# It doesn't matter....



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

...to me if a composer is considered influential, or not.
If his music is considered innovative, or not.
If he's regarded highly by others, or not.

How about you? What doesn't matter to you? Or...what _does _matter?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Influence/Innovation doesn't matter to me with regards to my personal enjoyment of a certain composer... Is it OK, though, to discuss the level of influence/innovation of different composers? Well, I hope it is.

To discuss and hear other people's opinions on different aspects of classical music is partly what this forum is about. That's why you created these threads.
- Brahms or Tchaikovsky: More emotional?
- Favorite Shostakovich concertos


----------



## Mesenkomaha (Jun 24, 2014)

It doesn't matter to me. All I care about is how I respond to their music. Thinking about this question for a while I wonder if anyone will respond saying that it does.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Usually the most influential or innovative tend to be the better composers anyway. At very least, the greatest composers wrote in the style of their day.


----------



## Nick Mourer (Aug 11, 2014)

violadude said:


> Usually the most influential or innovative tend to be the better composers anyway. At very least, the greatest composers wrote in the style of their day.


Which begs the question, what is the OFFICIAL style of today?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nick Mourer said:


> Which begs the question, what is the OFFICIAL style of today?


There isn't one official style, but many trends.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

I think most of the famous composers have some degree of innovation or influence to make them stand out from their contemporaries; but to answer your question, no, I guess it doesn't matter to me because most of my favorites are not considered the most influential or innovative by "most people."


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

trazom said:


> I think most of the famous composers have some degree of innovation or influence to make them stand out from their contemporaries; but to answer your question, no, I guess it doesn't matter to me because most of my favorites are not considered the most influential or innovative by "most people."


That's a shame, you should give some of the most influential and innovative composers a chance! From what I hear, they wrote some pretty worthwhile music.


----------



## fugueforthought (Nov 28, 2013)

I think to a large degree, it depends on your perspective. For example... if you LOVE Chopin and are looking for a composer like Chopin, you may come _close_ in some of Liszt's music or early Scriabin or something, but no one will write _exactly_ like Chopin. That is probably a good thing. Chopin is Chopin and Liszt should be Liszt, etc. 
However, innovation and finding a "voice" is also important. Innovation and influence are very time sensitive. Some of what was considered influential at the time (Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, Liszt's percussive piano playing [think of Totentanz] or whatever) won't ruffle feathers now. 
I really don't care for "innovation" for the sake of difference; in my opinion that often ends up in poor taste. However, if someone is not at all influential, hasn't found "their voice," then it is also boring. One recent example for me is Arensky's Piano Concerto. It's only his second published work, so maybe we could cut him some slack. He learned under Rimsky Korsakov and taught both Rachmaninoff and Scriabin, but I find his piano concerto rather underwhelming. It brings to mind a few other pieces straightaway, primarily RK's own piano concerto (which took lots of inspiration from Liszt's first PC), and some little bits here and there of a Chopin nocturne and some general Russian-ness. There is very little in it that excites me precisely because it is not innovative. 
Depending on how you define innovation, it can be tasteful, necessary, interesting, or unnecessary. It's subjective, but I would certainly say that if you define it in any manner as individuality, it is a necessity.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> ...to me if a composer is considered influential, or not.
> If his music is considered innovative, or not.
> If he's regarded highly by others, or not.
> 
> How about you? What doesn't matter to you? Or...what _does _matter?


If I come across an unfamiliar composer it matters to me at first, solely on the grounds that the fact that other people have found merit in this composer is useful information. But such information has little impact on my own response to that composer.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> ...to me if a composer is considered influential, or not.
> If his music is considered innovative, or not.
> If he's regarded highly by others, or not.
> 
> How about you? What doesn't matter to you? Or...what _does _matter?


Whether or not I like the music. When it comes to my personal scale system, I'll rank another composer higher than Mozart or Haydn any day, I think Schubert was a better composer than Beethoven, and so on and so forth. All of the best classical music in my opinion came before the great cows anyways, the only exception I make is with Bach because it's hard to argue with art of fugue, all of the cantatas, the passions, the violin sonatas, the harpsichord concertos, organ chorales, his mass, the magnificat, he mastered so many different forms I just can't conceive taking him down from his pedestal and setting someone else there.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> If I come across an unfamiliar composer it matters to me at first, solely on the grounds that the fact that other people have found merit in this composer is useful information. But such information has little impact on my own response to that composer.


I mostly agree with Nere', but then, I can fully accept that there are "historical" reasons why some composers are considered sub par. I have never (rarely) let my own choice of what to listen to be influenced by the judgement of history, but I often notice that I agree with those historical rulings!

/ptr


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

ptr said:


> I mostly agree with Nere', but then, I can fully accept that there are "historical" reasons why some composers are considered sub par. I have never (rarely) let my own choice of what to listen to be influenced by the judgement of history, but I often notice that I agree with those historical rulings!
> 
> /ptr


Well, people used to have pretty good taste, didn't they? At least, the people that could even go to a concert. They were an elite and highly educated class after all, hmmmm... methinks that has something to do with snobby classical fans today.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Mesenkomaha said:


> It doesn't matter to me. All I care about is how I respond to their music. Thinking about this question for a while I wonder if anyone will respond saying that it does.


Art has standards by which it can be measured, money being the most crude -- I believe Slurms Mckenzie put it best when he said "Wimmy wham wham wozzle!"


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

KenOC said:


> ...to me if a composer is considered influential, or not.
> If his music is considered innovative, or not.
> If he's regarded highly by others, or not.
> 
> How about you? What doesn't matter to you? Or...what _does _matter?


The sound of the music - see here for some examples. None of the people are "famous" or "first rank" but the music is splendid and *that's* what matters for me


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It doesn't matter to me that 99% of the world's population doesn't listen to my kind of music.

It doesn't matter to me that the majority of listeners prefer Beethoven's quartets to Mendelssohn's.

It doesn't matter to me that most listeners will prefer Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata to Ive's Concord Sonata.

It _does_ matter to me that whenever Hollywood portrays a psycho villain, guilty of the most despicable crimes, they show him at home listening to music and of course, it's something classical, re-enforcing the notion that we classical music listeners are different from the rest....murderously different.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Speaking personally I can give anything a listen and I'm fairly good at putting 3 or 4 composers into my library per year (whoever goes into the library gets listened to pretty regularly)... I have music that falls under both categories, (what the masses consider anyway) "influential" and the "non-influential" variety. It really boils down to listening to what you like.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

hpowders said:


> It doesn't matter to me that 99% of the world's population doesn't listen to my kind of music.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me that the majority of listeners prefer Beethoven's quartets to Mendelssohn's.
> 
> ...


And I accept their fear, the miserable peons. Yes, yes, I shall sit next to the fireplace in my robe today and plot my revenge ala Hannibal as I sip Chianti.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I don't care about the influential, innovative, or popular aspects of a composer and his works, only that I derive pleasure from them. I don't care that Beethoven was and is all three, only that when I listen to the Eroica I enjoy it. What I can't stand is some listeners preferences for artists works BECAUSE they are popular. ('Why do you listen to Lady GaGa?' 'Well, doesn't everyone?'). And now I shall retire to my library, and listen to Schubert's "Die Forelle", with plans for global domination germinating in my mind...


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

I can only listen with MY ears, MY brain, and MY heart. Why in the world would I care what someone else thinks?


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Other people's opinions don't matter, except as "data" for "research". 
There is only one problem. It's my own dislike of certain composers. 
This is a very big hurdle to get over in trying to listen to music 
I may not know well by those composers.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Reputation motivates. If you want to appreciate the greats but currently don't, their reputation as greats can motivate you to improve your taste - exactly what I started to do over ten years ago, and I'm glad I did. I would never have been able to appreciate some of my now favorites if I hadn't put in all the effort to improve my musical perception - which I did solely because composers like Bach and Beethoven had such a great reputation.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

While I'm listening to music I don't care much about anything except whether I'm enjoying the experience and, simultaneously, what it is in the music that pleases me or fails to please me. However, when I'm thinking or talking or writing about music, I'm very interested in the work's, or its composer's, compositional processes, innovations, influences, reputation, etc., etc. The latter factors may help me listen to the music more intelligently, understand it better, and enjoy it more (or, occasionally, less), and may heighten my appreciation of the greatness of a composer's achievement. But it's the enjoyment in the act of listening that I care most about, and which makes all the other stuff (such as what we're all doing here!) worthwhile.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Just to get you in the proper mood. "Cause your happiness is all I want." :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ...to me if a composer is considered influential, or not.
> If his music is considered innovative, or not.
> If he's regarded highly by others, or not.
> 
> How about you? What doesn't matter to you? Or...what _does _matter?


Well, frankly, a large part of my attraction to contemporary music is the intellectual appeal; I feel part of an elite class of intellectuals, listening to hermetic art, which only the cogniscenti can grasp...

But, conversely, I am attracted to investigate "favorites" in order to determine their appeal; plus, this balances-out my sociopathic serial tendencies, and makes me feel "part of" the larger society. God, I'm so normal I can hardly stand it. Hey, look me over, I'm a conservative! By God, I think I'll go buy a firearm!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Just to get you in the proper mood. :tiphat:


R U Sirius?

'Bread'?

How about going camping instead?






If you're not part of the show, you're part of the boredom.

_;D_


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, frankly, a large part of my attraction to contemporary music is the intellectual appeal; I feel part of an elite class of intellectuals, listening to hermetic art, which only the cogniscenti can grasp...


And oftentimes as you think that I sit by the river with a line cast out, listening to Penderecki with a can of Pabst in my hand.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Cogniscenti in Marinara sauce with prawns. Delightful


----------



## Guest (Aug 15, 2014)

Of course it doesn't matter. What matters is that innovation (and thus influence) often accompany inspiration, which is a nice thing to have in your art.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

None of that matters to me. What matters is that I like it. I have heard it said that some things I like have no emotion and are merely academic exercises, that other things are generic and don't say anything new, etc. So?

However, I live in these times and I am influenced by my experience and the environment. Most of my listening comes to me through record labels, which are the filters through which I hear most of what I like and what I don't like. I accept these limitations and even rather prefer them to having no quality control at all (even though I don't always agree with everything they hand me).


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I will stand up and admit that for me, the reputation, historical significance and critical evaluation of a composer does matter. It's not the most important thing, but it does matter.

I have somewhat recently bought recordings of Monn, Wilms, Bortniansky, Moniuszko, Mamlok and Cresswell. All terrific, yet they obviously lack the aura of Beethoven, Brahms, Schoenberg, etc. Doesn't really have anything to do with the music itself, of course. I guess I am susceptible to the fascinating aura of generally acknowledged greatness. And I could well imagine that in a parallel universe, where Monn & co. were hailed as the greatest masters, I'd be favouring them over Beethoven & co.

Interesting, also that, since we can encounter music mostly through performances by others, these others had obviously come to the conclusion that that particular piece or composer was worthy of their effort. In other words, there is already one layer of other people's opinion and judgement between us and the music, whatever it might be. If nobody liked that music, we would never have heard it because nobody would have bothered to perform it.


----------



## Nick Mourer (Aug 11, 2014)

For me, it's the music. I love my Mozart and Beethoven, sure, but I've to give it to many not-so-known composers of different eras. Clementi is by far one of my most beloved composers. And it's a shame, too, because he was brilliant, but composition was just a hobby or way of helping his students practice more. He was more of a pianist and businessman as he manufactored pianos to make his living. His symphonies are utterly brilliant, and you can definitely hear the things that influenced even Beethoven, as Beethoven did enjoy and see value in Clementi's work. In comparison to Mozart, Clementi is of course not as amazing, but I don't think he wanted to be. Greatness in composition wasn't really what he wanted, I think. He is regarded as a better pianist than Mozart, however, and from playing through many of their works, I can see why! There are many others like Cannabich, Cimarosa, Scarlatti (although, he's known quite a bit), and others of the classical period. 

Acknowledgement of greatness isn't everything for me. The music is what counts.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

KenOC said:


> ...to me if a composer is considered influential, or not.
> If his music is considered innovative, or not.
> If he's regarded highly by others, or not.
> 
> How about you? What doesn't matter to you? Or...what _does _matter?


Not much appreciation for Haydn here either.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Nick Mourer said:


> Greatness in composition wasn't really what he wanted, I think. He is regarded as a better pianist than Mozart, however, and from playing through many of their works, I can see why!.


He is? His sonatas are showier, but Mozart was the pre-eminent keyboard improviser of his time and their pianistic duel was considered a tie. Unless playing more parallel thirds or sixths is what makes a great pianist, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It does matter to me - what knowledgeable people think of various composers. I am a lover of literature, and while I enjoyed lots of non-literary reading, and still do, I wouldn't want to be caught out enthusing about the detective writer Peter Lovesey as if he was on a par with, say, Wilkie Collins, even though Lovesey is a good writer and I probably enjoy his novels more. But the literary quality of *The Moonstone* & *The Woman in White* is higher - that is obvious to me, with my education and experience, but I'd be perfectly happy explaining it to a class in more detail. Or would have been - how nice that I don't have to any more! 

I don't have much knowledge where classical music is concerned, so I want to learn. Many people on this forum know much more than me and understand music and composition far better than I do. So, using their posts, I try to find out who the major bods are and give them a whirl.

But then - when I hear the music - the previous recommendations will not matter to me a jot. It's whether I like the tune - the rhythm - the lyrics - the performer - the setting - or whatever that matters.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> And I accept their fear, the miserable peons. Yes, yes, I shall sit next to the fireplace in my robe today and plot my revenge ala Hannibal as I sip Chianti.


My name is hpowders and I love classical music. My little dog likes me. I am not the monster that Hollywood would have you believe. Okay, so I'm into Bartok, vampires and the Bela Lugosi connection, but that's late at night when the dog is asleep.


----------



## Nick Mourer (Aug 11, 2014)

trazom said:


> He is? His sonatas are showier, but Mozart was the pre-eminent keyboard improviser of his time and their pianistic duel was considered a tie. Unless playing more parallel thirds or sixths is what makes a great pianist, I think it's a bit more complicated than that.


Well, all I know is, it's easier for me to learn a Mozart Sonata than a Clementi Sonata. And after the duel Mozart acted like a child, having nothing but poor things to say about Clementi, however, Clementi had nothing but good things to say of Mozart. If anybody were to have a "tie" called with Mozart and cause Mozart to act like that, then they were obviously a threat to him. Not to mention, it's written that Clementi improvized a cadenza on the Sonata (Which wasn't common) he played at the end. Back in those days, it was very common for keyboardists to be able to improvise in free-form. Many did, hell C.P.E Bach even wrote extensively about it in "An Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard." To say Mozart was the greatest improviser of the day, which makes him stand out as a pianist isn't really an accurate claim. Not to say he wasn't great, but it was very common. Also, much of Mozart's skill and the skill of his contemporaries are probably grayed throughout lore and legend.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

trazom said:


> ... Mozart was the pre-eminent keyboard improviser of his time


Proof of this preeminence? It's a mightily strong word, preeminent: _To surpass all others_. If you try to argue that one composer is more preeminent on the keyboard than another(which I wouldn't) and have nothing to back it up but your own assertions, that it's self-evident(with no evidence) then it's just empty rhetoric. Right? Or is it proof enough that it's accepted by a large amount of people?


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

I don't really know.

But when you ask of yourself during listening to something that "does it matter who the composer is or how famous he is?" and the answer from within is an immediate "NO!!", you know you are enjoying the music.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Of course it matters. Otherwise, you'd have never of heard of any of them. Their popularity brought them this far.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I dont understand why someone would need the approval of the music community at large before they admitted to enjoying a work by any given artist or composer. To me it seems to reek of an deeply seated insecurity complex.

I have been to concerts featuring young composers and musicians who have no reputation or kudos attached and thoroughly enjoyed the music and the experience just as much as I do when listening to the standard repertoire. 

To paraphrase that great philosopher of the 20th century, Popeye..".I likes what I likes!"

I have however just came in from imbibing copious amounts of alcoholic beverage at my local Arts Centre, and may have mis-understood the point of this thread. If so I do apologise...a little :cheers:


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Badinerie said:


> I dont understand why someone would need the approval of the music community at large before they admitted to enjoying a work by any given artist or composer. To me it seems to reek of an deeply seated insecurity complex.
> 
> I have been to concerts featuring young composers and musicians who have no reputation or kudos attached and thoroughly enjoyed the music and the experience just as much as I do when listening to the standard repertoire.
> 
> ...


Haha, hey... I understand the alcoholic persuasion quite well. I think the broader point is - the only reason you, or any of us, have heard of these composers is because of the line of influence and popularity they've had with other people. It's the over-indulgence that's repulsive, but some is needed to survive time and make it to our ears. Because, if not, they would be unknown to you. A certain popularity is an extremely useful 'highway' to carriage things through time. It's a useful transportation device.


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

What matters to me are interesting elements (melody, rhythm, harmony & tone color) going on from the first few bars. The form has to be coherent. A piece of music has to "grab me" either emotionally or intellectually. If it doesn't, then I don't care who wrote it! I won't waste my time listening to it, period.

I listen to Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, Faure, Copland, Bernstein, Hanson, Griffes & Barber quite frequently. They are my favorite composers. Yet each one of them has written some work I don't care for at all. Yet, someone else will come along and be totally swept away by the pieces I don't care for. It's OK .... you have yours, and I'll have mine. It's all subjective.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Nick Mourer said:


> Well, all I know is, it's easier for me to learn a Mozart Sonata than a Clementi Sonata. And after the duel Mozart acted like a child, having nothing but poor things to say about Clementi, however, Clementi had nothing but good things to say of Mozart. If anybody were to have a "tie" called with Mozart and cause Mozart to act like that, then they were obviously a threat to him. Not to mention, it's written that Clementi improvized a cadenza on the Sonata (Which wasn't common) he played at the end. Back in those days, it was very common for keyboardists to be able to improvise in free-form. Many did, hell C.P.E Bach even wrote extensively about it in "An Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard." To say Mozart was the greatest improviser of the day, which makes him stand out as a pianist isn't really an accurate claim. Not to say he wasn't great, but it was very common. Also, much of Mozart's skill and the skill of his contemporaries are probably grayed throughout lore and legend.


 Any negative misgivings he had about Clementi were written in private correspondence with his father. He didn't 'act' childish towards Clementi in any way. His ire was from his impression that Clementi valued showmanship over substance. It's more than a reach for someone to pretend they know Mozart's deepest fears from one or two blips of venting.

Of course it's easier to learn much his sonatas, most of them were written for his pupils, or to sell, not showcase his abilities. If you want difficulty, try k.333( sonata which does have a cadenza in the last movement), or k.533, or 576, the latter which is a challenge even for professionals. Mozart earned fame through his playing and was known as an improviser and pianist first, before being a composer. If his sonatas are too easy try playing through all his piano concertos which were his main vehicles of self-promotion; or better yet, the cadenzas he bothered to write down for most of them here: http://imslp.org/wiki/36_Cadenzas,_K.624/626a_%28Mozart,_Wolfgang_Amadeus%29 to get an idea what he would've improvised in a performance. then check through the variations he wrote for piano, the two piano quartets, the capriccio in C major, and the violin sonatas after, say, k.300.

For Mozart's reputation as a pre-eminent pianist and improviser, Robert Levin, who is a musicologist and composer provides his own expertise which is backed up by eyewitness accounts of Mozart's playing: http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad04/LevinMOZART.pdf

And this is only one example out of many; but it's the most informative.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

trazom said:


> For Mozart's reputation as a pre-eminent pianist and improviser, Robert Levin, who is a musicologist and composer provides his own expertise which is backed up by eyewitness accounts of Mozart's playing: http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/mu/min-ad04/LevinMOZART.pdf
> 
> And this is only one example out of many; but it's the most informative.


I agree with you, I would also say that he was the best pianist and improviser of his time. Expertise from musicologists/composers/biographers/etc. is good proof (it's perhaps more accurate to say that it definitely provides a very good case), I recall trying to explain that same thing to you about something else in another thread. But in my case, it wasn't enough. ;-) Haha, I admit I'm just giving you a hard time. I apologize, let's just agree on the fact that we're both thankful that Mozart existed in this world. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I agree with you, I would also say that he was the best pianist and improviser of his time.


An early review of Beethoven's improvisations agrees with this, placing only Mozart above Beethoven. Interesting though that Beethoven described Mozart's playing in general as "choppy." Difference in taste? Jealousy? I wonder.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

KenOC said:


> An early review of Beethoven's improvisations agrees with this, placing only Mozart above Beethoven. Interesting though that Beethoven described Mozart's playing in general as "choppy." Difference in taste? Jealousy? I wonder.


Beethoven definitely could be very jealous at times, yet in this particular case, it wouldn't seem right for him to be jealous considering that growing up, Beethoven idolized Mozart. Why would he be jealous of his hero? It kind of leads me to believe that there might actually be something to it. However, if Beethoven said it many years later, well into his career. It would make sense that he would want to underhandedly diminish Mozart's abilities because of general composer-rivalry. After all, Beethoven was now the main guy in Vienna after Mozart's death.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Beethoven definitely could be very jealous at times, yet in this particular case, it wouldn't seem right for him to be jealous considering that growing up, Beethoven idolized Mozart. Why would he be jealous of his hero? It kind of leads me to believe that there might actually be something to it. However, if Beethoven said it many years later, well into his career. It would make sense that he would want to underhandedly diminish Mozart's abilities because of general composer-rivalry. After all, Beethoven was now the main guy in Vienna after Mozart's death.


No, I think he said it early, maybe more as an observation than a criticism. Hard to tell from this distance! It's quite true that Beethoven idolized Mozart, both early on and later as well. It's a good thing that people don't record our every unguarded utterance and make conclusions about our fundamental views!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> An early review of Beethoven's improvisations agrees with this, placing only Mozart above Beethoven. Interesting though that Beethoven described Mozart's playing in general as "choppy." Difference in taste? Jealousy? I wonder.


I think he's referring to the lack of legato in Mozart's playing. This is, I believe, pretty well documented in other sources.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

KenOC said:


> An early review of Beethoven's improvisations agrees with this, placing only Mozart above Beethoven. Interesting though that Beethoven described Mozart's playing in general as "choppy." Difference in taste? Jealousy? I wonder.


This was from Czerny's account of what Beethoven said to him, I think, but the description of Mozart's playing as choppy ( a closer translation is 'detached' or 'slurred staccato') clashes with Mozart's placing importance, in his own words, on legato. He said the left hand 'should flow like oil.' One person mentioned Beethoven was witnessing Mozart play for a student at the time he said that.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Here's a section from a great Beethoven biography by John Suchet (Beethoven, The Man Revealed), pg. 53:

_"... As far as other evidence goes, Beethoven's friend and helper Ferdinand Ries (who collaborated with Wegeler on their book of reminiscences) says Beethoven told him he regretted never hearing Mozart play, but Beethoven's pupil Carl Czerny claimed Beethoven did hear him, and described his playing as "choppy" and "unsmooth".

As for Beethoven himself, it appears the only recorded reference to Mozart in conversation came late in life when his deafness led him to carry a notebook, so-called "conversation books", for people to write down their questions. His nephew Karl wrote in one of these, "You knew Mozart, where did you see him?" And in another conversation book a few years later, "Was Mozart a good pianoforte player? It [the instrument] was then still in its infancy.

Of course the utterly maddening, infuriating, frustrating fact is that Beethoven spoke rather than wrote his answer, so we have no idea of what he said."_

Suchet goes on a bit later to say that given the evidence, he assumes that Beethoven saw him play in private, but not in performance.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I know what I like but do feel that my listening is influenced by the opinions of others.
If I had been a castaway with the classical repertoire of all the popular composers and no knowledge of their reputation, then I think my responses would have been different. Pretty sure Haydn, Mozart and Schubert would be near the top for me but I think I would have quickly given up on Tchaikovsky, Bruckner and Mahler.
That would have been a shame because with some help in understanding their music and a little persistence these are composers I now can say I enjoy. The question I can't answer is the opposite one would I stop liking someone if I discovered his music was generally considered rubbish, because it hasn't happened.
I think the opinions of people on TC who have a much greater musical knowledge than mine are influencing and helping me with my listening and understanding of music.
That said if I hear the 1812 overture once again it will be too many


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A very interesting subject! Aside from Czerny's comment, Beethoven is not known to ever have met Mozart or heard him play. Certainly the "flow like oil" comment conflicts with what Czerny claimed Beethoven said -- though Czerny is usually considered quite reliable.

As for the later conversation books, we have only the questions and no answers -- Beethoven's mouth was unimpaired and, from all accounts, quite vigorous!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> R U Sirius?
> 
> 'Bread'?
> 
> ...


I chose this for the "libretto" as it was apropos to the spirit of the thread.

Please don't shoot the messenger. :tiphat:


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

CypressWillow said:


> I can only listen with MY ears, MY brain, and MY heart. Why in the world would I care what someone else thinks?









:tiphat:​


----------

