# Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.

I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Bach is my favourite composer, while his period (baroque) is one of my least favourite. Now, if that's not a strong voice, I don't know what is.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I feel like the undertone of this question is "I'm currently enjoying Beethoven more than Bach and Mozart, and I'm trying to figure out why." The individuality of a composer's material is more likely to pass you by if you don't find personally find it striking. As someone who would find it hard to pick a favorite between them, I think they all have a pretty even force of character. I'm not even sure these three particularly stand out in that area.

Most above average composers sound distinctly like themselves to about the same degree, in my opinion. Does Beethoven really sound like Beethoven more than Verdi does like Verdi, or Chopin like Chopin? Brahms and Schumann are two I might hesitate to pick, but I don't like them very much and so I might just be deaf to their personalities. What do you always notice people say about the eras or genres of music they don't like as much? It all sounds the same.

It's almost comical to think about putting on Bach's Great Fugue in g minor or Mozart's 17th piano concerto after reading this question. The opening seconds of those pieces are as supercharged with individuality as any other pieces I could name.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It is certainly true - if only a matter of degree - that a great many of his works, although recognisably Beethoven, have very distinctive and unique characters. I don't know if that means his voice is "stronger"


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

In Beethoven's era music was beginning to be understood as a mode of personal expression. Up until that point, generally speaking, individuality wasn't valued for its own sake. Having "ones own voice" wasn't a thing yet. Which is not to say Mozart and Bach don't have clearly identifiable personal styles. It's just that it wasn't on the list of important aesthetic values. A Renaissance master painter once said: "He did it his own way because he didn't know how to do it right." I imagine Bach would have understood that statement perfectly.

So, the phenomenon you cite is perhaps best understood as a change in aesthetic sensibility from one era to another rather than a strength one composer possesses and others don't. Another case of kiwis versus avocados.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I have no idea what that question means.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think what the OP is hearing is simply the rhythmic aspect of Beethoven's music, which appeals more to modern listeners because of _repetition._ When you think of it, repetition is key to rhythm. Listen to all the repetitive themes and accompaniment figures in Symphony no. 6.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I think each has an instantly recognizable style. Beethoven's is just the most dramatic and emotional. So if that's what you're looking for (and I usually am), his music will strike you more.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I think what the OP is hearing is simply the rhythmic aspect of *Beethoven's music, which appeals more to modern listeners because of repetition*_._ When you think of it, repetition is key to rhythm. Listen to all the repetitive themes and accompaniment figures in Symphony no. 6.


Mozart and Bach also use a lot of repeats in their music, so I don't really get this comment.


----------



## ojoncas (Jan 3, 2019)

The instruments and their way to be used were different for each 3 composers.

JS Bach, WAM or LvB have different settings in terms of orchestration, instruments used and so on.

I would say Symphonies from Beethoven have much more power (strong voice?) than those by Mozart, but then I would say an Organ masterwork from Bach has more of it than a great Beethoven Sonata?

This question is not so clear lol.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Allerius said:


> Mozart and Bach also use a lot of repeats in their music, so I don't really get this comment.


Then you obviously are not thinking of repetition and rhythmic drive as a specifically applied difference, and as a trait of Beethoven which distinguishes him from Mozart and Bach in this specific way. I'm looking at this as a difference, not a similarity.

Of course, Mozart and Bach had to use some repetition, especially in the solo keyboard works, but not so much in the symphonies or larger works. Beethoven's use of repetition is more thematic, using short motifs which repeat incessantly. Such as these, all through the sixth. I don't hear this kind of almost obsessive repetition on either Mozart or Beethoven. They didn't seem to like to "play" with rhythm.






And especially in the later works, such as the Ninth, or the Grosse Fugue, where the rhythmic repetition is almost obsessive. I can't think of any works by Mozart or Bach which share this obsessive rhythmic characteristic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm not the best with my words, but what I mean to say is, from one work to the next, there seems to be more variation with Beethoven compared to the to the other two.

That doesn't make it superior, it's just an observation.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It's funny, because classical listeners are always saying that "melody" is a large part of what makes classical music great, yet, Beethoven is not what I would call a "great melodist" like Tchaikovsky. Many of Beethoven's "ideas" are rhythmic or harmonic in nature. Not a put-down, because it seems that he had other "fish to fry," and these worked, but were rhythmic or harmonic. Examples are seen in the first movement of the Sixth, above. Sure, we hear the great, long flowing melody which he states at the start, but much of the rest is taken up by rhythmic ideas.
Similarly, in the Ninth, the "transitional" material at 2:28- is harmonic, not overtly melodic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm not sure I hear Beethoven as being heavily rhythmic, to me Mozart feels easier to tap my feet to which makes me think of having strong rhythm.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> Then you obviously are not thinking of repetition and rhythmic drive as a specifically applied difference, and as a trait of Beethoven which distinguishes him from Mozart and Bach in this specific way. I'm looking at this as a difference, not a similarity.
> 
> Of course, Mozart and Bach had to use some repetition, especially in the solo keyboard works, but not so much in the symphonies or larger works. Beethoven's use of repetition is more thematic, using short motifs which repeat incessantly. Such as these, all through the sixth. I don't hear this kind of almost obsessive repetition on either Mozart or Beethoven. They didn't seem to like to "play" with rhythm.
> 
> ...


You have a point. I was thinking in exact repeats due to the use of repeat signs, that are abundant in the oeuvre of the three composers, not in thematic repetition and it's use as a technique.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not the best with my words, but what I mean to say is, from one work to the next, there seems to be more variation with Beethoven compared to the to the other two.
> 
> That doesn't make it superior, it's just an observation.


This is very different in meaning from the original question, which I thought was more clear. Beethoven had a more individual voice starting from his middle period. Mozart is more similar to Haydn, Bach to Telemann, although it's easy to tell them apart. It's similar to painting. I heard even experts couldn't tell Rembrandt from his followers. Monet was somewhat similar to Pissarro. While Picasso, Van Gogh and Matisse were more individual, or idiosyncratic

Not to say any one is better. Debussy also obviously had a unique voice.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.
> 
> I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


I would consider Bach and Mozart as equals, perhaps superior to Beethoven's individuality, with greater skills in harmony, refinement and counterpoint. But Beethoven exceeded them in his raw emotional power because, in addition to his moments of peace and beauty, he was far, far more angry, emotionally turbulent, overtly passionate and rebellious than both of them _combined_. I hear that tremendous power and strength of voice being unleashed in his symphonies._ Boom!_ And I doubt whether Bach and Mozart would ever have considered taking on Fate and trying to deal with it on equal terms or kicking it in the ***. It would have been considered a sacrilege or too impolite. Yet Beethoven remained fearless.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not sure I hear Beethoven as being heavily rhythmic, to me Mozart feels easier to tap my feet to which makes me think of having strong rhythm.


I'm not thinking in terms of rhythm as tempo or overall beat; I'm thinking of Beethoven's "musical ideas," which seem more rhythmic than anything. They are short little phrases which repeat, almost as accompaniment. They sort of fade into the background. These are all over in the Sixth.

You have to distinguish between rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic ideas. For example, Bach's Prelude No. 1 in C major from WTC is what I would call a "harmonic" idea, since there is no melody (until they put "Ave Maria" on top of it), and the rhythm is steady and repeating, but not really an "idea." The harmonic idea is the way the chords gradually change. That's the idea of the whole piece.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> This is very different in meaning from the original question, which I thought was more clear. Beethoven had a more individual voice starting from his middle period. Mozart is more similar to Haydn, Bach to Telemann, although it's easy to tell them apart. It's similar to painting. I heard even experts couldn't tell Rembrandt from his followers. Monet was somewhat similar to Pissarro. While Picasso, Van Gogh and Matisse were more individual, or idiosyncratic
> 
> Not to say any one is better. Debussy also obviously had a unique voice.


They go together. You answered properly, thanks! B/C his works vary more from work to work, perhaps each of his work's voices are stronger for this reason, thus making Beethoven have the strongest voice.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Is Beethoven easier to distinguish compared to Bach and Mozart if hearing an unknown piece?


----------



## LAS (Dec 12, 2014)

"JS Bach, WAM or LvB have different settings in terms of orchestration, instruments used and so on"

Ojoncas (or anyone), are you able to give specific examples of instrumentation that identifies Beethoven and instrumentation that identifies Mozart?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

LAS said:


> Are you able to give examples of instrumentation that identifies Beethoven and instrumentation that identifies Mozart?


For Beethoven: Moonlight, Fur Elise, Eroica, Patoral Symphony, 9th.
Mozart: Piano Sonatas and at least last two symphonies.

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## LAS (Dec 12, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> . I hear that tremendous power and strength of voice being unleashed in his symphonies._ Boom!_ And I doubt whether Bach and Mozart would ever have considered taking on Fate and trying to deal with it on equal terms or kicking it in the ***. It would have been considered a sacrilege or too impolite. But Beethoven sounded fearless.


This is the best specific example of the differences I've seen in the thread, the "Boom!" "Don Giovanni!!!!!" comes close, but not quite.


----------



## LAS (Dec 12, 2014)

No, what I meant was "Beethoven used french horns and flutes together a lot with a string tremolo." "Mozart used flute and horn as accents with the main theme in the strings." Note this is just examples of the type of answer I'm looking for. No way am I suggesting that Beethoven and Mozart did exactly these things.


----------



## LAS (Dec 12, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> For Beethoven: Moonlight, Fur Elise, Eroica, Patoral Symphony, 9th.
> Mozart: Piano Sonatas and at least last two symphonies.
> 
> I hope that answers your question.


No, what I meant was "Beethoven used french horns and flutes together a lot with a string tremolo." "Mozart used flute and horn as accents with the main theme in the strings." Note this is just examples of the type of answer I'm looking for. No way am I suggesting that Beethoven and Mozart did exactly these things.

Sorry this is a repeat reply. I haven't yet learned to ALWAYS "reply with quote."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> I would consider Bach and Mozart as equals, perhaps superior to Beethoven's individuality, with greater skills in harmony, refinement and counterpoint. But Beethoven exceeded them in his raw emotional power because, in addition to his moments of peace, he was far, far more angry, emotionally turbulent, overtly passionate and rebellious than both of them _combined_. I hear that tremendous power and strength of voice being unleashed in his symphonies._ Boom!_ And I doubt whether Bach and Mozart would ever have considered taking on Fate and trying to deal with it on equal terms or kicking it in the ***. It would have been considered a sacrilege or too impolite. But Beethoven sounded fearless.


Well put, even if I may disagree with your opinions on Ba+M being superior to Beethoven.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

LAS said:


> No, what I meant was "Beethoven used french horns and flutes together a lot with a string tremolo." "Mozart used flute and horn as accents with the main theme in the strings." Note this is just examples of the type of answer I'm looking for. No way am I suggesting that Beethoven and Mozart did exactly these things.
> 
> Sorry this is a repeat reply. I haven't yet learned to ALWAYS "reply with quote."


I can't offer you that at this stage in my listening, but perhaps others can!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Bach lacks variety? I hear strong individuality in every prelude and fugue in the 2 books of the Well-Tempered Clavier, as well as a huge bunch of his other works such as keyboard partitas, violin concertos.








Larkenfield said:


> Beethoven exceeded them in his raw emotional power because, in addition to his moments of peace, he was far, far more angry, emotionally turbulent, overtly passionate and rebellious than both of them _combined_. I hear that tremendous power and strength of voice being unleashed in his symphonies._ Boom!_ And I doubt whether Bach and Mozart would ever have considered taking on Fate and trying to deal with it on equal terms or kicking it in the ***.


debatable. 
_"Mozart's Requiem had an overwvhelming effect from the outset - on concert audiences, of course, but also on generations of composers. Even Beethoven, who was himself nothing if not a radical musical spirit, found it "too wild and terrible". He was going to write one himself, but more "conciliatory" in manner."_
http://www.heinrichvontrotta.eu/Harnoncourt/HMI/2004-82876-58705-2-Mozart-Requiem.html

_"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's."_
-JOHANNES BRAHMS
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false

_"The 24th opens with a truly remarkable theme. It sounds as though it might have been composed 150 years later, with, what was for Mozart's day, an outrageously chromatic melody that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale. So unique is it that in 1953 the German composer Giselher Klebe (1925 - 2009) used it as a tone row in his 12-tone Symphony for Strings." 



 _
https://www.musicprogramnotes.com/mo...-c-minor-k491/







Captainnumber36 said:


> They go together. You answered properly, thanks! B/C his works vary more from work to work, perhaps each of his work's voices are stronger for this reason, thus making Beethoven have the strongest voice.







'Laudate Pueri Dominum' of Vesperae Solennes de Confessore K339 (



) sounds miles different from the 'Laudate Pueri Dominum' of Vesperae Solennes de Dominica K321 (



). Also look at individual movements of Litaniae de Venerabili Altaris Sacramento K243. 
If this isn't 'variety', I don't know what is.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I actually hear more advanced harmonic ideas in Bach than I do in Mozart.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I actually hear more advanced harmonic ideas in Bach than I do in Mozart.


Does harmony mean the notes that support the main melody?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Does harmony mean the notes that support the main melody?


Yes, whole chords as opposed to counterpoint. Harmony, and thinking in harmony, had to gradually develop out of counterpoint, after we had decided what chords could be used in what ways, and all the suspended notes and passing tones had been identified.

What I mean is, Bach is counterpoint, but the "chords" created by the moving lines often produce strange chords like major sevenths (which don't exist in earlier classical music), and minor chords with major sevenths, stuff like that.

I think that Mozart thought more in block chords.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

All three had strong character - but in different styles.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I actually hear more advanced harmonic ideas in Bach than I do in Mozart.


confirms the point Bach>Mozart>Beethoven in harmony

_"...What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven."_ -J. Brahms


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> confirms the point Bach>Mozart>Beethoven in harmony
> 
> _"...What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven."_ -J. Brahms


Whatever. Didn't Brahms know Beethoven's late quartets? The Grosse Fuge sounds more dissonant to my ears than anything that Mozart or Bach did.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Whatever. Didn't Brahms know Beethoven's late quartets? The Grosse Fugue sounds more dissonant to my ears than anything that Mozart or Bach did.


Brahms must have known them, even a foreign contemporary of his, Tchaikovsky knew them. I'm more curious if Brahms knew Bach and Mozart's more obscure works. And 20th century atonal music sounds more dissonant than Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three? I dunno, I never heard him sing...ba-da-bing!


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Brahms must have known them, even a foreign contemporary of his, Tchaikovsky knew them. I'm more curious if Brahms knew Bach and Mozart's more obscure works. *And 20th century atonal music sounds more dissonant than Beethoven*.


Of course. But the seed to the dissonance in modern composers such as Schoenberg may be in Beethoven's severe use of it in his late quartets, particularly in the Große Fuge:

"_Some analysts and musicians see the fugue as a first assault on the diatonic tonal system that prevailed in Classical music. Robert Kahn sees the main subject of the fugue as a precursor of the tone row,[55] the basis of the twelve-tone system developed by Arnold Schoenberg. "Your cradle was Beethoven's Grosse Fuge," artist Oskar Kokoschka wrote to Schoenberg in a letter.[56] Composer Alfred Schnittke quotes the subject in his third string quartet (1983). There have also been numerous orchestral arrangements of the fugue, including by conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, and by Felix Weingartner._"

"_The Great Fugue... now seems to me the most perfect miracle in music, ... It is also the most absolutely contemporary piece of music I know, and contemporary forever... Hardly birthmarked by its age, the Great Fugue is, in rhythm alone, more subtle than any music of my own century... I love it beyond everything._", said Stravinsky.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Große_Fuge

You seem to love Mozart. I do too, and I think that his use of dissonance in the introduction of his quartet in C major, K. 465, was an absolute strike of genius, which may have influenced Beethoven and Haydn in their own uses of it. I don't recall of another composer of the Classical period doing anything similar prior to him. Perhaps C.P.E. Bach?

As I understand, J.S. Bach's fugues are rich in dissonance, the one from BWV 538 being an astonishing example in my opinion.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.
> 
> I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


I think that Beethoven has more stylistic variety than Mozart and Bach (people talk about Beethoven's early, middle and late styles, but this is not true for the other two great composers). Also, in my opinion his music, particularly that from his middle period, may overall have more impact on the listener than that of Mozart and Bach ("Tan-tan-tan-taaaan"!! What before the fifth symphony had such an immediate appeal?). This, however, does not mean that Mozart and Bach doesn't have a strong voice, and actually the more I listen to them the more I'm convinced they do. They have different styles, and I couldn't say which of them has the "strongest" voice, for their voices are individual and unique.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> confirms the point Bach>Mozart>Beethoven in harmony
> 
> _"...What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven."_ -J. Brahms


Could you provide an example or two of what you mean by true dissonance? And explain how Beethoven's dissonance is not "true?"


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I understand what Brahms meant, at least in the way I hear music, I would like to understand this better myself. The best way I can put it is Beethoven didn't seem to use dissonance to add color, or to create a richness of texture in his works for example in the introduction of Mozart's Symphony No. 40.

Or in this Bach Chorale:





Listen to this dissonance that happens throughout this Bach piece, a striking example of it at 1:24


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Could you provide an example or two of what you mean by true dissonance? And explain how Beethoven's dissonance is not "true?"


It's not what I said. It's what Brahms said an year before his death in 1896. Note that I said "the point", not "my point". Here's the entire quote.

_"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."_
-JOHANNES BRAHMS

https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7iwZ-qTuSkUC&pg=PA135#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think I get what Brahms was saying, at least about dissonance. When Beethoven uses dissonance, he often hits you over the head with it - _forte, sforzandi_, and all. It stands in direct opposition to the more consonant portions of the music. This is not to say it can't be very effective - listen to the development section of the Eroica's first movement for instance.

But Mozart's dissonance usually grows organically from his music. Hearing it's like tasting a strange but flavorful food for the first time (I remember, for instance, the first time I ate Thai food). The effect is an intensification of the emotions of music, as in the Andante of his 40th Symphony.

Beethoven couldn't have written that. He was no Mozart. But of course Mozart couldn't have written the Eroica, even if he had lived that long. He was no Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> This, however, does not mean that Mozart and Bach doesn't have a strong voice, and actually the more I listen to them the more I'm convinced they do. They have different styles, and I couldn't say which of them has the "strongest" voice, for their voices are individual and unique.


I have no problem with other people saying "Beethoven is the greatest ever", like in these polls, Beethoven is already rated as the greatest ever. The greatest composer?
What bothers me is, in the process of doing so, they spread nonsense (which some people buy into) like "Bach, Haydn, Mozart lacked variety, sincerity with their music". Consider how many threads there have been about how pre-Beethoven music sucks. There's even a comment The most advanced work you can truly get and enjoy _""Mozart had nothing to say in his music""._ Something nobody would ever dare to say about Beethoven, the Messiah of Music who breathed emotion in music. That would be sacrilege.

What represents the peak of Mozart's works to you? here's a thread created to discuss the good parts of Mozart's work, not about how he's superior to Bach or Beethoven. There are still people saying things like _""Hardly the act of an innovator as I defined it... Why are you so obsessed with dumping on anyone who dares to suggest that the Great God Mozart may be less than divine in every respect?""._

Beethoven on the other hand, there's far less derogatory things said about him than other masters. He gets so much love and respect https://www.talkclassical.com/classical-music-discussion-polls/poll-622-who-do-you-prefer.html people have been rating him as the greatest ever. The greatest composer? 
But apparently, some people think that's still not enough. I'm curious what is it that keeps bothering people so much they have to keep making threads about Beethoven's absolute superiority over all others. What do you want us to do? Put our hands on the Bible and swear to God he's the greatest?



Allerius said:


> I think that Beethoven has more stylistic variety than Mozart and Bach (people talk about Beethoven's early, middle and late styles, but this is not true for the other two great composers).


Think of it this way, what if Beethoven did not achieve his 'late period'?

Op.10 No.1: 



K457: 




Op.111: 



K546: 



Op.111: 



K426: 



K546: 




Op.57: 



K475: 



Op.57: 



K475: 




Op.13: 



K457: 




Op.37: 



K491: 



Op.37: 



K388: 




Op.18 No.5: 



K464: 




Op.59 No.3: 



K465: 



Op.59 No.3: 



K465: 




Op.59 No.2: 



K465:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> "I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony!"
> -JOHANNES BRAHMS


That is pure gold as far I'm concerned, right out of the mouth of Brahms, I love it!

Another beautiful facet of Brahms musical personality, omitted from the Swafford Brahms bio, I'm guessing because it didn't fit in with the author's own biases.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.
> 
> I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


The big three are Beethoven (well done), Liszt and R. Strauss. (here you missed the target, my friend :lol: ) Beethoven has the strongest voice in Symphonies and Sonatas, Liszt in the piano as an entity, and Strauss in Lied and post romantic opera. A win-win situation. Period. :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Dimace said:


> The big three are Beethoven (well done), Liszt and R. Strauss.


This is nothing short of weaponizing bizarrerie.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't see "dissonance" as being the key (the key to what?), but the use of diminished seventh chords. This is really what caused the "deconstruction" of tonality by later composers. I hear diminished sevenths in all three composers. Beethoven (late Quartet in F) saw that diminished sevenths could be transformed into dominant flat-nines, turning the V-I on its ear full circle, and opening the door to chromaticism. I suspect that Bach and Mozart were well aware of this feature of diminished sevenths, but just didn't act on it as decisively as LVB.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not what I said. It's what Brahms said an year before his death in 1896. Note that I said "the point", not "my point". Here's the entire quote.


Yes, and Brahms was just as vague and uninformative about it as you have been. I'll wait til someone says something substantive before responding.

Meanwhile, why don't you listen to the first two movements of Beethoven's Sonata in A, Op. 101 and tell me in what way any of its dissonance is not true dissonance.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, and Brahms was just as vague and uninformative about it as you have been. I'll wait til someone says something substantive before responding.
> 
> Meanwhile, why don't you listen to the first two movements of Beethoven's Sonata in A, Op. 101 and tell me in what way any of its dissonance is not true dissonance.


I don't need to explain cause I'm not the one who said it. No matter whatever anybody tells you'll keep asserting "F*** Brahms. It's the truest dissonance ever imo". As I said, I honestly have zero problem with people saying Beethoven is the greatest. Why don't you go interrogate other people who can't stand them.
I only said the simple fact Brahms in his final years thought Beethoven's harmony weaker than Mozart and Bach. Unlike 'them', even though I never used terms like 'elevator music' or 'music that has nothing to say', to describe Beethoven, ( The most advanced work you can truly get and enjoy ) I feel so much guilt and remorse now. 
Imagine if Brahms instead called Mozart's Symphony in C K551 or Fantasy in C minor K475 "not impressive" in the similar way - I doubt if you still would have regarded his statement as "vague and uninformative". 
Similarly, if Beethoven composed something like Mozart K394 in his sonata movements, I doubt if 'they' would still have called it 'elevator music'.






By the way, have you seen that video of Bernstein commenting on Beethoven's harmony?


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see "dissonance" as being the key (the key to what?), but the use of diminished seventh chords. This is really what caused the "deconstruction" of tonality by later composers. I hear diminished sevenths in all three composers. Beethoven (late Quartet in F) saw that diminished sevenths could be transformed into dominant flat-nines, turning the V-I on its ear full circle, and opening the door to chromaticism. I suspect that Bach and Mozart were well aware of this feature of diminished sevenths, but just didn't act on it as decisively as LVB.


Your analysis is anachronistic and implies that any of these composers was using or thinking in 12 equal - which is pretty far away from reality. HIP performance should also sound quite different, because many meantone chords lose their septimal colour (I'm talking about the various augmented sixths, altered dominants and "symmetrical" chords that should not be really symmetrical in a historical performance)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Of course. But the seed to the dissonance in modern composers such as Schoenberg may be in Beethoven's severe use of it in his late quartets, particularly in the Große Fuge:
> 
> "_Some analysts and musicians see the fugue as a first assault on the diatonic tonal system that prevailed in Classical music. Robert Kahn sees the main subject of the fugue as a precursor of the tone row,[55] the basis of the twelve-tone system developed by Arnold Schoenberg. "Your cradle was Beethoven's Grosse Fuge," artist Oskar Kokoschka wrote to Schoenberg in a letter.[56] Composer Alfred Schnittke quotes the subject in his third string quartet (1983). There have also been numerous orchestral arrangements of the fugue, including by conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, and by Felix Weingartner._"
> 
> "_The Great Fugue... now seems to me the most perfect miracle in music, ... It is also the most absolutely contemporary piece of music I know, and contemporary forever... Hardly birthmarked by its age, the Great Fugue is, in rhythm alone, more subtle than any music of my own century... I love it beyond everything._", said Stravinsky.


I'm well aware 20th century composers like Stravinsky found Grosse Fuge impressive. I also do. There's one thing though, the fact that they're 'revolutionary' and everything- it seems so cliche now. Like every thread about string quartets and their innovation, there are more comments discussing Beethoven late string quartets than any others. So much so that it has gone to a point it seems like Beethoven 'takes all the glory and credit for inventing the stuff' (I've seen some comments by people on other sites talking like Beethoven invented 4-part string quartet writing even).

_"By the end of the eighteenth century, the string quartet's prestige had become considerable, in large part because two of the most famous composers of the period, first Haydn and then Mozart, had dedicated some of their most complex music to the genre. Beethoven simply added to this prestige, ... However, the set of six quartets that Mozart wrote in the first half of the 1780s, to which the 'Dissonance' belongs, is very different, and the differences come precisely in the absence of that clear division between 'old-style' counterpoint and 'new-style' melody and accompaniment. The string quartet, at least in the hands of Mozart, found a new balance, one sometimes associated the very ideals of the Enlightenment. It is as if the elements of old-style fugal writing, with its strict independence of the voices, has somehow been combined with the new-style, melody-and-bass simplicity, in a 'modern' texture which has obvious elements of melody and accompaniment, but which constantly injects into this a sense of independence among the parts. No single instrument accompanies for very long: each of them plays an essential part in both the melodic development and its accompaniment. People near the time gave this new, more complex texture a severe-sounding German name; they called it thematische Arbeit, thematic working - all elements of the ensemble are independent (and individual), but each works with the others to produce the total effect."_ 
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/print/mozart-quartet-in-c-major-k465-dissonance/

It seems like it's Beethoven's complex stuff that gets all the attention (compared to Mozart and Haydn) and nowadays nobody talks about the modern-sounding fugue of Adagio and Fugue in C minor K546, 



 the risposta of the subject entering with a seventh, a dissonance, (even Beethoven found the work impressive he made a copy of it, along with K594, K608) or the tone row of cenar teco from Don Giovanni. - There's nothing particularly wrong with that. It's just that it makes (in my view) people believe in bullcrap like Mozart (and Haydn) wrote 'elevator music' and had 'nothing to say in his music', 'never had a voice of his own', (unlike Beethoven). It seems a little unfair I guess.






_"Beethoven imitated Mozart's String Quartet in A major K464 more openly than any other work by a fellow composer. Yet critics have never explained his fascination with the fifth 'Haydn' quartet. This article argues that Beethoven responded to a rare and unexplored transformation of sonata form in which the primary theme returns at its original pitch in the secondary area. This preserves the melody of the theme, but reinterprets its harmonic and schematic function. Mozart explored this device with unusual rigour in k464, recalling the primary theme at pitch in both outer movements. The two primary themes share a common chromatic line whose invariant return wittily probes late eighteenth-century tonal conventions.
Beethoven emulated Mozart's harmonic design in his own Quartet in A major, Op. 18 No. 5, and even intensified its more problematic features. He imitated k464 most literally in the finale of the 'Kreutzer' Sonata, which provided a model for similar harmonic experimentation in the Sonata in G major Op. 31 No. 1, the 'Waldstein' Sonata and the first 'Razumovsky' quartet. k464 suggests an important source for Beethoven's use of chromatic elements to problematize tonal and thematic function, a practice most evident in the 'Eroica' Symphony."_
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ed-from-k464/D41298CFD2EE4AC1639C8CDB3A887E45

_Tone rows are the basis of Arnold Schoenberg's twelve-tone technique and most types of serial music. Tone rows were widely used in 20th-century contemporary music, e.g. Dmitri Shostakovich's use of twelve-tone rows, "without dodecaphonic transformations",[3][4] though one has been identified in the A minor prelude from book II of The Well-Tempered Clavier (1742) by J. S. Bach,[5] and by the late eighteenth century was a well-established technique, found in works such as Mozart's C major String Quartet, K. 157 (1772), String Quartet in E-flat major, K. 428, String Quintet in G minor, K. 516 (1790), and the Symphony in G minor, K. 550 (1788).[6] Beethoven also used the technique but, on the whole, "Mozart seems to have employed serial technique far more often than Beethoven".[7] Hans Keller claims that Schoenberg was aware of this serial practice in the classical period, and that "Schoenberg repressed his knowledge of classical serialism because it would have injured his narcissism."_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_row


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Your analysis is anachronistic and implies that any of these composers was using or thinking in 12 equal - which is pretty far away from reality. HIP performance should also sound quite different, because many meantone chords lose their septimal colour (I'm talking about the various augmented sixths, altered dominants and "symmetrical" chords that should not be really symmetrical in a historical performance)


Bach was using a form of "well-tempering" (see Bradley Lehman's discovery on Larips.com), which allowed use of all 12 keys. Meantone tunings were meant to produce more just thirds, so this is not relevant, because my position does not rely on consonant minor thirds, but is based on diminished seventh chords, which are inherently dissonant, with no fifth. Diminished chords, which _inherently_ display symmetry, would definitely pose a problem to HIP performances if what they were seeking is consonance with a minimum of dissonance. So why did composers use diminished chords? It seems to me that they wanted a mixture of both.

Still, the matter does not hinge on consonance, because of the dual nature of diminished sevenths, which are transformed into consonant dom/b9 chords.

How do you explain the use of diminished chords in your "consonant" scheme of things?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> *I don't need to explain cause I'm not the one who said it. No matter whatever anybody tells you'll keep asserting "F*** Brahms. It's the truest dissonance ever imo". As I said, I honestly have zero problem with people saying Beethoven is the greatest.* Why don't you go interrogate other people who can't stand them.
> I only said the simple fact Brahms in his final years thought Beethoven's harmony weaker than Mozart and Bach. Unlike 'them', even though I never used terms like 'elevator music' or 'music that has nothing to say', to describe Beethoven, ( The most advanced work you can truly get and enjoy ) I feel so much guilt and remorse now.
> Imagine if Brahms instead called Mozart's Symphony in C K551 or Fantasy in C minor K475 "not impressive" in the similar way - I doubt if you still would have regarded his statement as "vague and uninformative".
> Similarly, if Beethoven composed something like Mozart K394 in his sonata movements, I doubt if 'they' would still have called it 'elevator music'.
> ...


You are the one who cited the statement as if it had something significant to say about style and as if it was relevant to the issues raised in the OP. Since you clearly have no idea what Brahms meant, why did you bother quoting it?

Could you please show where I have been "asserting F*** Brahms?" Or that Beethoven's dissonance is true? I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. That's why I asked you to clarify what true dissonance is.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what Brahms meant and that you just cited it because it sounded vaguely disparaging of Beethoven?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> You are the one who cited the statement as if it had something significant to say about style and as if it was relevant to the issues raised in the OP. Since you clearly have no idea what Brahms meant, why did you bother quoting it?
> 
> Could you please show where I have been "asserting F*** Brahms?" Or that Beethoven's dissonance is true? I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean. That's why I asked you to clarify what true dissonance is.
> 
> Why don't you just admit you have no idea what Brahms meant and that you just cited it because it sounded vaguely disparaging of Beethoven?


I only cited the statement to tell the simple fact that Brahms considered Beethoven's use and control of dissonance not impressive compared to Bach and Mozart - isn't that what it is, basically? Am I distorting the fact? Can you explain what Brahms meant by "true dissonance" then? Just because you're mad at Brahms for his criticism of Beethoven, it doesn't give you the right to turn that anger on me and resort to ad hom. 
Is it so _inconvenient_ a truth among the fandom on TC that anybody who dares to mention it must be interrogated in this way? Like something so confidential and dark like Area 51? It gets more and more interesting. 
Frankly, I didn't really find your explanations on many topics convincing either. For example, in the thread where you tried to prove Mozart's K551 "not impressive" by saying things like "it's easy cause you can use some random motifs that contrapuntally fit together."


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The OP asks about the “strongest voice”

STRENGTH: the quality or state of being physically strong.

Synonyms: power, brawn, brawniness, muscle, muscularity, burliness, sturdiness, robustness, toughness, hardiness, lustiness; More vigor, energy, force, might, forcefulness, mightiness.

Who talks about Bach and Mozart in those brawny terms? No one. Beethoven is the only one who comes close with his own explosive power and it is not necessarily related to his use of dissonance or complexity of counterpoint, but raw emotional power that’s personal. Slam dunk.

STRONG: able to withstand great force or pressure.

Synonyms: secure, well built, indestructible, well fortified, well defended, well protected, impregnable, impenetrable, inviolable, unassailable

Beethoven’s symphonies are architecturally strong and built like a brick house. He cared less what others thought of him and resisted the force of pressure of his deafness. Bach and Mozart were hardly weaklings when it came to power and strength but it was more controlled and refined as a creative force. They never raged over a lost penny. It was Beethoven.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I only cited the statement to tell the simple fact that Brahms considered Beethoven's use and control of dissonance not impressive compared to Bach and Mozart - isn't that what it is, basically? Am I distorting the fact? Can you explain what Brahms meant by "true dissonance" then? Just because you're mad at Brahms for his criticism of Beethoven, it doesn't give you the right to turn that anger on me and resort to ad hom.
> Is it so _inconvenient_ a truth among the fandom on TC that anybody who dares to mention it must be interrogated in this way? Like something so confidential and dark like Area 51? It gets more and more interesting.
> Frankly, I didn't really find your explanations on many topics convincing either. For example, in the thread where you tried to prove Mozart's K551 "not impressive" by saying things like "it's easy cause you can use some random motifs that contrapuntally fit together."


I'm not mad at Brahms or you. I just wondered what he meant because what he said has no detail or real substance. Geez, he was dying then, wasn't he? If I had any idea what Brahms meant by "true dissonance" I wouldn't have been asking you. I asked because you thought it was significant enough to post.

I never described K551 as unimpressive. I suggested that what makes the finale so impressive isn't the complexity of the counterpoint per se, but the musical characterization that makes it work.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I have no problem with other people saying "Beethoven is the greatest ever", like in these polls, Beethoven is already rated as the greatest ever. The greatest composer?
> What bothers me is, in the process of doing so, they spread nonsense (which some people buy into) like "Bach, Haydn, Mozart lacked variety, sincerity with their music". Consider how many threads there have been about how pre-Beethoven music sucks. There's even a comment The most advanced work you can truly get and enjoy _""Mozart had nothing to say in his music""._ Something nobody would ever dare to say about Beethoven, the Messiah of Music who breathed emotion in music. That would be sacrilege.
> 
> What represents the peak of Mozart's works to you? here's a thread created to discuss the good parts of Mozart's work, not about how he's superior to Bach or Beethoven. There are still people saying things like _""Hardly the act of an innovator as I defined it... Why are you so obsessed with dumping on anyone who dares to suggest that the Great God Mozart may be less than divine in every respect?""._
> ...


You forgot to mention the similarities between themes from Mozart's symphony No. 25 and Beethoven's first piano sonata, the Eroica and the overture to Bastien und Bastienne etc. Mozart was a genius composer and his influence can of course be felt by his fervent admirer, Beethoven, mainly in the latter's early period, when he was still looking for his own musical voice. Beethoven's third piano concerto had Mozart's piano concerto No. 20 as a model, and Beethoven openly praised Mozart and many of his pieces.

Note though that it's a common practice for classical composers to use themes by previous composers; it's for example the case of Bach, which borrowed from lutheran hymns (in the opening chorus of the St. Matthew passion there are seven of them if I remember correctly); of Dvorák and Bartók, which used folk songs a lot in their own music; of Mahler, which quoted pieces from both popular and classical sources, for example from Beethoven's fifth symphony in his own fifth symphony and from _Frère Jacques_ and other two folk songs in the third movement of the Titan; and, voilà, also of Mozart, which borrowed from composers of his time. Look:

"And when Igor Stravinsky suggested, 'Good composers borrow, Great ones steal,' he certainly knew what he was talking about. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, for example, copied an entire symphony by Michael Haydn for study purposes. He added a slow introduction and touched up the wind parts, but in the end put his own name on the score. As such, it was known as the Mozart Symphony No. 37 in G major for more than 200 years! The true authorship of the work was not discovered until 1907, and by that time, musical scholarship had already compiled a large pile of supportive evidence that neatly fitted this simple Salzburg symphony in sequence with the much more sophisticated 'Linz Symphony,' which carries the Number 36 in the Mozart catalogue."

"Mozart used the opening motif of Clementi's B-flat major sonata (Op. 24, No. 2) in his overture for Die Zauberflöte. Clementi noted in subsequent publications of his sonata that it had been written ten years before Mozart's opera-presumably to make clear who was borrowing from whom ..."﻿

Clementi's sonata: 




There are other examples.

If Beethoven had not lived enough to have a late period, this would surely be a very, very sad loss to music, as it was Mozart's premature death. Although Beethoven, like many others, including Mozart, quoted other composers in his works (for example Bach's first violin concerto in the Ninth symphony and Mozart's Don Giovanni in the Diabelli variations), he developed an unique, completely original style in his last compositions, which was so ahead of it's time that it only began to be fully appreciated and understood in the twentieth century. The quotes from my previous post are there to attest that.

I have nothing against Mozart and actually love his oeuvre and respect his important contributions to the history of music, for example in his piano concertos and operas, and in his very original approaches in the use of the clarinet. But Mozart didn't invent everything and Beethoven just stole from him... this notion seems absurd to me. Beethoven has his unique styles, which are his achievements, not other's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> There are still people saying things like _""Hardly the act of an innovator as I defined it... Why are you so obsessed with dumping on anyone who dares to suggest that the Great God Mozart may be less than divine in every respect?""._


I said that. And the question stands. Why _are_ you?

It should be obvious that I was not criticizing Mozart, but Mozart idolatry of the sort expressed just a few days ago on another thread, where it is asserted that in Don Giovanni Mozart expresses the full range of human emotion. Just think what that means. It means that Fidelio, Barbiere, Tristan, Meistersinger, Parsifal, Traviata, Falstaff, Carmen, Boris, Pelleas, Boheme, Wozzeck and Akhnaten - just for starters - are mere footnotes to the ultimate opera, had nothing new of significance to say, and probably need never have been written.

I'm sure you don't agree with that bit of hyperbolic hyperdulia. But are you as ready to chase down its author, guns blazing, as you are to quote me in an improper context so as to make me seem to say something I'm not saying?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's not what I said. It's what Brahms said an year before his death in 1896. Note that I said "the point", not "my point". Here's the entire quote.
> 
> _"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
> I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works."_
> ...


Thanks for that - I was not aware Brahms has expressed this preference. Its almost like he is rebelling against Beethoven because he had been considered to have taken the torch from Beethoven's hands - as it were. Its probably not too unfair to compare the two C minor PCs - given that both composers were a similar age when each work was composed - perhaps Beethoven was a few years older. He seems to put Mozart's last 3 symphonies ahead of Beethoven's first but behind the later works. Interesting comment about Beethoven's commissioned works being less good than not commissioned. What about sy 9? That was commissioned.

Beethoven does have a very strong trademark. Early in my voyage when I knew relatively few pieces I was able to identify Beethoven on the radio - Egmont overture for example. But I also admit I could spot early 19thC music and I knew it had to be Beethoven because who else from those times could compose at that level. Hummel? Clementi? Give me a break.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I said that. And the question stands. Why _are_ you?
> 
> It should be obvious that I was not criticizing Mozart, but Mozart idolatry of the sort expressed just a few days ago on another thread, where it is asserted that in Don Giovanni Mozart expresses the full range of human emotion. Just think what that means. It means that Fidelio, Barbiere, Tristan, Meistersinger, Parsifal, Traviata, Falstaff, Carmen, Boris, Pelleas, Boheme, Wozzeck and Akhnaten - just for starters - are mere footnotes to the ultimate opera, had nothing new of significance to say, and probably need never have been written.
> 
> I'm sure you don't agree with that bit of hyperbolic hyperdulia. But are you as ready to chase down its author, guns blazing, as you are to quote me in an improper context so as to make me seem to say something I'm not saying?


It amuses me that after all this time - over enthusiastic - as you say - hyperbolic - comments - about Mozart - still irk you.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Thanks for that - I was not aware Brahms has expressed this preference. Its almost like he is rebelling against Beethoven because he had been considered to have taken the torch from Beethoven's hands - as it were. Its probably not too unfair to compare the two C minor PCs - given that both composers were a similar age when each work was composed - perhaps Beethoven was a few years older. *He seems to put Mozart's last 3 symphonies ahead of Beethoven's first but behind the later works*. Interesting comment about Beethoven's commissioned works being less good than not commissioned. What about sy 9? That was commissioned.


I don't think you can deduce that from the quote. He was acknowledging the importance of the Beethoven later works, not making a direct comparison with the Mozart symphonies.

The Beethoven commissioning point is an interesting one, and by coincidence I came across the same idea for the first time yesterday listening to the radio, then saw it brought up again on this thread.
According to the radio host Beethoven could not compose an inspired piece if it was commissioned, his theory was that Beethoven could only compose based on a kind of 'inner calling'. He said the one exception was a piece Beethoven composed for trombones (I forget the title but this particular piece was apparently performed at Beethoven's funeral). The radio host speculated that the reason this piece worked was because it just so happened to be something Beethoven wanted to compose anyway.

Whether or not the 9th was commissioned, I don't know.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven versus commissioning: The 4th and 5th Symphonies were commissioned by Count Franz von Oppersdorff, who paid LvB handsomely. Many other of his great works were written on commission (including the Razumovsky quartets and the central three of the late quartets) and most of the rest for sale to publishers -- good money there as well!

The idea that Beethoven, the ultimate professional composer, needed inspiration untrammeled by lucre to churn out his masterpieces strikes me as...well...silly.

BTW the trombone music performed at Beethoven's funeral was two of the _Three Equales for Four Trombones_, WoO 30, from 1812. They were performed on trombones followed by vocal arrangements.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I read Brahms was once at a social gathering when someone raised their glass to him and said "here is to the greatest composer", and Brahms replied "Indeed, here is to Mozart!"


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

tdc said:


> According to the radio host Beethoven could not compose an inspired piece if it was commissioned, his theory was that Beethoven could only compose based on a kind of 'inner calling'. He said the one exception was a piece Beethoven composed for trombones (I forget the title but this particular piece was apparently performed at Beethoven's funeral). The radio host speculated that the reason this piece worked was because it just so happened to be something Beethoven wanted to compose anyway.
> 
> Whether or not the 9th was commissioned, I don't know.


I deeply question the radio host's theory. It sounds like a huge assumption that would have affected a great number of his works. I have never been convinced that writing something on a commission and listening to one's inner voice or inner calling are mutually exclusive. It's impossible to prove, and it's certainly not universally evident in, say, the works of Mozart. The quality of genius is still there. Exactly how is it provable that Beethoven may not have composed a specific harmonic or melodic passage or work against his inner calling because of being paid, though he did compose works for specific occasions and was paid? It would change why he was being commissioned in the first place: for real Beethoven. But it still exists that there's a thin line between staying true to one's inner calling and selling out, even if only the composer knows for sure.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It’s possible that composers can express the full range of human emotions in their own way, in their own idiom, without competing with each other or being mutually exclusive. This allows one to praise each one to the hilt for these universal human qualities without excluding, forgetting, or diminishing others. No one is excluded at a party like this and one does not have to reserve unstenting praise for anyone. But that’s not exactly what this thread started out being about anyway. It’s been redirected into the stratosphere.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tdc said:


> I read Brahms was once at a social gathering when someone raised their glass to him and said "here is to the greatest composer", and Brahms replied "Indeed, here is to Mozart!"


And you say they'd been drinking?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> This is nothing short of weaponizing bizarrerie.


Yes, and they are putting together a dune-buggy army out at their ranch.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I have nothing against Mozart and actually love his oeuvre and respect his important contributions to the history of music, for example in his piano concertos and operas, and in his very original approaches in the use of the clarinet. But Mozart didn't invent everything and Beethoven just stole from him... this notion seems absurd to me. Beethoven has his unique styles, which are his achievements, not other's.


Actually, these aren't even the best examples of Mozart borrowing from his predecessors that I know. Also, it's not widely known that Clementi also emulated Mozart in several of his preludes and cadenzas in Musical Characteristics Op.19, titled "Preludio Alla Mozart". 
I don't know if you've noticed: I've been saying things like these in other threads.



hammeredklavier said:


> I also think just because Beethoven paid Mozart homage many times, it doesn't diminish his greatness.





Woodduck said:


> quoting Beethoven (who for some reason you think is more worthy of being quoted accurately) is pointless. _Of course_ he learned from Mozart. He also learned from J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, Handel, Haydn and anyone else he could.
> 
> 
> hammeredklavier said:
> ...


You see, my point in discussing Mozart-Beethoven influence is not to put down Beethoven, but to get people to have proper respect for the major predecessor of Beethoven. There are people who just don't understand there are people like me who find merits in Mozart Dissonance quartet that are not found in Beethoven's third Razumovsky quartet. Like Beethoven, I find Mozart incredibly diverse in the variety of style he employed throughout his life. It was the memorable oboe solo of the 23th symphony that first sparked interest in me for Mozart. The solemn middle movement of 26th which would foreshadow the more intricate 'Maurerische Trauermusik' to come later. And there are the more famous 25th, 29th. Likewise, there are early works by the teenage Mozart I genuinely enjoy and I wouldn't tolerate people saying "early Mozart is worthless." I don't see the point of this thread either, other than to put down other greats to stress Beethoven's superiority over them.

Missa Brevis in D minor K65 or Miserere in A minor K85




or String Quartet No.8 in F major which has a dark-hued canon ( 



 ) as its slow movement, which is contrasted by a lively minuet and a fugue in the later movements.






there's in fact a lot of development in his style through the periods



hammeredklavier said:


> Take Mozart K499 for example, see how much contrast there are in each movement.
> 1st movement:
> 
> 
> ...


Reading some old threads about Beethoven on TC, it appears as there was some kind of 'history revision' going on. I occasionally see comments like "Mozart didn't even have that much of an influence on Beethoven. It was CPE Bach who did." You see, there are reasons why I get worked up over this issue, not because I want to object to other people saying Beethoven was not the greatest composer who ever lived. I see this thread as a continuation of their agenda to put down other greats to glorify Beethoven even further, even though Beethoven already gets more respect than any others, as I pointed out in the previous posts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> It amuses me that after all this time - over enthusiastic - as you say - hyperbolic - comments - about Mozart - still irk you.


They don't irk me. I don't give a flying fig about them, except for purposes of amusement. What irks me is someone coming on here and misrepresenting what I say in order to propagate his own agenda, which appears to be to hunt down every less-than-adulatory remark about Mozart and dig up subpar examples of other composers in order to make insubstantial and wholly useless comparisons. I can only hope we'll hear no more of poor Chopin's posthumous fugue, especially with every virtue it might possess obliterated by a computerized "performance".


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> It should be obvious that I was not criticizing Mozart, but Mozart idolatry of the sort expressed just a few days ago on another thread, where it is asserted that in Don Giovanni Mozart expresses the full range of human emotion. Just think what that means. It means that Fidelio, Barbiere, Tristan, Meistersinger, Parsifal, Traviata, Falstaff, Carmen, Boris, Pelleas, Boheme, Wozzeck and Akhnaten - just for starters - are mere footnotes to the ultimate opera, had nothing new of significance to say, and probably need never have been written.


as far as I remember, the OP in the thread was trying to argue that Beethoven Op.131 (another Beethoven work I immensely enjoy) is the greatest piece of music ever composed, making comparisons with Don Giovanni. I think the best way to not trigger these pointless discussions is to not make such threads, including this one, at all.
Now that I see you I feel even worse about having said these things about Beethoven, who is also indeed one of my favorites. But you see there was another person in the meantime who said the same old cliched "Mozart-sucks-compared-to-Beethoven-and Romanticism" bull, The most advanced work you can truly get and enjoy adding fuel to my usual frustration over this issue. It's amazing how both greats did so much to music, yet one gets constantly bashed while the other doesn't- In my view they're not treated equally in many quarters and I hope you understand I'm saying these things not just to pointlessly criticize Beethoven for no reason.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Written in the original post: “As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.” Evidently, few have any idea what he’s talking about though I think he’s expressed himself quite clearly and plainly. It is about assessing personal “strength of character” and identity through the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. All three had it, but who had the strongest personal voice? The impression I get is that Beethoven was often referencing himself – it was pure self-expression in the Romantic sense about how he was reacting to the circumstances around him, such as his ‘Erotica’ Symphony that had been originally dedicated to Napoleon and then the inscription crossed out. Bach and Mozart rarely reference themselves personally, if at all. One cannot tell from their music what their personal reactions were to the forces around them, which was more characteristic of the baroque and classical eras. Their music was not about themselves having a personal individuality, but of course, they had incredible compositional skills and unique styles which were highly individual and strong in that sense.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> You see, my point in discussing Mozart-Beethoven influence is not to put down Beethoven, but to get people to have proper respect for the major predecessor of Beethoven. There are people who just don't understand there are people like me who find merits in Mozart Dissonance quartet that are not found in Beethoven's third Razumovsky quartet. Like Beethoven, I find Mozart incredibly diverse in the variety of style he employed throughout his life. It was the memorable oboe solo of the 23th symphony that first sparked interest in me for Mozart. The solemn middle movement of 26th which would foreshadow the more intricate 'Maurerische Trauermusik' to come later. And there are the more famous 25th, 29th. Likewise, there are early works by the teenage Mozart I genuinely enjoy and I wouldn't tolerate people saying "early Mozart is worthless." I don't see the point of this thread either, other than to put down other greats to stress Beethoven's superiority over them.
> 
> Reading some old threads about Beethoven on TC, it appears as there was some kind of 'history revision' going on. I occasionally see comments like "Mozart didn't even have that much of an influence on Beethoven. It was CPE Bach who did." You see, there are reasons why I get worked up over this issue, not because I want to object to other people saying Beethoven was not the greatest composer who ever lived.* I see this thread as a continuation of their agenda to put down other greats to glorify Beethoven even further,* even though Beethoven already gets more respect than any others, as I pointed out in the previous posts.


Why do you believe that people who think Beethoven has more of this or that quality than Mozart are pursuing an "agenda"? Maybe they're just expressing an opinion and inviting you to express yours. The originator of this thread thinks that Beethoven's works tend to have more individuality than Bach's or Mozart's. That doesn't strike me as pursuing an agenda (although of course it could be that). He refers to the symphonies in particular. Well, with respect to symphonies, is Captainnumber36 wrong? Bach, of course, didn't write symphonies. Of Mozart's works in that form, is there any set of seven remotely comparable in individuality to Beethoven's third through ninth? An answer in the negative, though accurate, is not a denial of the aesthetic excellence of Mozart's works, which, as EdwardBast has pointed out, were produced at an earlier time during which different expectations prevailed. Unsurprisingly, we see in Mozart's last symphonies a reaching out for greater distinctiveness of style and expression, something that became almost _de rigueur_ for the Romantics and Modernists.

A little objectivity about what one's favorite composers did and did not do is desirable. But just as _fin-de-siecle _Wagnerites saw their idol's works as obviating such normal requirements of sound criticism as objectivity, Mozarteans (and, it's true, Beethovenians) tend toward the same failing. In both cases one can understand but not approve. Wagner did not make earlier opera obsolete, and Mozart did not make subsequent music redundant. There were worlds of form and expression left to explore in 1791, and Beethoven explored a number of them all by himself - in fact, virtually a new one with each new symphony. Had Mozart lived, he might well have risen to the challenge of a new era and done the same.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I'm not mad at Brahms or you. I just wondered what he meant because what he said has no detail or real substance. Geez, he was dying then


But Beethoven himself also did tell Cramer he would never be able to compose anything like Mozart K491. With the chromaticism like K491, it's not just some bits and pieces of chords used, but it's the whole mastery of flow that I find excellent.






The first theme (again, which spans all 12 tones of the chromatic scale) is restated, supported by the basses (in groups of six 8th notes, starting at [0:17] in the video) that gradually come down in half steps C -> B -> Bb -> A -> Ab -> G -> F, under 10 measures (which in turn is re-stated by the first violins in measures 64 ~ 70 in high registers, [1:22] at in the video) and continues its restless chromatic bassline. Next follows obsessive semi-tone figure [1:37] Db - C - B - C in the first violins, gradually rising to create tension. Next comes the eerie-sounding chromatic fourths in the woodwinds, towards the end of the orchestral introduction. Other moments include the chromatic rise by orchestral tutti end of the cadenza [12:20] that we can relate to the 'Queen of the Night Aria' - What's even more interesting is he does it in a way so musically convincing and logical at the same time, while continuously creating interesting dissonances, narrowly avoiding a greater one, as in the K465 quartet. It's no surprise the contemporary German composer Giselher Klebe decided to pay homage to the work with his Symphony for Strings No.2. ( 



 )
Not to deny the fact Beethoven wrote great music in tons of other works, I don't hear this in his Op.37. 
I think Brahms was thinking along the same line when he said those remarks. At least that's what I think.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> ..Likewise, there are early works by the teenage Mozart I genuinely enjoy and I wouldn't tolerate people saying "early Mozart is worthless." I don't see the point of this thread either, other than to put down other greats to stress Beethoven's superiority over them...I see this thread as a continuation of their agenda to put down other greats to glorify Beethoven even further, even though Beethoven already gets more respect than any others, as I pointed out in the previous posts.


I can clearly see what you are referring to here. I've seen several "I just don't get Mozart" threads appear and disappear in the storm. As a generality, I'd say that the suppression of Mozart in favor of Beethoven on this forum is a given. KenOC has probably got the data on this.
But it appears to be a no-no to fight back, even if the first punches have already been taken. Beethoven appears to be the "go to" composer of all time, and it's not nice to upset the status quo. Thus spake Zarathustra.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Bach was using a form of "well-tempering" (see Bradley Lehman's discovery on Larips.com), which allowed use of all 12 keys. Meantone tunings were meant to produce more just thirds, so this is not relevant, because my position does not rely on consonant minor thirds, but is based on diminished seventh chords, which are inherently dissonant, with no fifth. Diminished chords, which _inherently_ display symmetry, would definitely pose a problem to HIP performances if what they were seeking is consonance with a minimum of dissonance. So why did composers use diminished chords? It seems to me that they wanted a mixture of both.
> 
> Still, the matter does not hinge on consonance, because of the dual nature of diminished sevenths, which are transformed into consonant dom/b9 chords.
> 
> How do you explain the use of diminished chords in your "consonant" scheme of things?


Well-tempering uses the same mapping as equal temperaments; some intervals are way less in tune than even in 12 equal or any meantone (but some are way closer to just tuning ). I don't know what it has to do with symmetry. It's basically the opposite of equal temperament except that any interval will be somewhere close to what an acceptable (as a melodic step, not harmonic) "minor third" or whatever interval we like to use will be.
If we define the "consonant" diminished (it will be still unstable, but not dissonant - if we accept that minor third is a consonance) to be made out of stacked minor thirds, we get -
0: 1/1 0.000000 unison, perfect prime
1: 6/5 315.641287 minor third
2: 36/25 631.282574 classic diminished fifth
3: 216/125 946.923861 semi-augmented sixth
4: 1296/625 1262.565148 major diesis +1 octave, so pure diminished chords have nothing to do with 12ET theory where things are way distorted.

In practice the meantone diminished was a mix of close to pure thirds and some septimal intervals - in 12 notes 1/4 (the most famous) meantone we have something like 3 x 269.26829 cents septimal minor thirds and 9 x 310.24390 cents close to "pure" minor thirds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter-comma_meantone

31 equal is pretty close to what many famous composers were using (actually 1/4 meantone is something like 12 notes out of 205, but the difference is not big - in 31 we have 270.968 cents and 309.677 cents).

( I hope you know that Scala is free software and there is a gigantic archive (like 3000+ programs) with historical temperaments, all collected from the books - including ancient Greek scales (Ptolemy etc) and exotic Oriental tunings, not only Western systems. You can easily retune to any famous historical meantone temperament or well temperament, if you have a midi piano/synthesizer that supports such modifications).

It's perfectly acceptable to talk about modern composers exploring the symmetry of 12 ET. Too bad that even music that is supposed to be performed in it is retuned on the fly by the performers (any decent choir, string or woodwind ensemble will try to fix the impurity of tempered theory; it is interesting that many brass players perform the intervals sharper, so maybe for brass something like Pythagorean type tuning is the optimal) to something closer to intervals found in the overtone series.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> But Beethoven himself also did tell Cramer he would never be able to compose anything like Mozart K491. With the chromaticism like K491, it's not just some bits and pieces of chords used, but it's the whole mastery of flow that I find excellent.


I certainly prefer the Mozart to Beethoven's Third Concerto. Not really a difficult choice for me. Doesn't much affect my view on the OP.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I certainly prefer the Mozart to Beethoven's Third Concerto. Not really a difficult choice for me. Doesn't much affect my view on the OP.


I find the 1st mvt of Beethoven's drags a bit. But the last mvt hits the mark.

Its been said before. K491 is one of the best things Mozart composed - but Beethoven's c minor is not one the best pieces he composed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

stomanek said:


> I find the 1st mvt of Beethoven's drags a bit. But the last mvt hits the mark.
> 
> Its been said before. K491 is one of the best things Mozart composed - but Beethoven's c minor is not one the best pieces he composed.


Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto seems to have been much admired upon its publication, and was indirectly compared with Mozart's concertos:

"This concerto is among the most important works published by this genial master in recent years. In certain aspects it may even excel above all others. In none of his latest works does the reviewer find so many beautiful and noble ideas, such a thorough execution that does not tend to the bombastic or contrived, such a firm character without excesses, or such unity. Wherever it can be performed well, it will have the greatest and most beautiful effect. Even in Leipzig, where one is used to hearing the greater Mozart concertos performed well and where one views them with justifiable preference, this will be and has already been the case."

Later in the same year, "Leipzig: The weekly concert at the Gewandhaus featured the following noteworthy instrumental music... In accord with the wishes of all those who had heard it a few months before, the new Beethoven Concerto in C minor was repeated by Mad. Müller. Again it was played excellently. We already reported about this Concerto upon its publication. Again, the public showed the liveliest enthusiasm."


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

stomanek said:


> I find the 1st mvt of Beethoven's drags a bit. But the last mvt hits the mark.
> 
> Its been said before. K491 is one of the best things Mozart composed - but Beethoven's c minor is not one the best pieces he composed.


Your opinion. I love the first movement, and this is my favorite early concerto by Beethoven. I agree that Mozart's PC 20 is the most remarkable piece of the two though, considering when it was written.


----------



## Durendal (Oct 24, 2018)

I get what you're saying. Of the three, Beethoven is the most distinctive. I've never mistaken his music for anyone else, which is a testament to his revolutionary nature that he stubbornly refused to follow the old rules.

I love Mozart, and many of his pieces are instantly recognizable, but I've often been fooled by the local classical radio station playing a classical piece from the same period by an obscure composer I've never heard of thinking that it was a work by Mozart I wasn't familiar with.

Bach even more so.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.
> 
> I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


You are misinformed; the big three are Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. 

But also, you might not want measure all three using the same yardstick. They had different careers and different aims with each composition they wrote; 'individuality' was not necessarily the primary goal for composers who wrote music for functions, events, services.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Durendal said:


> I get what you're saying. Of the three, Beethoven is the most distinctive. I've never mistaken his music for anyone else, which is a testament to his revolutionary nature that he stubbornly refused to follow the old rules.
> 
> I love Mozart, and many of his pieces are instantly recognizable, but I've often been fooled by the local classical radio station playing a classical piece from the same period by an obscure composer I've never heard of thinking that it was a work by Mozart I wasn't familiar with.
> 
> Bach even more so.


If you are commonly fooled mistaking other composers for Bach, this describes your listening and preferences, and has nothing to do with the composers.

It is very common for people to think certain music all sounds similar when it is in a style they are unfamiliar with, and/or less interested in.

All this post tells us is that you prefer Beethoven.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Durendal said:


> I get what you're saying. Of the three, Beethoven is the most distinctive. I've never mistaken his music for anyone else, which is a testament to his revolutionary nature that he stubbornly refused to follow the old rules.
> 
> I love Mozart, and many of his pieces are instantly recognizable, but I've often been fooled by the local classical radio station playing a classical piece from the same period by an obscure composer I've never heard of thinking that it was a work by Mozart I wasn't familiar with.
> 
> Bach even more so.


Good point. I love Mozart too and actually prefer him to anyone if I had only one choice. But how many listeners have never easily mistaken a work of Mozart's for one of Haydn's, or vice versa? It's not difficult if one is hearing something new for the first time and I've wondered on a number of occasions. Of course, the more one listens to them both it becomes apparent there's a considerable difference.

Then there's Beethoven. The power of his music is so deeply ingrained on the Collective Conscience that, IMO, his passions, outspokenness, boldness, individuality and strength of voice is far more recognizable... not necessarily superior in quality but more recognizable. So is his life and the deafness he endured that didn't stop him from composing. In the long run, though, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven all had outstanding individuality and unique strength of voice... a shoutout to Bach!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My wife and I are always playing "guess the composer" in the car. Usually we both do pretty well. But I'm sometimes embarrassed by confusing less-heard works of Mozart or Haydn with the other composer. I'm sure truly civilized people don't have this problem!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Since Mozart started composing at such a young age, (therefore has a lot of juvenilia), it is easy to get confused over the lesser known works of course. It is for me anyway and I'm sure this happens to a lot of people. 

Bach's oeuvre I think is different and as far as I can tell quite distinctive from the onset, but much less of his early work has survived. Since I listen to a lot of Bach I can generally distinguish his music from his contemporaries. I think I might have a hard time guessing on many of Beethoven's lesser known works, but he is not a composer I often listen to.


----------



## Durendal (Oct 24, 2018)

tdc said:


> If you are commonly fooled mistaking other composers for Bach, this describes your listening and preferences, and has nothing to do with the composers.
> 
> It is very common for people to think certain music all sounds similar when it is in a style they are unfamiliar with, and/or less interested in.
> 
> All this post tells us is that you prefer Beethoven.


You're quite right that of the three, I prefer Beethoven, but one of the main reasons is precisely what I said before - his style, or "voice", seems more distinctive to me than the others.

I could be wrong about Bach of course. Maybe he stands out from all the baroque composers. I'd have to listen to him more, but my issue with him is that his music emphasizes technique far more than emotion by what I've heard.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Durendal said:


> I get what you're saying. Of the three, Beethoven is the most distinctive. I've never mistaken his music for anyone else, which is a testament to his revolutionary nature that he stubbornly refused to follow the old rules.
> 
> I love Mozart, and many of his pieces are instantly recognizable, but I've often been fooled by the local classical radio station playing a classical piece from the same period by an obscure composer I've never heard of thinking that it was a work by Mozart I wasn't familiar with.
> 
> Bach even more so.





Larkenfield said:


> Good point. I love Mozart too and actually prefer him to anyone if I had only one choice. But how many listeners have never misidentified a work of Mozart's for one of Haydn's, or vice versa? It's not difficult if one is hearing something new for the first time. I've wondered on a number of occasions. Of course, the more one listens to them both it becomes easier to notice a considerable difference.


Again, this is the kind of 'propaganda' that have been spread by the fandom for decades. Since they can't explain what's so 'vastly superior' about Beethoven compared to his predecessors, they keep asserting 'Beethoven had individuality and originality whereas Mozart, Haydn did not'. Along with another slogan of theirs: 'Beethoven had emotion whereas his predecessors did not'.

(Allerius, this is the reason why I keep talking about how much Beethoven borrowed from his predecessor and still didn't really write works 'vastly superior' to the works he borrowed from.) 
Say Op.59 No.3 or Op.37, his 'middle period works', are these so stunningly individual compared to the precursor works they're modelled on? 
Beethoven "stubbornly refused to follow the old rules." Sure. But are you at the same implying his predecessors "stubbornly clung to the old rules?" Have you put in effort to investigate all the subtle innovations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No._24_(Mozart)#I._Allegro, like it's 'double exposition' for example? 
The fact of the matter is Brahms said Idomeneo 'a completely new thing.' Wagner called Don Giovanni 'the opera of all operas'. You can argue that Fidelio is a work of stunning individuality that should never go unnoticed, written by the 'most innovative master' in music history. That's fine. Just don't pretend like there was no such thing as innovation or individuality before Beethoven, ok? 
It only leads me to believe certain pieces by Beethoven get a bit too much attention compared to certain pieces by Mozart, Haydn.
If I'm hearing Rossini's Petite Messe Solennelle for the first time without knowing who composed it, and people 'passed it off' as Beethoven's Missa Solemnis No.2, I would probably have believed them. 
Actually, you don't mistake Beethoven for other composers only because whenever you hear Beethoven, they're pieces you already know. If you didn't know Beethoven's Zur Namensfeier Overture, are you sure you wouldn't mistake it for a Weber or Rossini overture upon hearing it for the first time? 
It's only because people don't put in enough effort to investigate the individuality of Bach and his predecessors, Forberger, Buxtehude, Pachelbel, as they do for Beethoven. Isn't it.














I see this behavior often from extreme Chopin enthusiasts. (And they criticize 'armchair critics' for being biased..) Even though I can name like 10+ pieces by Hummel, Moscheles, Field that sound extremely similar to early~late Chopin, that listeners hearing them for the first time will immediately say 'Chopinesque'. Let's face it. 'It's only because Hummel has never got public attention like Chopin.' 'Individuality' wasn't even that strong a point about these composers compared to the classical and baroque masters. Everyone 'borrowed' from others and followed the musical trend of their time.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, this is the kind of 'propaganda' that have been spread by the fandom for decades. Since they can't explain what's so 'vastly superior' about Beethoven compared to his predecessors, they keep asserting 'Beethoven had individuality and originality whereas Mozart, Haydn did not'.


You're not alone, howling at the sky in the wilderness!

''Beethoven's reputation is based entirely on gossip. The middle Beethoven represents a supreme example of a composer on an ego trip.'' ---- Glenn Gould


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Durendal said:


> You're quite right that of the three, I prefer Beethoven, but one of the main reasons is precisely what I said before - his style, or "voice", seems more distinctive to me than the others.
> 
> I could be wrong about Bach of course. Maybe he stands out from all the baroque composers. *I'd have to listen to him more, but my issue with him is that his music emphasizes technique far more than emotion by what I've heard.*


For me Bach's brilliant use of technique allowed him to express the depths of emotion in a more tasteful way. Suggesting Beethoven's music is preferable because it emphasizes emotion to me is about the equivalent of claiming that rock music is preferable to classical because it is louder and perceived as more overtly expressive.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"Beethoven is a singularity in the history of art-a phenomenon of dazzling and disconcerting force. He not only left his mark on all subsequent composers but also molded entire institutions. The professional orchestra arose, in large measure, as a vehicle for the incessant performance of Beethoven's symphonies. The art of conducting emerged in his wake. The modern piano bears the imprint of his demand for a more resonant and flexible instrument. Recording technology evolved with Beethoven in mind: the first commercial 33⅓ r.p.m. LP, in 1931, contained the Fifth Symphony, and the duration of first-generation compact disks was fixed at seventy-five minutes so that the Ninth Symphony could unfurl without interruption. After Beethoven, the concert hall came to be seen not as a venue for diverse, meandering entertainments but as an austere memorial to artistic majesty. Listening underwent a fundamental change. To follow Beethoven's dense, driving narratives, one had to lean forward and pay close attention. The musicians' platform became the stage of an invisible drama, the temple of a sonic revelation." _-Alex Ross_

New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/deus-ex-musica


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Durendal said:


> I could be wrong about Bach of course. Maybe he stands out from all the baroque composers. I'd have to listen to him more, but my issue with him is that his music emphasizes technique far more than emotion by what I've heard.


I remember some people being furious when someone said that they preferred Mozart's choral music over Bach's (Mass in B minor). "Don't assert your personal opinion as a fact! Bach is far better than Mozart, particularly in choral music!" I was wondering what the same people would think of the choral movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony, which pauses and resumes like 8 times or more throughout the movement, (I'm not arguing it's badly written.) compared to Bach. What makes them assume everyone thinks it's a miraculous expression of emotion and individuality like no other works that preceded it, (even with its references to Mozart Misericordias Domini in D minor, which flows more naturally.) I've been wondering what is it about Choral Fantasy that's so special in terms of 'emotion' compared to all the other choral works that preceded it, for example. Now this is their chance to answer, this thread with the OP asking (somewhat rhetorically) "Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three?"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

tdc said:


> I don't think you can deduce that from the quote. He was acknowledging the importance of the Beethoven later works, not making a direct comparison with the Mozart symphonies.
> 
> The Beethoven commissioning point is an interesting one, and by coincidence I came across the same idea for the first time yesterday listening to the radio, then saw it brought up again on this thread.
> According to the radio host Beethoven could not compose an inspired piece if it was commissioned, his theory was that Beethoven could only compose based on a kind of 'inner calling'. He said the one exception was a piece Beethoven composed for trombones (I forget the title but this particular piece was apparently performed at Beethoven's funeral). The radio host speculated that the reason this piece worked was because it just so happened to be something Beethoven wanted to compose anyway.
> ...


Yes it was.....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I certainly prefer the Mozart to Beethoven's Third Concerto. Not really a difficult choice for me. Doesn't much affect my view on the OP.


Not surprising as Mozart's is one of his best and Beethoven's is a process still under development.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Interesting that Beethoven reckoned Handel was the greatest composer.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

hammeredklavier said:


> I remember some people being furious when someone said that they preferred Mozart's choral music over Bach's (Mass in B minor). "Don't assert your personal opinion as a fact! Bach is far better than Mozart, particularly in choral music!" I was wondering what the same people would think of the choral movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony, which pauses and resumes like 8 times or more throughout the movement, (I'm not arguing it's badly written.) compared to Bach. What makes them assume everyone thinks it's a miraculous expression of emotion and individuality like no other works that preceded it, (even with its references to Mozart Misericordias Domini in D minor, which flows more naturally.) I've been wondering what is it about Choral Fantasy that's so special in terms of 'emotion' compared to all the other choral works that preceded it, for example. Now this is their chance to answer, this thread with the OP asking (somewhat rhetorically) "Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three?"


I think Beethoven's role as a _Romantic_ is the key to understanding his influence. In the so-called "War of the Romantics," both opposing camps (Brahms vs. Liszt & Wagner) freely acknowledged their debt to Beethoven.

The choral part of the Ninth is an appeal to all of Mankind, while by contrast, Bach's Mass in B minor is intended as a vehicle for the Church. _Of course_ Beethoven's recognition of the importance of the individual is going to inspire many more people who are more secular-oriented and "up to date" in our era.

Also, the Romantic aesthetic is more Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" than Mozart's very disciplined and Apollonian classical music, as well as Bach's emphasis on Lutheran religion and Catholic ritual.

Romanticism is more "artistic" than Classicism, in that it relates to the individual in a very direct way, like poetry. Romanticism is more in touch with a secular society, which is not as dominated by the Church or royalty. Romanticism is democratic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I do hear 'heroism' in Beethoven's choral music that's not often found in other masters. But not 'terror' like the Kyrie of Haydn's Nelson Mass or Tremendum ac vivificum from Mozart K243. 



 or Laudate Pueri Dominum from K339 



 Often times, Mozart's choral works sound more terrible than the Johann Ernest Eberlin works that inspired them. Clearly there's a distinctive style that people often overlook. 
As for a lot of early Mozart being juvenila, I don't quite agree, cause there's just as many 'underrated' works in (especially in the masses and stuff) early Mozart as there are in early Beethoven. And contrary to what most people think, his lesser works are not merely 'entertainment' music and there are clear contrasts.










Personally, I don't really care for a lot of Debussy, even though I know people keep saying how good his harmony is. Even back in the days I studied piano, I didn't really like Reverie, Arabesques, Etudes, Claire de lune, Isle Joyeuse, etc. (Frankly, they sound like Yiruma + better harmony to me. And Ravel, I somewhat like a few of his popular works, like piano concerto in G, Bolero, La Valse, Jeux D'eau, Sonatine, just a little bit). In general, impressionist music isn't my cup of tea and I'm not really into the stuff at all. If someone played a very obscure impressionist piece and asked me if it was Debussy, I wouldn't be able to tell.

Saying Viennese classicists sound like all other contemporaries of the time is just like Debussy sounds like all other impressionist music. Even in those times, there were CPE Bach and northern German masters who followed 'Empfindsamer Stil' and wrote in a different style from the rest of the continent. Compare their keyboard concertos. Boccherini sounds even more different from the Viennese classicists are from each other: more different than from 'Mozart and Beethoven' than 'Mozart' and 'Beethoven' are from each other. People just have to give them more attention, about how they sound in terms of phrasing, harmony, and stuff, to know the difference.
Sometimes I even feel somewhat of an emotional connection to Beethoven's Op.16 _because_ of how similar it sounds like Mozart K452. There are often recordings that have both pieces in them because of the similarity. ( 



 ) And if you think Beethoven broke completely free from Haydnesque or Mozartian connection in his late period, listen to Mozart K546 ( 



 ) and Beethoven's _last piano sonata_, Op.111 ( 



 ). Listen to how the opening chords and 'slow procession' of the the intro are similar in style, and also compare Mozart's fugal subject and Beethoven's Allegro theme. 
You can argue late Beethoven is still unique in its own right, (indeed it is) but then so is late Mozart to a degree. There aren't that many works in Mozart's time that quite sounds like Adagio in C minor K617 for glass harmonica for example.






_"Charles Rosen used the song (Adelaide) to exemplify his claim that, somewhat paradoxically, Beethoven actually drew closer to the compositional practice of his predecessors Haydn and Mozart as his career evolved:

With age, Beethoven drew closer to the forms and proportions of Haydn and Mozart. In his youthful works, the imitation of his two great precursors is largely exterior: in technique and even in spirit, he is at the beginning of his career often closer to Hummel, Weber, and to the later works of Clementi than to Haydn and Mozart ... The equilibrium between harmonic and thematic development so characteristic of Haydn and Mozart is often lost in early Beethoven, where thematic contrast and transformation seem to outweigh all other interests. Beethoven, indeed, started as a true member of his generation, writing now in a proto-Romantic style and now in a late and somewhat attenuated version of the classical style, with an insistence on the kind of broad, square melodic structure that was to find its true justification later in the Romantic period of the 1830's. The early song Adelaide is as much Italian Romantic opera as anything else: its long, winding melody, symmetrical and passionate, its colorful modulations and aggressively simple accompaniment could come easily from an early work of Bellini."_


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Yes it was.....


Maybe Beethoven had a difficult time with this commission wiki states the work was 'originally' commissioned by the Philharmonic Society of London in 1817, but the work was not completed until 1824.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Beethoven's role as a _Romantic_ is the key to understanding his influence. In the so-called "War of the Romantics," both opposing camps (Brahms vs. Liszt & Wagner) freely acknowledged their debt to Beethoven.
> 
> The choral part of the Ninth is an appeal to all of Mankind, while by contrast, Bach's Mass in B minor is intended as a vehicle for the Church. _Of course_ Beethoven's recognition of the importance of the individual is going to inspire many more people who are more secular-oriented and "up to date" in our era.
> 
> ...


I don't think any of Bach's spiritual music was created solely as a 'vehicle for the church', but as he stated himself 'to the glory of God', and there is a big difference. If he was so focused on religion he wouldn't have composed both Lutheran and Catholic music. There is esoteric symbolism in Bach's music that goes beyond exoteric church doctrine.

I disagree that making something more individual focused automatically makes something more 'artistic'. I prefer a more universal approach myself. I think creating music that has more of a universal inspiration over focusing on one's own (always limited) personal outlook is going to tend to be more beautiful, and balanced. It strikes me as less self absorbed.

I don't consider Romanticism more 'democratic'. It is music we are discussing here, it cannot vote.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

tdc said:


> I don't consider Romanticism more 'democratic'.


This said, I think if we put Romantic ideals forward too much in society (ie- become focused mostly on the individual) it can lead to the kind of fake "democracy" we see in the West today, which in reality is nothing more than a corporate oligarchy, it has led to mass enslavement.

True freedom in a society only increases as morality increases. This is why there is so much suffering in the world today, people are not living by the golden rule, they are behaving immorally, therefore we have enslaved ourselves. That is how natural law works.

That said do I think society was better structured in Bach's time? No.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Interesting that Beethoven reckoned Handel was the greatest composer.


Well to be fair, that was before the "Bach Renaissance" when Mendelssohn and others rediscovered a huge amount of his work.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

*Sometimes I even feel somewhat of an emotional connection to Beethoven's Op.16 because of how similar it sounds like Mozart K452. There are often recordings that have both pieces in them because of the similarity.*

It is an obvious pairing - though I would much prefer to see K452 paired with another Mozart chamberwork - perhaps the oboe quartet or horn quintet, mainly because the Beethoven quintet is a minor work for Beethoven - and K452 is one of Mozart's shining jewels.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Well to be fair, that was before the "Bach Renaissance" when Mendelssohn and others rediscovered a huge amount of his work.


And how do you explain him putting Handel ahead of Mozart? We see Beethoven trying to emulate Mozart in many works - it is odd - given his view - how little of Handel's influence is evident in Beethoven's music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

tdc said:


> Maybe Beethoven had a difficult time with this commission wiki states the work was 'originally' commissioned by the Philharmonic Society of London in 1817, but the work was not completed until 1824.


and the price was £100

in todays money that is £20K


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> This said, I think if we put Romantic ideals forward too much in society (ie- become focused mostly on the individual) it can lead to the kind of fake "democracy" we see in the West today, which in reality is nothing more than a corporate oligarchy, it has led to mass enslavement.


I too think there's certain over-hype around Romantic ideals of music by many people on TC and the net. From a critical perspective, Romanticism can be seen as 'I-do-what-I-want-I-don't-care-what-others-think', and 'over-sentimentalism' philosophy, which can eventually lead to anti-intellectualism. I'm not saying Romantic period music is only sentimental and not intellectual, but I often find the excess of sentimentality in Romanticism 'harmful'. Bach is the epitome of what I consider 'music that has existed since the beginning of time, and will never cease to exist'. There are no such 'eternal principles' (as Chopin put it) felt in Romanticism.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> If I'm hearing Rossini's Petite Messe Solennelle for the first time without knowing who composed it, and people 'passed it off' as Beethoven's Missa Solemnis No.2, I would probably have believed them.


Well, blame on Rossini for have copied Beethoven's style then. If two, five or one hundred composers use the same style (not a mere theme) for pieces of theirs, the one who composed the first deserves the credit for it, don't you agree? And it's not Beethoven's fault if he received such overwhelming praise and attention as a composer still in life, contrary to Bach and Mozart, what of course may have contributed for the rise of imitators of his art.



hammeredklavier said:


> And if you think Beethoven broke completely free from Haydnesque or Mozartian connection in his late period, listen to Mozart K546 (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The fact that Beethoven uses themes that may sound similar to Mozart in the first movement of this sonata may be explained by this movement having it's first drafts back in 1801 - in Beethoven's early period, when he was still under the influence of many classical masters, including Mozart, and hadn't completely developed his own voice yet. This movement is the exception, not the rule, for late Beethoven.

Also, it should be noted that both Mozart's and Beethoven's works are somewhat similar in style to those of older composers who wrote pieces with the same slow introduction plus fugal writting after. An example of such a piece is this very beautiful adagio and fugue in D minor by W.F.Bach*: 




Of course, in this case Beethoven arguably was more original in his approach, since that he melded this material with sonata form, while Mozart just imitated it, perhaps for study purposes.

*: It could be argued that W.F. Bach's fugues were a source of inspiration to Mozart, who transcribed for example the sixth fugue of K. 404a from the Eight Fugues F 31 from this composer.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Beethoven may have rated Handel high because of his epic sense of grandeur and dramatic ability, but not necessarily for Handel's baroque and harmonic style or in most other ways. I believe it was primarily the bigness of spirit in Handel's works that left its indelible impression. In most other ways, there are more examples of Beethoven turning to the works of Mozart for inspiration, study, or when he got stuck in some area of his own compositions. There was a continuing interest in Mozart as his real hero that lasted throughout Beethoven's lifetime—the man he most wanted to meet when he was a young composer but unable to do so because of family responsibilities. Beethoven may have also been influenced by Handel's epic ability to inspire, and I believe that underlying influence can be clearly heard in the deeply idealistic and inspirational nature of Beethoven's 9th. At his best, Handel could lift one's spirit to the heights.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I too think there's certain over-hype around Romantic ideals of music by many people on TC and the net. *From a critical perspective, Romanticism can be seen as 'I-do-what-I-want-I-don't-care-what-others-think', and 'over-sentimentalism' philosophy, which can eventually lead to anti-intellectualism.* I'm not saying Romantic period music is only sentimental and not intellectual, but *I often find the excess of sentimentality in Romanticism 'harmful'.* Bach is the epitome of what I consider 'music that has existed since the beginning of time, and will never cease to exist'. *There are no such 'eternal principles' *(as Chopin put it) *felt in Romanticism.*


Every culture has its weaknesses and its "neuroses", as a friend of mine puts it. Every period produces uninspired art which fails to transcend the shortcomings of its culture. This is no less true of the Baroque and Classical than of the Romantic (or, God knows, of our own time). For every "sentimental" Romantic ballad there is a dry-as-dust, cookie-cutter cantata or generic serenade or cassation.

Your "critical perspective" is your personal perspective. From a less biased perspective, the "principles" evident in Berlioz's _Les Nuits d'ete_, Brahms's violin concerto, or Tchaikovsky's _Sleeping Beauty_ are no less "eternal" than those embodied by a Bach's _Art of the Fugue_ or Mozart's _"Haffner" Symphony_. Each work, and each style, speaks to different, but equally permanent, aspects of human nature and experience.

I'm sorry that you find Romantic music "harmful." Personally, I've never been harmed by any music, except possibly the stuff they pipe into supermarkets, which puts me in a misanthropic funk if I linger too long over the cantaloupes.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I'm sorry that you find Romantic music "harmful." Personally, I've never been harmed by any music, except possibly the stuff they pipe into supermarkets, which puts me in a misanthropic funk if I linger too long over the cantaloupes.


I was exaggerating a little and I tend to do that to argue my points in a strong, provocative way. I actually appreciate Tchaikovsky symphonies 5, 6, Rachmaninoff piano concertos 2, 3, Chopin ballades 1, 4 etc to an extent, it's just that I don't necessarily think Romanticism (which some people think it is) is an improvement in music from previous eras, as I have said in other threads.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I was exaggerating a little and I tend to do that to argue my points in a strong, provocative way. I actually appreciate Tchaikovsky symphonies 5, 6, Rachmaninoff piano concertos 2, 3, Chopin ballades 1, 4 etc to an extent, *it's just that I don't necessarily think Romanticism (which some people think it is) is an improvement in music from previous eras, as I have said in other threads.*


Well, gosh, if that's all you meant to say, you might have just said that! But you said a great deal more. Did you not mean what you said about Romanticism expressing no "eternal principles"? What are "eternal principles" in music anyway? Sensuous beauty? Formal excellence? Inventiveness? Emotional power?


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> From a critical perspective, Romanticism can be seen as 'I-do-what-I-want-I-don't-care-what-others-think', and 'over-sentimentalism' philosophy, which can eventually lead to anti-intellectualism.


I'm curious what led you to link the sentimentalism of Romantic music with anti-intellectual discussion, and what you mean by 'over-sentimentalism' philosophy. Maybe this is just my reservation with the term 'intellectualism' because I feel like its definition extends itself so broadly, apparently to any 'exercise of the mind', as it stands, but from my understanding intellectualism is about coming to rational, reason-based conclusions based on well-defined concepts and postulates rather than than on feelings or impressions. Can't we analyze Romantic for its formal concepts as well as we can analyze Baroque or Classical-era music by its formal concepts?

I understand Romantic might insert more "feeling," but we can do a black-and-white analysis of its composition as well as with previous music... say, its form, its counterpoint, its interaction with or lack of a tonal center, its interest in chromatic alteration. Granted we might occasionally have to be more resourceful in our work to 'unpack' the components in Romantic music, or there might be more instances of a 'freer' structure that's less applicable to our pre-defined structures. But it still has structure. Does the 'sentimentality' truly cloud out the structural parts of Romantic music so severely to make intellectual discussion impossible? I'm picking up on your point that feelings pose a threat to an intellectual argument if they conflate with 'objective' observations, but can't we separate the emotions we feel when listening from those that threaten the rationality of an argument? I know you didn't suggest Romantic music eliminates the capacity for intellectual discussion altogether, but more than anything I think I'd like a better grasp on this relationship between music and its 'intellect.' Apologies if I jumped to conclusions on what you meant with the intellectualism - that's part of my problem, I feel like the term itself could connote a lot of different things. Don't mistake my excessive questions for grilling... I'm more just thinking out loud and sort of asking these questions of myself as I type.

Less to do with anyone's statements in particular, but part of my puzzlement with calling an argument 'intellectual' is that I don't see why every argument should not be intellectual, ipso facto. Shouldn't every argument be free from feelings and based on rational concepts? I thought this was a necessity. Maybe my understanding is a little off in that region.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Well, gosh, if that's all you meant to say, you might have just said that! But you said a great deal more. Did you not mean what you said about Romanticism expressing no "eternal principles"? What are "eternal principles" in music anyway? Sensuous beauty? Formal excellence? Inventiveness? Emotional power?


Good question. It's hard to explain at the moment. I'll need more time to think for a solid definition for this- may take years or even decades. I might even change my mind in the process. I think it should have to with something along the lines of logic and form. It's the kind of impression I get when listening to the F sharp minor from WTC II, for example. You might be right, maybe most, if not all, pieces of 'classical music' can be said to be part of these 'principles', or maybe not. I can't say for sure at the moment.


----------



## Arent (Mar 27, 2017)

I don't think there's a "big three" and increasingly I'm drawn to composers with a much more subtle touch than those that beat your over the head with their individuality and genius. What these concepts are is a very particular vision of what music and art is all about. The furrowed-brow, very Germanic "genius" is all very well, but that's not the only lens to look at art through.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Arent said:


> I don't think there's a "big three" and increasingly I'm drawn to composers with a much more subtle touch than those that beat your over the head with their individuality and genius. What these concepts are is a very particular vision of what music and art is all about. The furrowed-brow, very Germanic "genius" is all very well, but that's not the only lens to look at art through.


I hardly think you'll get a more subtle touch than Mozart!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think that Mozart's Symphony No. 40 in G minor K.550 is good ammunition for any argument against Mozart. Every movement shows great inventiveness, including rhythmic, melodic, and motivic.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't necessarily think Romanticism (which some people think it is) is an improvement in music from previous eras, as I have said in other threads.


It is physically impossible to play in tune late or post-romantic music with just 12 notes gamut in a pre-late 19th musical systems, because other commas than these in meantone are tempered in typical chord progressions (all the chromatic mediants, "tritone substitions" from jazz etc. don't exist in meantone where there is no tritone and minor diesis (for example the difference between augmented fifth and minor sixth) is not tempered - and this is reflected in traditional notation with flat and sharps, which fails spectacularly for "avantgarde" modernistic music in terms of readibility). So, it's improvement in complexity, but in a different direction. While 12 equal can play both diatonic and "chromatic" progressions, we could use a tuning for typical "romantic music" where "chromatic" is better than diatonic (it's called "augmented" temperament, but it's high error temperament, so it's not worth it for choosing over 12 equal).


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The Romantics understood that emotions do not always conform to logic, nor strictly conform to forms, but seek their own level like water or behave like the tides of the ocean. Logic and the intellect can delight the mind but are primarily mental and essentially unrelated to the affairs of the heart and the expression of emotions. So the Romantics are not likely to appeal to anyone who doesn’t like to experience something beyond the mind and the perfection or development of forms. Forms became more elastic and started to take on the shape of the emotions, such as in the works of Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin. It was a paradigm shift in human expression. The Romantics explored their emotions as a mirror to the self and humanity because the world had started to shift after the French Revolution and Napoleon. There was a new personal freedom unrelated to the strict formal standards of Classicism and the social and cultural demands of the aristocracy.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> So the Romantics are not likely to appeal to anyone who doesn't like to experience something beyond the mind and the perfection or development of forms. Forms became more elastic and started to take on the shape of the emotions, such as in the works of Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin.


These guys are known for writing unnecessary or too long transitions (and filler material) and even the equivalents of the infamous jazz noodling (known as improvisation). Just because something is hard to play doesn't make it good music. (I don't imply that older music doesn't have flaws like tons of sequences and stock patterns, and "borrowed" motives/melodies, too much repetition etc, but form usually feels less clumsy in execution. )


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> So the Romantics are not likely to appeal to anyone who doesn't like to experience something beyond the mind and the perfection or development of forms. Forms became more elastic and started to take on the shape of the emotions, such as in the works of


Using Romanticism as an excuse to write (aside from some actually good works) dozens and dozens of keyboard miniatures that don't go much beyond a song in terms of texture and structure. - You call that the true spirit of 'Romantic' music? Isn't it more like 'Romanticized' music?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BabyGiraffe said:


> These guys are known for writing unnecessary or too long transitions (and filler material)...


I know the works of Chopin and Schumann pretty well, and I haven't noticed these long "transitions." Transitions from what to what? In which works?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Using Romanticism as an excuse to write (aside from some actually good works) dozens and dozens of keyboard miniatures that don't go much beyond a song in terms of texture and structure. - You call that the true spirit of 'Romantic' music? Isn't it more like 'Romanticized' music?


What's your problem with songs? Are you calling Chopin's stylized dance pieces "romanticized"? What the **** does that mean?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Romantic music is often highly emotionally expressive, and I think there's a tendency to equate emotion with anti-intellectualism. I think the two are often correlated but there's no causation there. If anything, they're only correlated because the anti-intellectual must rely on emotion in order for others to find any value in their work whatsoever; but the intellectual are perfectly capable of being as emotionally profound as as the anti-intellectual. Wagner is the perfect example. I mean, has there ever been a composer who elicited stronger emotions yet also had a deep interest in philosophy to the extent that he created allegories around it? So much so that he influenced other philosophers? If anything, it seems to me that Romanticism was the last movement in which emotional expressivity and intellectual engagement were both at a consistent high among those engaging in the arts. Even among the actual philosophers of that time there was a tendency to engage in the arts: Nietzsche composed music, Kierkegaard wrote fiction. Then you have someone like Goethe who wrote in every genre imaginable including making contributions to science. Anti-intellectualism and romanticism? I'm not seeing it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BabyGiraffe said:


> It is physically impossible to play in tune late or post-romantic music with just 12 notes gamut in a pre-late 19th musical systems, because other commas than these in meantone are tempered in typical chord progressions (all the chromatic mediants, "tritone substitions" from jazz etc. don't exist in meantone where there is no tritone and minor diesis (for example the difference between augmented fifth and minor sixth) is not tempered - and this is reflected in traditional notation with flat and sharps, which fails spectacularly for "avantgarde" modernistic music in terms of readibility). So, it's improvement in complexity, but in a different direction. While 12 equal can play both diatonic and "chromatic" progressions, we could use a tuning for typical "romantic music" where "chromatic" is better than diatonic (it's called "augmented" temperament, but it's high error temperament, so it's not worth it for choosing over 12 equal).


I think you're placing too much emphasis on these meantone schemes at the expense of "12-note musical thinking." Beethoven, in his String Quartet in F op. 135 uses tritone substitution; is this because strings are involved? Even Bach used diminished seventh chords in this manner, and was a "12-note thinker" because of the Well Tempered Clavier, in which he used his own tempered 12-note tuning scheme (see larips.com).

12-note musical _thinking, not the ear,_ was driving music towards equal temperament...admit it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> The Romantics understood that emotions do not always conform to logic, nor strictly conform to forms, but seek their own level like water or behave like the tides of the ocean. Logic and the intellect can delight the mind but are primarily mental and essentially unrelated to the affairs of the heart and the expression of emotions. So the Romantics are not likely to appeal to anyone who doesn't like to experience something beyond the mind and the perfection or development of forms. Forms became more elastic and started to take on the shape of the emotions, such as in the works of Schumann, Liszt, and Chopin. *It was a paradigm shift in human expression.* The Romantics explored their emotions as a mirror to the self and humanity because the world had started to shift after the French Revolution and Napoleon. There was a new personal freedom unrelated to the strict formal standards of Classicism and the social and cultural demands of the aristocracy.


I agree exactly.
I don't think Bach or Mozart were particularly interested, or focussed on, the aspect of human existence (their audience) that the Romantics were focussed on.

The Romantics were doing what poetry does on an emotional level. The emotions seem to reside _in the body_ rather than in the mind, as an aspect of "pure being."

As such, The Romantics were interesting in triggering a direct response in the listener, by asserting their consciousness in their music, thereby transmitting this to the consciousness of the listener. Before this, who cared about the "individual consciousness" of the artist, or listener? Music had other, more important fish to fry: the glorification of God, or the diversion and entertainment of royals.

I'm not saying this without exception; Bach or Mozart had their moments, but both had their agendas to maintain.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think you're placing too much emphasis on these meantone schemes at the expense of "12-note musical thinking." *Beethoven, in his String Quartet in F op. 135 uses tritone substitution; is this because strings are involved?* Even Bach used diminished seventh chords in this manner, and was a "12-note thinker" because of the Well Tempered Clavier, in which he used his own tempered 12-note tuning scheme (see larips.com).
> 
> 12-note musical _thinking, not the ear,_ was driving music towards equal temperament...admit it.


Do you have a measure citation for this? I hope this is not just another instance of mistaking an augmented 6th for a minor 7th.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Minor Sixthist said:


> Can't we analyze Romantic for its formal concepts as well as we can analyze Baroque or Classical-era music by its formal concepts?
> 
> I understand Romantic might insert more "feeling," but we can do a black-and-white analysis of its composition as well as with previous music... say, its form, its counterpoint, its interaction with or lack of a tonal center, its interest in chromatic alteration. Granted we might occasionally have to be more resourceful in our work to 'unpack' the components in Romantic music, or there might be more instances of a 'freer' structure that's less applicable to our pre-defined structures. But it still has structure.


I would be careful of the assumption that feeling and expression are merely extraneous qualities inserted into or added on to black-and-white analysis. The whole field of musical narrative theory over three or four decades has been working on the idea that plot-like patterns of expressive oppositions and thematic transformations are controlling structural concepts from Beethoven on. Form and expression are indecomposably linked in this period.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> *Do you have a measure citation for this? I hope this is not just another instance of mistaking an augmented 6th for a minor 7th*.


Gee, I hope so too, Edwardbast, for my own sake.

It's not exactly a "tritone substitution," because such a thing did not exist back then, and additionally, it's not a dominant chord substituting for another dominant chord; but it's a re-interpretation of a diminished seventh chord by substituting another root, which is awfully close, and related in other ways to the way jazz musicians (who are 12-note chromatic thinkers) use diminished-seventh/dominant chord relations, and root substitutions.

Here it is, per your order:

Measure 167, the chord (low to high) Db (cello), Db (viola), E natural and G (2nd violin), and Db and Bb (1st violin), which spells a diminished seventh chord, resolves in the cello and viola down to C, making it a C7 flat-9 dominant chord.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Other than posting Rubinstein's delightful performance of a charming Mazurka, the other two examples are of the most wretched quality of sound and performance. It might have been more productive finding superb examples, with plenty online, and _learning_ from one of the most beloved composers in the world and studying his other 57 Mazurkas that are full of endless subtleties, Polish dance rhythms, brilliant harmonic inventions and melodic charm. I can easily imagine Mozart himself finding these Mazurkas enormously inventive and delightful rather than wasting his time pitting the genius of Chopin as a composer from the Romantic era against himself as a genius from the Classical era. Romanticism wasn't an "excuse" for anything:



> Romanticism was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature-all components of modernity. It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography, education, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. It had a significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers influencing liberalism, radicalism, conservatism and nationalism. [unquote]
> 
> https://www.theartstory.org/movement-romanticism.htm


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Other than posting Rubinstein's delightful performance of a charming Mazurka, the other two examples are of the most wretched quality of sound and performance. It might have been far more productive finding superb examples, with plenty online, and _learning_ from Chopin and studying his other 57 Mazurkas full of endless delights and Polish dance rhythms, brilliant harmonic invention, and melodic originality. I can easily imagine that Mozart himself would have found the Chopin Mazurkas enormously original and delightful rather than wasting his time pitting Chopin as a composer from the Romantic era against himself as a composer from the Classical era.


I must remind you there is a difference between 'liking' something and 'admiring it'. For example, many of us here like to listen to pop music, but few admire it so much they would put it in the same level as classical music in terms of technique and inspiration. Likewise, I admire Handel but don't like his music as much as I do Bach. I could say I like Chopin a good deal (consider his music beautiful to a degree), but don't admire him as much as do Beethoven, for example. 
Among the Romantics, there are some great artists like Tchaikovsky and Wagner, but also lesser ones (like Schubert). Chopin's ability for imagination or creativity wasn't any better than the classical masters'. He borrowed from a bunch of others and followed the general style of his own time just like everybody else. Except his technique for building form and structure was considerably weaker than them.

The word 'Chopinesque' has a certain connotation of being 'pianistic', yet these 'major works' of his, are they the most 'pianistic' writing ever written? The best thing written for the piano? 
Op.44 : 



Op.48 No.1: 




In fact, it's not a technique he uses sparingly, you'll find them in the codas of Ballade No.1 in G minor, Scherzo No.4 in E major, finale of Sonata No.2 in B flat minor, a handful of Op.28 Preludes etc.
So much so it almost appears as if he had this mindset, 'when in doubt, put your hands together'. If this is not "cliche", then what is?

This Waltz was originally attributed to Chopin, but was found out later that it is actually Charles Mayer's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Mayer_(composer) There are other examples, like Nocturne oubliée. 





Here's a section from Hummel Fantasy in E flat that became the model for the coda of Chopin Ballade No.4 in F minor. 




This Thalberg piano concerto written in the same year as Chopin concertos even resembles Chopin Prelude Op.28 No.20 in C minor, which would be written years later. 



There are tons of examples from Moscheles, Field, Kalkbrenner, Cramer, Ries, etc.. He even takes inspiration from previous eras, Mozart Rondo in A minor K511, Beethoven Hammerklavier sonata middle movement etc.. 
How can you say that classical masters wrote derivative junkies that all sound the same whereas Chopin did not?
It's funny how people accuse the greats and their fandom for cult and idolatry but at the same time create all kinds of myths around Romantics like Chopin. 
Great Classicists weren't necessarily 'restricted' by form. Often they utilized order and structure to enhance the meaning of imagination and fantasy they explored. As Igor Stravinsky put it: "A real tradition is not the relic of a past that is irretrievably gone; it is a living force that animates and informs the present."
Chopin was free from restrictions of form? Far more than he was 'free from form', he was restricted by his own limitations of skills. - There's far more 'organized' imagination and creativity in Bach and other pre-Romantic masters.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Using Romanticism as an excuse to write (aside from some actually good works) dozens and dozens of keyboard miniatures that don't go much beyond a song in terms of texture and structure. - You call that the true spirit of 'Romantic' music? Isn't it more like 'Romanticized' music?


This is actually one of the most absurd statements characterizing a musical period or style which I have ever read. It makes no sense from the very start. What can it possibly mean to say that composers "used Romanticism"? If pushed to it, we could more sensibly say that Romanticism, the compelling spirit of an age, "used composers"! And how did Romanticism supply composers with an "excuse" to do anything? Did they need excuses to write what they did? Ought they to have been doing something else, such as writing more of those "some actually good works" that you so generously concede they did write, presumably when their excuses ran out?

There's probably little point even in asking what "Romanticized music" is. With all due respect, you really ought to leave the 19th century alone and write about things you have some understanding of and sympathy for. These constant slams against Romantic music do you no credit.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

hammeredklavier

Here are the delights of the authentic Chopin waltzes, not the poor Charles Meyer imitation waltz posted above, and played by the world-class pianist Alice Sara Ott rather than the two poor examples posted above that sound like a beginning piano student on a terrible instrument. I believe Mozart would have been delighted.






I can only wonder how anyone could ever possibly understand Chopin without understanding the Romantic era in which he lived:

"Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as the glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature-all components of modernity. It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography, education, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. It had a significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers influencing liberalism, radicalism, conservatism and nationalism."

https://www.theartstory.org/movement-romanticism.htm


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Gee, I hope so too, Edwardbast, for my own sake.
> 
> It's not exactly a "tritone substitution," because such a thing did not exist back then, and additionally, it's not a dominant chord substituting for another dominant chord; but it's a re-interpretation of a diminished seventh chord by substituting another root, which is awfully close, and related in other ways to the way jazz musicians (who are 12-note chromatic thinkers) use diminished-seventh/dominant chord relations, and root substitutions.
> 
> ...


You've analyzed the chord correctly as a dominant 7th with a flat 9 in F minor. It doesn't have anything to do with tritone substitution though. In jazz a tritone substitute for this dominant 7th would be some form of a Gb7 chord.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> You've analyzed the chord correctly as a dominant 7th with a flat 9 in F minor. *It doesn't have anything to do with tritone substitution though.* In jazz a tritone substitute for this dominant 7th would be some form of a Gb7 chord.


You should see how it_ is _related to this, though, and how root substitution relates to diminished seventh chords in general; in other words, you should understand the _underlying principle_ behind this.

It all started with (key of C) the resolution of vii˚, B-D-F, which can be considered as an incomplete G7 with no root (G-B-D-F). 
B-D-F resolves as if it were a G7, to C.

This suggestion of considering vii˚ as an incomplete dominant is found in Walter Piston's _Harmony,_ and in Schoenberg's _Harmonielehre._


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> The fact that Beethoven uses themes that may sound similar to Mozart in the first movement of this sonata may be explained by this movement having it's first drafts back in 1801 - in Beethoven's early period, when he was still under the influence of many classical masters, including Mozart, and hadn't completely developed his own voice yet. This movement is the exception, not the rule, for late Beethoven.
> 
> Also, it should be noted that both Mozart's and Beethoven's works are somewhat similar in style to those of older composers who wrote pieces with the same slow introduction plus fugal writting after. An example of such a piece is this very beautiful adagio and fugue in D minor by W.F.Bach*:
> 
> ...


Sorry, I didn't carefully read your post until now. You still validate my point cause I wasn't saying Beethoven did not have his individual voice, He had a strong one, I just think that he had it within the frames of the Viennese school, developed his own voice like how Mozart and Haydn did theirs. (Haydn Seven Last Words of Christ is noteworthy in this regard) Haydn late in his career influenced the predecessor he took influence from, CPE Bach. Similarly Mozart in his early period took influence from Haydn, but he himself also influenced Haydn after his death to a degree. I also think if Mozart lived long enough he probably would have thought Beethoven's work inspirational, would probably have been inspired by Beethoven's work. 
Putting skills, technique and technical proficiency aside, I think "[a composer] doesn't have individuality" an excuse often said by people who don't put much effort or interest into understanding his work. It's a common thing people promoting bias against pre-Romantic masters say - "they all sound the same". Mozart (and Haydn for that matter) didn't write the same thing as their predecessors.
I'm well aware of Mozart's work numbered K404a, which is basically his study of his precedessor's, but Adagio and Fugue in C minor K546 does go further then WF Bach's D minor to pave the way for Beethoven. There's even evidence Beethoven studied K546 in detail. (Hess 37)










K546 (written later than WF Bach's D minor) does sound more modern and (arguably) passionate (like Beethoven's masterworks). For example, the risposta of the subject enters with a disonance, a seventh, which is modern approach, a practice of fugal writing unusual in those times. I just find the idea 'Mozart did not develop music' absurd. Likewise, I find the adagio of Mozart's 26th symphony (1773) inspirational, (especially the orchestration at 1:50 in the video), foreshadowing Maurerische Trauermusik (1785) to come later. Again they're not the same thing as Christian Bach's music - as Beethoven's is not the same thing as Mozart's or Haydn's.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I didn't carefully read your post until now. You still validate my point cause I wasn't saying Beethoven did not have his individual voice, He had a strong one, I just think that he had it within the frames of the Viennese school, developed his own voice like how Mozart and Haydn did theirs. (Haydn Seven Last Words of Christ is noteworthy in this regard) Haydn late in his career influenced the predecessor he took influence from, CPE Bach. Similarly Mozart in his early period took influence from Haydn, but he himself also influenced Haydn after his death to a degree. I also think if Mozart lived long enough he probably would have thought Beethoven's work inspirational, would probably have been inspired by Beethoven's work.
> Putting skills, technique and technical proficiency aside, I think *"[a composer] doesn't have individuality"* an excuse often said by people who don't put much effort or interest into understanding his work. It's a common thing people promoting bias against pre-Romantic masters say - *"they all sound the same"*. Mozart (and Haydn for that matter) didn't write the same thing as their predecessors.
> I'm well aware of Mozart's work numbered K404a, which is basically his study of his precedessor's, but Adagio and Fugue in C minor K546 does go further then WF Bach's D minor to pave the way for Beethoven. There's even evidence Beethoven studied K546 in detail. (Hess 37)
> 
> ...


I agree with you. Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (and, why not, Schubert) had their own distinctive, unique voices, as Rameau, Vivaldi and Bach before them also did, although perhaps the stylistic differences between all these masters are somewhat more subtle than those of composers from the Romantic era and beyond, and this is due to the emphasis in the individual, a trait of the refered era.

The statements in bold are not by me, and I do not see the need to defend from your points about them (I'm actually with you in these - to say that Mozart didn't have individuality or that he didn't develop music sounds preposterous to me aswell).


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

I understand where you're heading, Beethoven's 9th symphony is a really good example to the point you're making; this is one of the reasons Beethoven is one of my favorite composers (but not the only one!), but all three are very good at this obviously.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.
> 
> I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


Lots of responses to this thread…so hope not repeating anyone. If this is indicative relating to the question: I have always found myself to be strongly in the company of the composer when I listen to Beethoven, more than any other composer or song writer. I'm sure some of that arises from the wide reading I have done on him and his myth - I feel I 'know' him more than any other composer. But I also feel it's about the personality he brings to his music. That's what puts him at the top of the pile for me.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have *strong character and individuality* that can't be matched.
> 
> I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


Are you kidding man? Beethoven is the boss and you know it! ;-)

Mozart and Bach are genius

And Beethoven is.....


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I've been thinking about this for some time, I was listening to Spohr violin concertos the other day, thinking about the differences in style with his contemporary, Beethoven. How his lesser-known concertos like Triple Concerto might sound similar/different from Spohr's. (Keep in mind, I'm not talking about who influenced whom, but whether they really had 'individuality' strong as some people here claim.) 
People here say that it is hard to tell the difference between lesser-known works of Haydn with those of Mozart. But then similarly, people not knowledgeable in Romantic music will have hard time telling the difference between Wagner symphony in C major and a lesser-known Mendelssohn symphony if they heard them for the first time without knowing who composed them. 
I remember Larkenfield once saying that Tchaikovsky and Brahms had different styles that can be immediately recognized by people listening to their music for the first time. But I wonder if he ever looked at the style of Sergei Taneyev compared with Tchaikovsky. Classicists of different nationalities - CPE Bach and Luigi Boccherini - How can you say they are the same? People often overlook how many styles Classicists could employ.






Of course, due to musical development from the previous eras, and expansion of society due to industrialization, population growth, there was far greater number of artists in the 19th century than than previous eras. 
Greater number of artists leads to greater variety in artist styles. Sport tactics, strategies, variety in playing style back in the times of WW2 weren't as varied as today because there weren't as many professional players, coaches, teams as today. Academic studies, research on optimal team management, medical care, and training systems weren't as organized and advanced as they are today. 
Artists of later eras have more paths they can take than those of previous eras cause they can either choose to build on the work of their predecessors, or deviate from them etc. That's why there are many more styles (like neo-classicism, neo-romanticism, or serialism etc) in the modern age than ever before.

This is not necessarily 'individuality', more like it should be explained in terms of 'inevitable expansion of variety in art styles', caused by the factors discussed above. "Romantics put greater emphasis on individuality", - are we sure this is not a myth? 
Did Beethoven ever say anything to the effect, "I must compose differently from all others. That's what makes my identity."

An early 19th century Russian composer, Charles Mayer's Valse Melancolique had even been misattributed to Chopin for a long time. - I haven't seen anyone here properly explaining the reason for that. Whatabout Hummel concertos sounding like Chopin?
From what I've seen, Mozart wasn't obsessed with monothematicism like Haydn, Haydn wasn't obsessed with chromaticism like Mozart. "They all sound the same" is an excuse by people who don't have the interest or motivation to put in effort and time to investigate these things. And I'm sure there is also propaganda going on to promote these stereotypes about certain music.

This video on Beethoven's first symphony examines different elements in Haydn and Mozart that influenced the work.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

That a nice video, thanks!


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> As a composer that is, his symphonies at the very least seem to me to all have strong character and individuality that can't be matched.
> 
> I don't truly feel Mozart or Bach accomplished that so well.


Beethoven is definitely the most dynamic and syncopated of the three, because of this, he surely has a 'stronger' voice in his expressiveness.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Flutter said:


> Beethoven is definitely the most dynamic and syncopated of the three, because of this, he surely has a 'stronger' voice in his expressiveness.


Thank you for pointing out the obvious. The point has been lost. Of course, Beethoven had the stronger voice, but it doesn't mean that others didn't have a strong voice as well, or character, or individuality. But really, who can positively thunder and powerfully explode as much as Beethoven when he's feeling the surge? It's something that can be fundamentally _felt_ in the music, such as in his fantastic Fifth Symphony. He could really let it all hang out and he was unafraid of passion and power. His music is full of the power of it.


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> Thank you for pointing out the obvious. The point has been lost. Of course, Beethoven had the stronger voice, but it doesn't mean that others didn't have a strong voice as well, or character, or individuality. But really, who can positively thunder and powerfully explode as much as Beethoven when he's feeling the surge? It's something that can be fundamentally _felt_ in the music.


Not sure what you are getting at, the only composers being discussed are the popular trio of Beethoven, Mozart and Bach according to the OP. 
Beethoven is not near my favorite composer personally, nor the 'strongest' or most expressive I would name (which would definitely be a mid-20th century composer for me)


----------

