite or Polednice are, but I do know enough to dispel what member curiosity was saying above. Beethoven more or less developed the Austro-German traditions going back through his teacher Haydn to Mozart, Handel, J.S. Bach & probably some others. On the other hand, Schubert with his lyrical talent, esp. for songs, makes me think of possible connections between him and "lighter" composers of that time, eg. Boccherini. Of course, Schubert was also highly connected to his native traditions, being Viennese. But like Boccherini, Schubert seems to have an interest in developing melody and tunes also a bit like the Italians, maybe more flexibly, not getting as bogged down in heavy counterpoint, etc. But I like both Beethoven & Schubert equally, it's just that they developed their music in different ways. Comparing Schubert's and Beethoven's late quartets makes me come to this conclusion in some ways (my exposure to their late piano sonatas has not been as in-depth as with their SQ's).
> 
> & BTW - Beethoven also liked the Italian tradition in some ways, eg. he was a big admirer of his contemporary Cherubini, actually preferred his _Requiem in C_ over that of Mozart, and he also admired Handel greatly (& as we know, Handel spent much time in Italy & was highly influenced by the musical cultures/traditions there)...


I wouldn't agree with any suggestion that Schubert's music is more akin to the lighter weight material that was becoming more fashionable in the 1820s, associated mainly with the arrival of Rossini, whilst Beethoven simply carried forward the more traditional style of Haydn and Mozart. If anyone thinks this, they may have been listening to too many of Schubert's less mature works and assuming they're representative of his more mature style.

Schubert could write in almost any mood, and could swing from one to another very swiftly, by change of pace or key in an almost imperceptible manner. In just about any genre one may care to mention, Schubert could wrote just as "heavily" or "profoundly" or with similar "complexity" or with similar "profundity" as Beethoven, or as near as makes no difference.

In the area of *song-cycles*,_ Winterreise_ is far more "serious" than anything Beethoven wrote, or any of his other contemporaries. This very hefty work was much ahead of Beethoven's _An die Ferne Geliebte, and _way more advanced than anything attempted by Haydn and Mozart. It wasn't until Schumann came along some 15-20 years later that anyone else got remotely close to Schubert in terms of serious song-writing of this nature, with the emphasis on the Romantic (in this case expressing poetry or a story in music).

Among major *orchestral works*, Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony_ contains a couple of movements which are as sophisticated or deep as anything composed by Beethoven. This work has a very deep and sombre feel to it, that is almost unmatched by anything before it. The palpable joy and excitement in Schubert's _Great_ C Major Symphony matches Beethoven's 9th in my opinion, and in fact I slightly prefer Schubert's work if ever I'm looking for an uplifting symphonic work. My most enjoyable Proms experience ever, whether in person at the Albert Hall, or as a listener at home, was a performance some 2 years ago of Schubert's C Major symphony performed by the Vienna Phil. Utterly magnificent.

In *chamber music*, Schubert's _Death & the Maiden_ SQ, and his String Quartet, D 956, are a match for anything written by Beethoven, if a "weighty" chamber work, with substance, is what anyone is looking for.

Among *solo piano* works, there's nothing lightweight about any of Schubert's piano sonatas after D 625 (piano sonata No 10). His very late sonatas, D 958-960, especially are a match for any of Beethoven's in terms of depth of expression. If anyone wishes to dispute this, merely by way of example try listening to the slow movement of D 959, which is astonishingly profound and beautiful, especially from about the mid-point. If complexity is your criterion, try Schubert's _Wanderer Fantasy_, D 760, Richter's version being very good. Piano writing doesn't get a lot more complicated than this whilst retaining a recognisably interesting sound, and isn't just complexity for the sake of it.


----------



## Art Rock

Great post. I'd like to add under Chamber Music, Schubert's string quintet that is superior to any other composition in its genre, regardless of composer. In my opinion of course.


----------



## jalex

Artemis said:


> I wouldn't agree with any suggestion that Schubert's music is more akin to the lighter weight material that was becoming more fashionable in the 1820s, associated mainly with the arrival of Rossini, whilst Beethoven simply carried forward the more traditional style of Haydn and Mozart. If anyone thinks this, they may have been listening to too many of Schubert's less mature works and assuming they're representative of his more mature style.
> 
> Schubert could write in almost any mood, and could swing from one to another very swiftly, by change of pace or key in an almost imperceptible manner. In just about any genre one may care to mention, Schubert could wrote just as "heavily" or "profoundly" or with similar "complexity" or with similar "profundity" as Beethoven, or as near as makes no difference.
> 
> In the area of *song-cycles*,_ Winterreise_ is far more "serious" than anything Beethoven wrote, or any of his other contemporaries. This very hefty work was much ahead of Beethoven's _An die Ferne Geliebte, and _way more advanced than anything attempted by Haydn and Mozart. It wasn't until Schumann came along some 15-20 years later that anyone else got remotely close to Schubert in terms of serious song-writing of this nature, with the emphasis on the Romantic (in this case expressing poetry or a story in music).
> 
> Among major *orchestral works*, Schubert's _Unfinished Symphony_ contains a couple of movements which are as sophisticated or deep as anything composed by Beethoven. This work has a very deep and sombre feel to it, that is almost unmatched by anything before it. The palpable joy and excitement in Schubert's _Great_ C Major Symphony matches Beethoven's 9th in my opinion, and in fact I slightly prefer Schubert's work if ever I'm looking for an uplifting symphonic work. My most enjoyable Proms experience ever, whether in person at the Albert Hall, or as a listener at home, was a performance some 2 years ago of Schubert's C Major symphony performed by the Vienna Phil. Utterly magnificent.
> 
> In *chamber music*, Schubert's _Death & the Maiden_ SQ, and his String Quartet, D 956, are a match for anything written by Beethoven, if a "weighty" chamber work, with substance, is what anyone is looking for.
> 
> Among *solo piano* works, there's nothing lightweight about any of Schubert's piano sonatas after D 625 (piano sonata No 10). His very late sonatas, D 958-960, especially are a match for any of Beethoven's in terms of depth of expression. If anyone wishes to dispute this, merely by way of example try listening to the slow movement of D 959, which is astonishingly profound and beautiful, especially from about the mid-point. If complexity is your criterion, try Schubert's _Wanderer Fantasy_, D 760, Richter's version being very good. Piano writing doesn't get a lot more complicated than this whilst retaining a recognisably interesting sound, and isn't just complexity for the sake of it.


For someone who spends so much time railing against the Beethoven fanboys you come across as dangerously close to a Schubert fanboy yourself. Yes Beethoven's song cycles weren't even remotely close to Schubert's, and yes Schubert's string quintet (and to a much lesser extent his late quartets) are of comparable quality to Beethoven's late quartets (excepting no 14 and the Grosse Fuge which are in a league of their own imo). I think Beethoven's piano sonatas as a whole are very noticeably better than Schubert's, but again I admit Schubert's final three rival many of B's excepting a few mid period works (especially Appassionata) and the late ones (29-32).

But Schubert 9 as the equal of Beethoven 9? Schubert 8 the equal of all Beethoven's finest symphonic output? I am afraid that I outright disagree with you here. As fine as those two Schubert works are, and as incredible an achievement it was to write them at such a young age, I don't think they stand up to Beethoven 3, 5 or 9. When you state that Schubert 8's deep and sombre mood was almost unmatched by anything written before it, I'd refer you to the first two movements of Beethoven 3, which as far as I am concerned in the very pinnacle of 'deep and sombre'. As for Schubert 9 vs Beethoven 9, I think a significant majority of people would disagree that they are equal. Where in Schubert 9 is there anything approaching the supreme drama and majesty of Beethoven's opening movement? Where is there anything approaching the transcendent beauty of the third movement? And where, most of all, is there anything which _even remotely_ approaches the monumental testament to human spirit that makes Beethoven's finale? The two Schubert symphonies are both fine works, but I find your claims about them ridiculous.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Art Rock

Although I am not that keen on Schubert's 9th, I prefer his 8th over any Beethoven symphony (only the pastoral comes close).


----------



## groovesandwich

kv466 said:


> For me,...Bolero.


I think that goes without saying. Ravel himself didn't care for that piece.


----------



## jalex

Art Rock said:


> Although I am not that keen on Schubert's 9th, I prefer his 8th over any Beethoven symphony (only the pastoral comes close).


Really? I'm guessing it's Schubert's talent for melody writing you admire then if Beethoven's six is the only one which comes close? I've actually played the 8th Symphony in a youth orchestra, like I said it's a fine work, but I really struggle to see how anyone can think it is greater than or equal to Beethoven's finest symphonic writing. Sure it's all subjective, but I'm with Mr Berlioz on this one: 'I would rather be mad and believe in absolute beauty'.


----------



## Art Rock

Really. And it is all subjective indeed.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Really? I'm guessing it's Schubert's talent for melody writing you admire then if Beethoven's six is the only one which comes close? I've actually played the 8th Symphony in a youth orchestra, like I said it's a fine work, but I really struggle to see how anyone can think it is greater than or equal to Beethoven's finest symphonic writing. Sure it's all subjective, but I'm with Mr Berlioz on this one: 'I would rather be mad and believe in absolute beauty'.


Actually I tend to agree. On a whole, (from what I've heard at least), I like Beethovens string quartets and piano sonatas better than Schubert's (not that Schubert's aren't great in their own right). But I would take Schubert's 8th over any of Beethoven's symphonies. I don't know why but for whatever reason I feel that to me the reputation of Beethoven's symphonies seems a bit overblown. While he made some great innovations in symphonic form, I think his most innovative and spiritual pieces come from his piano sonatas and string quartets.

I know that their supposed to be very powerful pieces, but unfortunately when I hear something like Beethoven's 5th now, I just can't help but feeling like it sounds kind of cheesy.


----------



## Weston

Trying to rank Schubert and Beethoven is like trying to measure two mighty oaks swaying in the wind to see which is the millimeter taller.


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> I know that their supposed to be very powerful pieces, but unfortunately when I hear something like Beethoven's 5th now, I just can't help but feeling like it sounds kind of cheesy.


Overexposure?


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Overexposure?


Probably...


----------



## Polednice

In fairness to Artemis and the accusation that she (he?!) is a Schubert fanboy, the key difference is that Artemis gives a comparison of Schubert's and Beethoven's outputs without ripping Beethoven needlessly to shreds with empty judgements.

EDIT: I might have this all wrong, but it also seems that some people are listening to Schubert and trying to hear Beethoven, and, as such, only hear a lesser Beethoven. Equally, proponents of Schubert oughtn't try to hear Schubert in Beethoven, but surely it can be said that, in fact, these two composers achieved the _same_ grandness of expression but by different means?


----------



## violadude

Actually, it's not just overexposure from hearing it. I'll bring my own personal bias into this (so you can ignore this as a valid judgement if you'd like) but I just can't stand when great pieces get ignored because other pieces have some sort of overblown, overdramatic nickname, or anecdote that so many people hold on to. 

Over and over again when I was growing up I got spoonfed, by conductors and perhaps other musicians, the whole spiel about Beethoven's symphony having the "Fate knocking at the door" the "heroic struggle from darkness to light" the "tragic story of a poor composer who went deaf." However, no one ever told me about the melodic grace of the sixth symphony or the fresh springlike sounds in that symphony. Why is that? Cause the sixth symphony didn't have any melodramatic "struggle of a heroic genius in it?" Maybe, anyway, I got sick of hearing about how great the 5th symphony (or 3rd or 9th symphony) were, not based on their musical qualities (because musical qualities are boring) but because of some metaphysical, melodramatic idea they each expressed about heros and darkness and struggle and what not. 

Same goes with his piano sonatas. I like the moonlight quite alright, but it doesn't stick out to me as incredibly great like some people would suggest. Why does no one care to talk about the ingenious wit and invention found in the Op. 31/3 sonata? Or the amazing melodic and harmonic revolutions found in the "pastoral" sonata? Even that one has a nickname that people can sink their teeth in, but I guess the nickname isn't as dark, dramatic and emo as "moonlight." 

Anyway, just my (biased) two cents...take what you will out of it.


----------



## Artemis

jalex said:


> But Schubert 9 as the equal of Beethoven 9? Schubert 8 the equal of all Beethoven's finest symphonic output? I am afraid that I outright disagree with you here. As fine as those two Schubert works are, and as incredible an achievement it was to write them at such a young age, I don't think they stand up to Beethoven 3, 5 or 9. When you state that Schubert 8's deep and sombre mood was almost unmatched by anything written before it, I'd refer you to the first two movements of Beethoven 3, which as far as I am concerned in the very pinnacle of 'deep and sombre'. As for Schubert 9 vs Beethoven 9, I think a significant majority of people would disagree that they are equal. Where in Schubert 9 is there anything approaching the supreme drama and majesty of Beethoven's opening movement? Where is there anything approaching the transcendent beauty of the third movement? And where, most of all, is there anything which _even remotely_ approaches the monumental testament to human spirit that makes Beethoven's finale? The two Schubert symphonies are both fine works, but I find your claims about them ridiculous.
> 
> But hey, whatever floats your boat.


 Yes, of course Schubert's Great C Major Symphony stands fair comparison against Beethoven's Ninth.

No lesser an authority than Robert Schumann thought very highly of it, as do many people to this day. It was Schumann who discovered the work some 10 years after Schubert's death, it having been kept by Schubert's brother Ferdinand. Wearing his critic's hat for the _Neue Zeitschrift für Musik_ on March 10, 1840, Schumann presented a long and rapturous review of the work when it was published a year after its premiere, saying that it was a "great" symphony in both quantity and quality.

Here's the text by Robert Schumann published in that journal which you might find of interest. If you read it carefully you will find the famous reference to the symphony's *"heavenly length"*, although I have tried to help you a bit in case you get a bit a stuck._*Franz Schubert's C Major Symphony*_​_ 
THE musician who visits Vienna for the first time, awhile delights in the festive life of the streets, and often stands admiringly before the door of St. Stephen's Tower; but he soon remembers how near to the city lies a cemetery, containing something more worthy - for him - of regard than all the city boasts, - the spot where two of the glorious ones of his art rest, only a few steps apart. No doubt, then, many a young musician has wandered like me (1838) to the Währinger Cemetery, after the first few days of excitement in Vienna, to lay his flowery gift on those graves, even were it but a wild rosebush, such as I found planted on Beethoven's grave. Franz Schubert's resting-place was undecorated. One warm desire of my life was fulfilled; I gazed long on those sacred graves, almost envying the one buried between them - a certain Earl O'Donnell, if I am not mistaken. The first time of gazing on a great man, of pressing his hand, is for every one an earnestly-desired moment. It had never been possible for me to meet either of the two whom I venerate most highly among all modern artists; but after this visit to their graves, I wished I could have stood by the side of a man who loved either one of them most dearly - if possible, his own brother. On the way home, I remembered that Schubert's brother Ferdinand, to whom he had been much attached, was still living. I sought him out, and found that he bore a strong resemblance to the bust that stands beside Schubert's grave; shorter than Franz, but strongly built, with a face expressive of honesty as well as of musical ability. He knew me from that veneration for his brother, which I have so often publicly professed; told me and showed me many things, of which, with his permission, I have already spoken in our paper, under the heading "Reliques". Finally, he allowed me to see those treasures of Schubert's composition, which he still possesses. The sight of this hoard of riches thrilled me with joy; where to begin, where to leave off! Among other things, he directed my attention to the scores of several symphonies, many of which have never yet been heard, but are laid on the shelf and prejudged as too heavy and turgid. One must understand Vienna, its peculiar circumstances with regard to concerts, and the difficulties attendant on bringing together the necessary material for great performances, before one can forgive the city where Schubert lived and laboured, that only his songs, but his grand instrumental works seldom or never, are brought before the public. Who knows how long the symphony of which we speak to-day, might not have lain buried in dust and darkness, had I not at once arranged with Ferdinand Schubert, to send it immediately to the direction of the Gewandhaus concerts in Leipzig, or rather, to the directing artist himself, whose fine glance perceives even the most timid of new-budding beauties, - and necessarily therefore, the dazzling splendours of masterly perfection. My hopes were fulfilled. The symphony went to Leipzig, was listened to, understood, again heard, and received with joyous and almost universal admiration. The busy publishing house of Breitkopf and Haertel purchased the work, and now it lies before me in separate parts; for the benefit of the world, I hope it will soon appear in score also.

I must say at once, that he who is not yet acquainted with this symphony, knows very little about Schubert; and this, when we consider all that he has given to art outside of this work, will appear to many as too exaggerated praise. Partly, no doubt, because composers have been so often advised to their own injury, that it is better for them - after Beethoven - to abstain from symphonic plans; which advice, notwithstanding, with the state of feeling that has given rise to it, we can scarcely consider as unreasonable. For we have lately had few orchestral works of consequence; and those few have rather interested us as illustrations of their composers' progress, than that of art, or as creations of decided influence with the masses. Many have been absolute reflections of Beethoven; and it is scarcely necessary to mention those tiresome manufacturers of symphonies, with power enough to shadow forth the powder and perruques of Mozart and Haydn, but not indeed the heads that wore them. Berlioz is thoroughly French, and we are too much accustomed to regard him merely as an interesting foreigner and rattle pate. The hope I had always entertained - and many, no doubt, with me - that Schubert, who had shown himself, through many other kinds of composition, so firm in form, so rich in imaginativeness, so many-sided, would also treat the symphony and find that mode of treatment certain to impress the public, is here realised in the noblest manner. Assuredly he never proposed to excel Beethoven's ninth symphony, but, an industrious artist, he continually drew forth his creations from his own resources, one symphony after another. The only thing that seems to us objectionable in the publication of this seventh symphony, or that may lead even to a misunderstanding of the work, is the fact that the world now receives it without having followed its creator's development of this form through its forerunners. Perhaps, however, the bolts may now be drawn from the others; the least of them must possess Schubertian significance; Viennese symphony writers did not need to wander very far in search of the laurel they are so much in need of, for in a suburb of Vienna, in Ferdinand Schuberts study, they might have found sevenfold richer booty, leaf heaped on leaf. And here, too, was the place of all others which they should have crowned with laurel! But it often happens in the world that such opportunities are neglected! Should the conversation turn upon -, the Viennese never know how to finish with their praise of their own Franz Schubert; when they are only among themselves, it does not seem as if they thought much of one or the other. But let us leave these things, and refresh ourselves with the wealth of mind that in its fullness overflows this glorious work! Vienna, with its tower of St. Stephen, its lovely women, its public pageantry, its Danube that garlands it with countless watery ribbons; this Vienna, spreading over the blooming plain, and reaching towards the higher mountains; Vienna, with its reminiscences of the great German masters, must be a fertile domain for the musician's fancy to revel in. Often when gazing on the city from the heights above, I have thought how frequently Beethoven's eyes may have glanced restlessly over the distant line of the Alps; how Mozart may have dreamily followed the course of the Danube, as it seems to vanish amid bush and wood; and how Haydn may have looked up to the tower, shaking his head at its dizzy height. If we draw together the tower, the Danube, and the distant Alps, casting over the whole a soft Catholic incense-vapour, we shall have a fair picture of Vienna; and when the charming, living landscape stands before us, chords will vibrate that never resounded within us before. On leaving Schubert's symphony, the bright, blooming, romantic life of Vienna appears to me clearer than ever; such works ought to be born amid precisely such surroundings. But I shall not attempt to set the symphony in its fitting soil; different ages select different bases for their texts and pictures; where the youth of eighteen hears a world-famous occurrence in a musical work, a man only perceives some rustic event, while the musician probably never thought of either, but simply gave the best music that he happened to feel within him just then. But every one must acknowledge that the outer world, sparkling to-day, gloomy tomorrow, often deeply impresses the inward feeling of the poet or the musician; and all must recognise, while listening to this symphony, that it reveals to us something more than mere fine melody, mere ordinary joy and sorrow, such as music has already expressed in a hundred ways, - that it leads us into a region which we never before explored, and consequently can have no recollection of. Here we find, besides the most masterly technicalities of musical composition, life in every vein, colouring down to the finest grade of possibility, sharp expression in detail, meaning throughout, while over the whole is thrown that glow of romanticism that everywhere accompanies Franz Schubert. _And then the heavenly length of the symphony_, like that of one of Jean Paul's romances in four thick volumes, never able to come to an end, for the very best reasons - in order to leave the reader able to go on romancing for himself. How refreshing is this feeling of Overflowing wealth! With others we always tremble for the conclusion, troubled lest we find ourselves disappointed. It would be incomprehensible whence Schubert had all at once acquired this sparkling, sportive mastery of the orchestra, did we not know that this symphony had been preceded by six others, and that it was written in the ripest years of manly power (on the score is the date, "March, 1828" Schubert died in November). We must grant that he possessed an extraordinary talent, in attaining to such peculiar treatment of separate instruments, such mastery of orchestral masses - they often seem to converse like human voices and chorusses - although he scarcely heard any of his own instrumental works performed during his life. Save in some of Beethoven's works, I have not elsewhere observed so striking and deceptive a resemblance to the voice, in the treatment of instruments; Meyerbeer, in his treatment of the human voice, attains precisely the opposite effect. Another proof of the genuine, manly inspiration of this symphony, is its complete independence of the Beethoven symphonies. And how correct, how prudent in judgment, Schubert's genius displays itself here! As if conscious of his own more modest powers, he avoids imitating the grotesque forms, the bold proportions that meet us in Beethoven's later works; he gives us a creation of the most graceful form possible, which, in spite of its novel intricacies, never strays far from the happy medium, but always returns again to the central point. Every one who closely studies this symphony, must agree with me. At first, every one will feel a little embarrassed by the brilliancy and novelty of the instrumentation, the length and breadth of form, the charming variety of vital feeling, the entirely new world that opens to us - just as the first glance at anything to which we are unaccustomed, embarrasses us; but a delightful feeling remains, as though we had been listening to a lovely tale of enchantment, we feel that the composer was master of his subject, and after a time, its intricacies and connections all become clear to us. The feeling of certainty is produced at once by the splendid, romantic introduction, over which, notwithstanding, a mysterious veil seems to have been drawn here and there. The passage from this into the allegro is wholly new; the tempo does not seem to change, yet we reach the port, we know not how. It would not give us or others any pleasure to analyse the separate movements; for to give an idea of the novel-like character that pervades the whole symphony, the entire work ought to be transcribed. Yet I cannot take leave of the second movement, which speak. to us with such touching voices, without a few words. There is a passage in it, where a horn calls from a distance, that seems to have descended from another sphere. And every other instrument seems to listen, as if aware that a heavenly guest had glided into the orchestra.

The symphony produced such an effect among us, as none has produced since Beethoven's. Artists and connoisseurs united in its praise, and I heard a few words spoken by the master who had studied it with the utmost care for its perfect success, that I should have been only too happy, had such a thing been possible, to report to the living Schubert, as the gladdest of glad tidings. Years must pass, perhaps, before the work will be thoroughly made at home in Germany; but there is no danger that it will ever be overlooked or forgotten; it bears within it the core of everlasting youth.

And thus my visit to those honoured graves, reminding me of a relation of one of the great departed, became doubly a reward to me. I received my first recompense on the day itself; for I found, on Beethoven's grave, a steel pen, which I have treasured up carefully ever since. I never use it save on festal occasions, as to-day; I trust that good things may have proceeded from it!_​


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> In fairness to Artemis and the accusation that she (he?!) is a Schubert fanboy ...


fan-goddess, do you mind!


----------



## jalex

Artemis said:


> Yes, of course Schubert's Great C Major Symphony stands fair comparison against Beethoven's Ninth.
> 
> No lesser an authority than Robert Schumann thought very highly of it, as do many people to this day. It was Schumann who discovered the work some 10 years after Schubert's death, it having been kept by Schubert's brother Ferdinand. Wearing his critic's hat for the _Neue Zeitschrift für Musik_ on March 10, 1840, Schumann presented a long and rapturous review of the work when it was published a year after its premiere, saying that it was a "great" symphony in both quantity and quality.
> 
> Here's the text by Robert Schumann published in that journal which you might find of interest. If you read it carefully you will find the famous reference to the symphony's *"heavenly length"*, although I have tried to help you a bit in case you get a bit a stuck.


Umm what? _I_ think very highly of Schubert's Ninth, I don't think I wrote anything to give you the impression that I didn't. That doesn't mean that I think it is the equal of B's Ninth - and judging from that passage, neither did Schumann: 'assuredly he never proposed to excel Beethoven's ninth symphony'.


----------



## Artemis

jalex said:


> ... I think Beethoven's piano sonatas as a whole are very noticeably better than Schubert's, but again I admit Schubert's final three rival many of B's excepting a few mid period works (especially Appassionata) and the late ones (29-32).


Not just Schubert's last three sonatas. The last ten are all very good, and are at least a match in overall terms compared with the best 10 of Beethoven's.

Go listen to the second and third movements of Schubert's Piano Sonata No 17, Gasteiner, D 850, for example. They're utterly exquisite pieces.


----------



## violadude

violadude said:


> Actually, it's not just overexposure from hearing it. I'll bring my own personal bias into this (so you can ignore this as a valid judgement if you'd like) but I just can't stand when great pieces get ignored because other pieces have some sort of overblown, overdramatic nickname, or anecdote that so many people hold on to.
> 
> Over and over again when I was growing up I got spoonfed, by conductors and perhaps other musicians, the whole spiel about Beethoven's symphony having the "Fate knocking at the door" the "heroic struggle from darkness to light" the "tragic story of a poor composer who went deaf." However, no one ever told me about the melodic grace of the sixth symphony or the fresh springlike sounds in that symphony. Why is that? Cause the sixth symphony didn't have any melodramatic "struggle of a heroic genius in it?" Maybe, anyway, I got sick of hearing about how great the 5th symphony (or 3rd or 9th symphony) were, not based on their musical qualities (because musical qualities are boring) but because of some metaphysical, melodramatic idea they each expressed about heros and darkness and struggle and what not.
> 
> Same goes with his piano sonatas. I like the moonlight quite alright, but it doesn't stick out to me as incredibly great like some people would suggest. Why does no one care to talk about the ingenious wit and invention found in the Op. 31/3 sonata? Or the amazing melodic and harmonic revolutions found in the "pastoral" sonata? Even that one has a nickname that people can sink their teeth in, but I guess the nickname isn't as dark, dramatic and emo as "moonlight."
> 
> Anyway, just my (biased) two cents...take what you will out of it.


@Polednice, since you liked this post of mine, I might as well take the time to tell you that this is one of the things I greatly admire about Brahms. People are often forced to judge his music based on actual musical qualities because he avoided program music like the plague .

At least when people talk about how great the 4th symphony is, they talk about the emotional impact that the build up of the passicaglia has and not some mumbo jumbo about heros and struggle and God and what not.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Polednice-In fairness to Artemis and the accusation that she (he?!) is a Schubert fanboy, the key difference is that Artemis gives a comparison of Schubert's and Beethoven's outputs without ripping Beethoven needlessly to shreds with empty judgements.

Bingo! Give the man a cookie! I have no problem with admitting that overall Beethoven may indeed be the greater composer in a competition between Beethoven and Schubert. Perhaps the only composer that might be clearly his superior is Bach. But by admitting this I do not need to suggest that Mozart is a lightweight, and Brahms and Schubert mere Beethoven wannabes.

EDIT: I might have this all wrong, but it also seems that some people are listening to Schubert and trying to hear Beethoven, and, as such, only hear a lesser Beethoven. 

Bingo again! Comparisons in the arts are a two-way street. You cannot compare Mozart to Beethoven by simply looking at Beethoven's strengths as the end-all/be-all by which all others should be measured. You cannot fairly judge art if you have a single era or artist in mind as the standard by which all other artists must be measured.. as if all artists were even striving toward a single goal... as if all composers dreamed of nothing greater than being Beethoven.

By way of analogy employing the visual arts, if I use Vermeer as the standard against which all artists must be measured...










then Michelangelo fails horribly in comparison...










Vermeer, after all, creates the sort of painting that one thinks of in comparison with Mozart as described by Salieri in the film Amadeus: _"Displace one note and there would be diminishment. Displace one phrase and the structure would fall."_ Vermeer's structures are of an absolute perfection. The slightest shift of any form would lead to a diminished sense of structure. The surface and color are as precious gems... produced through dozens... perhaps even hundreds of layers of transparent paint of the finest quality. In Michelangelo's Sistine, on the other hand, we could move entire arms... whole figures... with little or no effect. Vermeer's compositions are like a jig-saw puzzle... or a perfectly pieces-together bit of gemstone inlay. Michelangelo's compositions are far simpler... and bolder. Vermeer produces paintings like that most perfect sonnet by Petrarch or Dickinson in which not a single word can be removed. Michelangelo's work is more akin to the vast, sweeping novels of Tolstoy or Cervantes in which we might remove entire pages without the least diminishment. But the comparison is flawed and completely biased. Invert it so that we compare Vermeer by the standards of Michelangelo and he pales a a effete dwarf standing before a veritable God.

The same is true in musical comparisons. Curiosity (a misnomer it would seem) assumes Beethoven represents the unrivaled measure against which everyone else must be weighed. Failure or success in judged upon how close or far from the Beethovian model a composer falls. The genius of Mozart's operas and the Requiem, Schubert's lieder, Haydn's masses and oratorios, and Handel's operas and oratorios are easily swept aside as irrelevant... because by Beethoven's standards vocal music is not of central importance. The wit and grace of Mozart matter naught, nor the lyricism of Schubert... or his ability to shift from the most exquisite and melodious waltz-like melodies to the most portentous and veritably tragic music at a moment's notice... all are swept aside as irrelevant... as the are "different"... which is interpreted as "inferior" to the unrivaled strengths of Beethoven.

Again... it would seem to me that with a degree of experience with classical music, making sweeping judgments as to the unquestionable superiority of this or that composer... this or that composition... to all others, comes off as rather naive.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Schubert isn't no sherbert. Ya dig?


----------



## Artemis

jalex said:


> Umm what? _I_ think very highly of Schubert's Ninth, I don't think I wrote anything to give you the impression that I didn't. That doesn't mean that I think it is the equal of B's Ninth - and judging from that passage, neither did Schumann: 'assuredly he never proposed to excel Beethoven's ninth symphony'.


Maybe you should try again listening again to a good recording of Schubert's Ninth. It's a wondrous work from beginning to end.

Its solo horn beginning is of itself a magificent novelty, heralding a beautiful melody, then leading to an allegro, and then growing with more themes which integrate melodies and rhythms that rival the best of symphonies by Beethoven, including the Ninth. The second movement begins as march, introduced by a solo oboe and then incorporates larger forces effortlessly. This then gives way to a beautiful string section, but later the oboe returns in a magical transition of such elegance that only few other composers can achieve satisfactorily.

The third movement scherzo is richly scored, far more so than is usual at this stage of any symphony. It contains a kaleidoscope of beautiful melodies beautifully interwoven into a seemless whole. The Finale is a thoroughly delicious recalling of melodic bits, rhythmic figures, and key relationships witnessed in the earlier movements. In all it's a symphony which contains everything anyone could possibly want, without any contentious elements thrown in for good measure (choral ending?). It's every bit as good as Beethoven's Ninth, which I accept is also of exceptional quality.

I commend it to the House!


----------



## jalex

Artemis said:


> Maybe you should try again listening again to a good recording of Schubert's Ninth. It's a wondrous work from beginning to end.
> 
> Its solo horn beginning is of itself a magificent novelty, heralding a beautiful melody, then leading to an allegro, and then growing with more themes which integrate melodies and rhythms that rival the best of symphonies by Beethoven, including the Ninth. The second movement begins as march, introduced by a solo oboe and then incorporates larger forces effortlessly. This then gives way to a beautiful string section, but later the oboe returns in a magical transition of such elegance that only few other composers can achieve satisfactorily.
> 
> The third movement scherzo is richly scored, far more so than is usual at this stage of any symphony. It contains a kaleidoscope of beautiful melodies beautifully interwoven into a seemless whole. The Finale is a thoroughly delicious recalling of melodic bits, rhythmic figures, and key relationships witnessed in the earlier movements. In all it's a symphony which contains everything anyone could possibly want, without any contentious elements thrown in for good measure (choral ending?). It's every bit as good as Beethoven's Ninth, which I accept is also of exceptional quality.
> 
> I commend it to the House!


I'm not sure you believe yet that I already hold the Schubert in very high esteem. I agree with almost everything you have just written excluding the Beethoven comparisons (and that snipe at the choral ending: still describing it as 'contentious', really, after all that Mahler?). My saying it isn't as good as B's ninth is about the faintest damning imaginable!

I have recordings by Mackerras and Abbado and I plan on getting a Solti sometime as well, though I don't expect any significant improvement from the two excellent recordings I have. IIRC I have actually listened to this more recently than B's Ninth (Karajan), but my opinion remains unchanged.


----------



## Artemis

Polednice said:


> EDIT: I might have this all wrong, but it also seems that some people are listening to Schubert and trying to hear Beethoven, and, as such, only hear a lesser Beethoven. Equally, proponents of Schubert oughtn't try to hear Schubert in Beethoven, but surely it can be said that, in fact, these two composers achieved the _same_ grandness of expression but by different means?


I agree with this. I said much the same thing much earlier today in a post I made on the Mozart vs Beethoven thread (post 91, last para): _These different gifts, as possessed by each of Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert produced different results, and to say that one composer's output is better than any or all of the others is merely an expression of personal preference. The choice all depends on what kind of music you like best of all. I happen to like all three styles which is why I would not consider criticising any of these composers, but even if I only liked one or two of them I doubt that I would be so rash as to suggest that their creations are objectively better in some sense that the others. To suggest that some of these composers generally produced second rate material compared with Beethoven is "fanboy" nonsense._​


----------



## Artemis

jalex said:


> I'm not sure you believe yet that I already hold the Schubert in very high esteem. I agree with almost everything you have just written excluding the Beethoven comparisons (and that snipe at the choral ending: still describing it as 'contentious', really, after all that Mahler?). My saying it isn't as good as B's ninth is about the faintest damning imaginable!
> 
> I have recordings by Mackerras and Abbado and I plan on getting a Solti sometime as well, though I don't expect any significant improvement from the two excellent recordings I have. IIRC I have actually listened to this more recently than B's Ninth (Karajan), but my opinion remains unchanged.


George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra is also good, but my favourite is something you won't have as it's a recording from a BBC Prom in 2009 at the Albert Hall with Franz Welser-Möst conducting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra. I was there my some other members of family, and we all really enjoyed it. It's an amazingly tough symphony for an orchestra as there's hardly any let up for the whole duration. The strings section seemed to be working especially hard, and I think that the VPO's strings are among the best in the world. Actually seeing it on a video later, and watching the orchestra close-up, is a fascinating experience, as you can see all the nuances that might otherwise escape you. I just love that work.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> @Polednice, since you liked this post of mine, I might as well take the time to tell you that this is one of the things I greatly admire about Brahms. People are often forced to judge his music based on actual musical qualities because he avoided program music like the plague .
> 
> At least when people talk about how great the 4th symphony is, they talk about the emotional impact that the build up of the passicaglia has and not some mumbo jumbo about heros and struggle and God and what not.


I very much enjoyed your earlier post! 

And, of course, Brahms displays his perfection yet again! I whole-heartedly agree that, while it can add a new dimension to a personal listening experience, people ought to refrain from these extra-musical appraisals of compositions. Though a wild and heroic description of a piece's development can sound tempting at first, eventually you just have to have a double-take: "hold on a minute... none of that is actually in the music, is it?!" Read a fantasy book if that's what you want!


----------



## Sid James

In my earlier post, I was basically saying that I think Schubert had a lighter, more song-like and lyrical style compared to Beethoven. Light doesn't necessarily mean lightweight, btw. Of course, in their final decade (the 1820's), neither were really catering for what the mass public wanted, which was basically Rossini (eg. music which is very entertaining). Both Schubert and Beethoven were writing symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas of great profundity, length, complexity, in some ways bucking the trend. No wonder a lot of these works didn't catch on, their impications not more fully understood, until a generation or two later.

Anyway, these two quotes hit the nail on the head for me -



Weston said:


> Trying to rank Schubert and Beethoven is like trying to measure two mighty oaks swaying in the wind to see which is the millimeter taller.





Polednice said:


> ...EDIT: I might have this all wrong, but it also seems that some people are listening to Schubert and trying to hear Beethoven, and, as such, only hear a lesser Beethoven. Equally, proponents of Schubert oughtn't try to hear Schubert in Beethoven, but surely it can be said that, in fact, these two composers achieved the _same_ grandness of expression but by different means?


& this quote, while I don't like to label people (esp. members on this forum, who are overall quite knowledgeable about music) as "naive," I think it does hammer home some feelings that I share as well to some degree -



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> ...Again... it would seem to me that with a degree of experience with classical music, making sweeping judgments as to the unquestionable superiority of this or that composer... this or that composition... to all others, comes off as rather naive.


----------



## fartwriggler

****! I seem to have stirred up a real hornet's nest with ny earlier post! don't get me wrong, i'm CRAZY about Ludwig van....I just kinda suggested that he is prone to well, ramble a little in his later sonatas=Schubert tends to be much more concise and to the point- you can hear a controlling intelligence at work whereas Ludwig tends to lose the plot at times-but. I do LOVE his sonatas it's just in this particular area Schubert wins hands down....(in my opinion)


----------



## jalex

fartwriggler said:


> ****! I seem to have stirred up a real hornet's nest with ny earlier post! don't get me wrong, i'm CRAZY about Ludwig van....I just kinda suggested that he is prone to well, ramble a little in his later sonatas=Schubert tends to be much more concise and to the point- you can hear a controlling intelligence at work whereas Ludwig tends to lose the plot at times-but. I do LOVE his sonatas it's just in this particular area Schubert wins hands down....


I don't think that's true. The late quartets are all structurally sound as far as I can make out, maybe it's Beethoven's whole 'breaking with sonata form' thing which is throwing you? I never feel like he's doodling. Could you give some examples?


----------



## brianwalker

Tchaikovsky's 6th. 
Norma. On second thought, Norma wasn't overhyped if the sources are different. I just read this yesterday.

"A work of art can be good and an interpretation of it bad. Examples abound.
Could a work of art be bad and an interpretation good? I do not see why
not. Bellini's Norma is an opera of conspicuously poor invention but it is
performed because there are a couple of splendid arias in it; we might do
our best for it."

Philosophy Of Music: An Introduction
http://books.google.com/books?id=yJB7UV93CMgC&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=2


----------

