Unpopular Opinions

[Parsifal]

This is discussed in the literature. He got a little more money but not so much that it should have been a decisive factor (as he had to compose the alternate finale he also had to do more work for that money). As far as I remember he also agreed to do the 4-hand version when they had agreed to publish it separately so it could also have been the case that Beethoven really wanted people to understand the piece more deeply if it was separated and also available to be played on piano.

Was the 4-hand version ever produced, or left undone at his death?

[North Star]

Was the 4-hand version ever produced, or left undone at his death?

Quoth Wikipedia:

In early 1826, the publisher of the Op. 130 String Quartet, Mathias Artaria, told Beethoven there were "many requests" for a piano four-hand arrangement of the Große Fuge.[73] This was well before any discussion of separating the fugue from the main body of the quartet. Artaria asked Beethoven to prepare the arrangement, but Beethoven was not interested, so Artaria instead asked Anton Halm to prepare it. Beethoven was not satisfied with Halm's work and subsequently made his own note-for-note arrangement of the quartet. Beethoven's arrangement was completed subsequent to the C♯ minor String Quartet, Op. 131 and was published by Artaria as Op. 134.[74]

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

With a few exceptions (Haydn, Mozart), the music of the second half of the 18th century is the least interesting in the history of music.

[North Star]

With a few exceptions (Haydn, Mozart), the music of the second half of the 18th century is the least interesting in the history of music.

What about e.g. CPE Bach's empfindsamer Stil?
https://www.youtube.com/v/I9VEW1fK70c

[Parsifal]

Quoth Wikipedia:

I could have looked that up, I guess. I wonder if the 4 hands piano version is worth hearing.

[Ken B]

With a few exceptions (Haydn, Mozart), the music of the second half of the 18th century is the least interesting in the history of music.

Well as Karlo says, CPE Bach. But this is not an unpopular opinion particularly. Only two composers from the era are really well known. And some, like Ditters von Dittersdorf, are known mainly as objects of mockery.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Re CPE Bach: 'a few' (as I said) does not constitute only TWO composers. I do love CPE's music very much.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Well as Karlo says, CPE Bach. But this is not an unpopular opinion particularly. Only two composers from the era are really well known. And some, like Ditters von Dittersdorf, are known mainly as objects of mockery.

For an era which is superficially the 'image' of classical music, it is then rather striking that not too many composers are popular from that time!

[The new erato]

With a few exceptions (Haydn, Mozart), the music of the second half of the 18th century is the least interesting in the history of music.

Definitely the period I listen the least to. But I would like to add Gluck (dead in 1787) to the list of interesting composers, his late "reform operas" are masterpieces.

[Jo498]

If only due to Haydn, Mozart but also for some Gluck (especially the Iphigenie-operas are closer than almost anything before Mozart to what we understand as musical drama), early Beethoven and maybe a little CPE Bach and Boccherini I think the period is considerably more listened to than the second half of the 17th century (and of course any music before Monteverdi because this is usually considered specialist fare).
And with all respect due to Purcell, Biber or Corelli, I think Mozart and Haydn alone easily make 1750-1800 more attractive for me than 1650-1700.

[71 dB]

And with all respect due to Purcell, Biber or Corelli, I think Mozart and Haydn alone easily make 1750-1800 more attractive for me than 1650-1700.

Of course for less ignorant people 1650-1700 has more to offer than just Purcell, Biber or Corelli:

Marc-Antoine Charpentier
Jean-Baptiste Lully
Matthias Weckmann
Dietrich Buxtehude
Nikolaus Bruhns

To name some of the most important names.

[Jo498]

Sure, or Alessandro Scarlatti, Pachelbel, Charpentier.
For less ignorant people there are also far more names in 1750-1800 than Haydn, Mozart, Gluck. This does not change the point at all that for most listeners Haydn and Mozart are sufficiently weighty to make this half century very important.

[North Star]

Re CPE Bach: 'a few' (as I said) does not constitute only TWO composers. I do love CPE's music very much.

Excellent, I was just checking And I can't say I'm very enthusiastic about the era either, apart from a half a dozen names.

[North Star]

Of course for less ignorant people 1650-1700 has more to offer than just Purcell, Biber or Corelli:

Marc-Antoine Charpentier
Jean-Baptiste Lully
Matthias Weckmann
Dietrich Buxtehude
Nikolaus Bruhns

To name some of the most important names.

Or Froberger, Schmelzer, Marais, Louis Couperin, Caldara, Henri du Mont, Rosenmüller, Strozzi, Locke, Alessandro Melani, Bassani, de Visée, Muffat, Veracini, Campra, Kuhnau.

[Jo498]

The point is not really some names but that almost all forms and genres that dominated until far into the 20th century were developed and firmly established in the second half of the 18th century: Symphony, string quartet, piano sonata and all the other sonata-based genres like piano trio, duo sonata etc., solo concerto with symphonic elements, maybe even the art song in the form that dominated the 19th+20th century. Also the shape of the "modern" symphony orchestra and the modern public concert for a paying audience stems from that time. And Mozart's and Gluck's operas should not be underestimated either. It is not an accident that some of these operas were the first ones that survived their composers and remained in the repertoire almost ever since.

Of the 6 half centuries between 1600 and 1900 1750-1800 is probably the most influential (although one could maybe make a case for the early 1600s as well). It certainly is the most influential if we look at the genres dominating the repertoire today.

[Pat B]

Of course for less ignorant people 1650-1700 has more to offer than just Purcell, Biber or Corelli:

If you're going to miss the point, you might as well be rude about it.

[Ken B]

The point is not really some names but almost all forms and genres that dominated until far into the 20th century were all developed and firmly established in the second half of the 18th century: Symphony, string quartet, piano sonata and all the other sonata-based genres like piano trio, duo sonata etc., solo concerto with symphonic elements, maybe even the art song in the form that dominated the 19th+20th century. Also the shape of the "modern" symphony orchestra and the modern public concert for a paying audience stems from that time. And Mozart's and Gluck's operas should not be underestimated either. It is not an accident that they were the first operas that survived their composers and remained in the repertoire almost ever since.

Of the 6 half centuries between 1600 and 1900 1750-1800 is probably the most influential (although one could maybe make a case for the early 1600s as well). It certainly is the most influential if we look at the genres dominating the repertoire today.

Good points.  (My vote is for 1590-1610 in terms of influence btw)

[Florestan]

Good points.

+ 1.

My vote is for 1590-1610 in terms of influence btw

Except for opera, how many of the genres which flourished in that timespan survived it for more than 50 years? What composer of that timespan can be said to have had tremendous, enormous and huge influence on any other composer outside the operatic field? 

Jo is spot on: 1750-1800 is the most influential period of classical music, period.

[North Star]

Except for opera, how many of the genres which flourished in that timespan survived it for more than 50 years? What composer of that timespan can be said to have had tremendous, enormous and huge influence on any other composer outside the operatic field? 

Common-practice tonality was the mainstream until well into the 20th Century..

[Mahlerian]

Common-practice tonality was the mainstream until well into the 20th Century..

In some circles, but the harmony in Copland, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Shostakovich, Ravel, and so forth depend on the freedom allowed by ignoring or destroying functional harmony.

Strauss is an outlier, Franz Schmidt also.  Common practice tonality was long dead by 1950, and post-tonality was the mainstream.