Bach vs. Beethoven!

[prémont]

Much of LvB's music is about discovering new possibilities for expanding the language of sonata form, variations, rondo, scherzo, and fugue.

Very true, but you relate to the form, I relate to the content.

[prémont]

Yes, and consciously. I don't believe in this trite Romantic worthless dualism between form and content.

Well, if we assume that you are right: What are the characteristics of personal music, and what are the characteristics of impersonal music.

[Scriptavolant]

I'll get into this gracious teacher-pupil dialectic to consider that this:

For comparation much of LvB´s music is about his personal emotions in relation to his young female piano-pupils, but for both composers the content of their music is the description of their personal emotions.

Doesn't say a thing. It's obvious. The way composers solve the problem of relation to form is what musical creation is all about. That's the starting point, interesting points come after this basical assumpion. These ways change, enormously, from baroque to romanticism, from renaissance to Darmstadt.

This reminds me a bit of the other discussion, where someone was in disagree with the assumption that Baroque was a mainly polyphonic period, while Romantic was mainly omophonic. No, it wasn't true, they were all equally polyphonic according to some. Now, each musical period has become sentimental and descriptive. Sorry but it looks quite like a sort of syncretic salad and I don't enjoy syncretic salads. 

[prémont]

Scriptavolant,
Now it is me, who don´t get it.
Am I right, or are you wrong? Both I am afraid.

[Larry Rinkel]

Now now Larry, let's not sling personal attacks about, that's pretty childish.

Now now James, do I hear the sound of the pot caling the kettle black? 

[Larry Rinkel]

Very true, but you relate to the form, I relate to the content.

My point is that the form of a work is its content, and the content its form. What Beethoven may have felt about such and such a pretty girl has nothing to do with the Moonlight Sonata or Für Elise (the only examples I can think of where external circumstances might be adduced to support your point).

[Larry Rinkel]

whatever...

Res ipsa loquitur.

[Scriptavolant]

Scriptavolant,
Now it is me, who don´t get it.
Am I right, or are you wrong? Both I am afraid.

What is that you don't get? Form and content create an inseparable unity in great works of art. In my opinion, of course. There's no way you can consider one without considering the other. A sharp distinction is just an abstract mental construct which has no sense, if you can clearly distinguish between these two elements, work of art has something wrong (example: some of Liszt's Tone Poems)
The other quite simple thing I was saying is that baroque expressiveness is far away from Romantic expressiveness. They're different universes with little or none overlapping.

edited on advice of maestro Henning

[karlhenning]

Larry, what language is that?

James, you cannot mean it?

[karlhenning]

Form and content create an inseparable unity in great works of art. In my opinion, of course.

That attempt at a save ("In my opinion, of course") is amusing, but the statement is the wash of a hog.

It's obvious, so don't make us explain it to you 

[Scriptavolant]

That attempt at a save ("In my opinion, of course") is amusing, but the statement is the wash of a hog.

It's obvious, so don't make us explain it to you 

But you just proved my point! In your case infact form and content are both soap bubbles.


Pluf..

[prémont]

In my opinion, of course.

But not in mine, - and I don´t need to cross this out.

[Scriptavolant]

Well I think I'll leave it this way.

By the way, you wrote

but for both [Bach and Beethoven] composers the content of their music is the description of their personal emotions.

I couldn't be less convinced of this statement. And I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this.
Larry seems to have expressed the same idea I have. Form is content and content is form.
Schumann himself wrote that people who think composers sit down and compose just in order to describe their emotions are going wrong.
Something similar you can find in Copland's "What to listen for in music"; he writes that the greatness of a Tone Poem, for example (I think he took the example of Tchaikovsky's "Francesca da Rimini") resides in the way it is formally accomplished, not in the poetical idea alone.
Your platonic view of music as something that necessarily calls for extra-musical baggages leaves me dissatisfied. Nevermind.

[BachQ]

I realize that this is designed to be a pointless thread, but it still amazes me that people admit to voting in this.  Bach lived in a completely different time period than Beethoven ......... COMPLETELY DIFFERENT with no overlap of any kind ........ such that the two composer cannot be compared.  They had entirely different goals, with entirely different resources, and entirely different expectations (of themselves and their audiences).

[Larry Rinkel]

Well I think I'll leave it this way.

By the way, you wrote

I couldn't be less convinced of this statement. And I'm quite sure I'm not alone in this.
Larry seems to have expressed the same idea I have. Form is content and content is form.
Schumann himself wrote that people who think composers sit down and compose just in order to describe their emotions are going wrong.
Something similar you can find in Copland's "What to listen for in music"; he writes that the greatness of a Tone Poem, for example (I think he took the example of Tchaikovsky's "Francesca da Rimini") resides in the way it is formally accomplished, not in the poetical idea alone.
Your platonic view of music as something that necessarily calls for extra-musical baggages leaves me dissatisfied. Nevermind.

I can't remember who said this, but some composer was asked, "what's the hardest part of composing, Mr. Composer? is it getting in the mood, seeing a sunset, feeling inspired?" And the composer replied, "The hardest part of composing is - getting the notes right."

[Don]

I realize that this is designed to be a pointless thread, but it still amazes me that people admit to voting in this.  Bach lived in a completely different time period than Beethoven ......... COMPLETELY DIFFERENT with no overlap of any kind ........ such that the two composer cannot be compared.  They had entirely different goals, with entirely different resources, and entirely different expectations (of themselves and their audiences).

Which doesn't change the fact that I prefer to listen to Bach's music.

[Kullervo]

Which doesn't change the fact that I prefer to listen to Bach's music.

Of course not. The ridiculous thing is that people are attempting to justify why they prefer Bach over Beethoven and vice-versa.

[jochanaan]

I like Bach best--until I listen to some Beethoven.  Then I like Beethoven best--until I hear some Bach again, and...

[Kullervo]

its not ridiculous...when you think about it...it's even more ridiculous (and lazy) to just state a name without going into why there is the preference....someone explaining why they prefer one composer over another etc, nothing wrong with that.....this is a discussion forum for fsakes...and you're not going to agree with everyone, that's LIFE...learn to deal with it.

You're right, this is a discussion forum, but discussing your ill-informed assertions (especially given your bizarrely defensive disposition) hardly seems worth the effort.

[Larry Rinkel]

Didn't Igor Stravinsky loathe Beethoven?

At the early part of his career. Towards the middle and later years he came to revere Beethoven above all other composers, and especially for the later quartets.