What does Beethoven's 9th symphony mean to you?

[Michel]

No further questions.

Pathetic. I see you have also ignored Karl's excellent point.

But then I should expect no better from the hoardes of hero worshippers without a clue.

[Bunny]

Don't get me wrong, it is a great symphony, just like the 5th, and the 7th. But is categorically not, as many seem to claim, some act of genius equalled only by God's creation of the world.

People make such a song and dance of this music; it is good, but then so is lots of other stuff - it isn't the pinnacle of western achievement as many seem to claim. Not least because it shows the symphonic centricity of many of you.

And in that sense it is over-rated, and as a result, over-played.

It is as foolish to dismiss Beethoven's importance as it is to over emphasize it.  Even if no sensible person thinks of this work as the next best thing to the creation of the world by God, that was not the case in the 19th century when Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, and Mahler were all struggling to find their voices.  To them, Beethoven was an enormous presence that they all struggled to deal with, and strived to compete with.  None of these composers would have ever argued that any of Beethoven's works, especially his great symphonies were over-rated.  Mahler certainly recognized the importance of Beethoven's work; I doubt Mahler would have incorporated any songs into his symphonies without the example of Beethoven's 9th.  Even the opening bars of the 9th where great sound rises as if from silence have been remembered by Mahler in the opening of his first symphony.  If Mahler could pay homage to Beethoven, then what's your problem?

The devaluation of Beethoven's work couldn't happen until the prevalence of recorded music made the music as familiar and banal as processed cheese.  In this case familiarity might not have bred contempt, but it did breed less respect.

One might as easily argue that Shakespeare wasn't such a great writer or poet because people spoof the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet or the soliloquy from Hamlet.  Again, familiarity has caused some individuals to devalue his contributions, and fail to understand how deeply he influenced those who came after him.

[karlhenning]

Even if no sensible person thinks of this work as the next best thing to the creation of the world by God, that was not the case in the 19th century when Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, and Mahler were all struggling to find their voices.  To them, Beethoven was an enormous presence that they all struggled to deal with, and strived to compete with.

Yes, of course, we know all that.  It does, you realize, say as much about Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner and Mahler themselves, and of their time and culture, as it does of Beethoven's work, itself.

I'm an American composer in the 21st century;  I am not going to see or hear Beethoven in the same way that (say) Schumann or Berlioz did.  Someone in my shoes who does see and hear Beethoven in the same way that Berlioz did, is apt to come off as highly affected, don't you think?

Time is a river;  we never step into the same stream twice.  Even the artistic giants of the past, are not fixed points.

[karlhenning]

The devaluation of Beethoven's work couldn't happen until the prevalence of recorded music made the music as familiar and banal as processed cheese.  In this case familiarity might not have bred contempt, but it did breed less respect.

That's only one side of it.  The boom in music reproduction also expanded Beethoven's audience to a degree he could never have dreamt of.

[greg]

to me it doesn't mean anything since it doesn't make me respond emotionally at all.... the only response i got from it was boredom.

i don't get it

[Bunny]

Yes, of course, we know all that.  It does, you realize, say as much about Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Wagner and Mahler themselves, and of their time and culture, as it does of Beethoven's work, itself.

I'm an American composer in the 21st century;  I am not going to see or hear Beethoven in the same way that (say) Schumann or Berlioz did.  Someone in my shoes who does see and hear Beethoven in the same way that Berlioz did, is apt to come off as highly affected, don't you think?

Time is a river;  we never step into the same stream twice.  Even the artistic giants of the past, are not fixed points.

That's only one side of it.  The boom in music reproduction also expanded Beethoven's audience to a degree he could never have dreamt of.

It's nice to know that you are familiar with Heraclitus to the point of paraphrasing him, but the point I was trying to make is that if you cite the greatness of works that grew from the inspiration of Beethoven's work, how can you then devalue that seminal work?  Better to acknowledge that the stream itself became different after Beethoven set his foot in it.  It's impossible to think of how music would have progressed without him because he is a fact, a rock upon which 19th century built it's music, or one which changed the course of that stream you would later put your foot in.  That modern composers find him less relevant today does not mean that his works are less great.  I doubt most writers living today would cite Shakespeare as their main inspiration either, and yet no one disputes the greatness of his works.

[Bunny]

to me it doesn't mean anything since it doesn't make me respond emotionally at all.... the only response i got from it was boredom.

i don't get it

Then don't listen to it.  If you don't understand French, you aren't going to enjoy Racine.

[DavidW]

Bunny's reply to Michel is the case of a strawman.  Michel wasn't dismissing Beethoven's importance, he was putting Beethoven back into perspective.  This whole every other composer struggled to find their voice after Beethoven is empty rhetoric because it is based on remarks from those composers about the symphony.  Take as an example songs.  Schubert is one of the greatest song writers that you could imagine.  His mastery of the form did not see him struggling in Beethoven's shadow.  And even though Beethoven was a pioneer of the piano sonata, Schumann and Chopin piano music far beyond where Beethoven was (don't think progress, think different), and they had a distinct voice completely unlike Beethoven.

Michel made the point that overly praising the great 9th is symphony-centric.  Bunny, you reinforced his point by saying that 19th century composers had to struggle to find their own voices.  Considering that you start by saying the he dismissed Beethoven's importance means that you simply misread his post.

I think that Beethoven should be appreciated for his superb compositions and his impact on musical culture.  I don't think that he should be appreciated for the Romantic image cast on him by his admirers.  I like to call this fuzzy thinking about Beethoven "Beethoven the Revolutionary" after the absurd marketing campaign.

That is what I think has happened here to an extent, some people have slipped from talking about Beethoven to talking about the Revolutionary.  That does Beethoven an injustice.

[karlhenning]

. . . I like to call this fuzzy thinking about Beethoven "Beethoven the Revolutionary" after the absurd marketing campaign.

No marketing campaign which succeeds in dominating a publishing industry, by insuring an average of three new complete symphony sets every year, can truly be dismissed as absurd 

[Florestan]

Now, if music after Beethoven was different than it was before him, isn't this some kind of revolution? Just asking.

[Michel]

Bunny's reply to Michel is the case of a strawman.  Michel wasn't dismissing Beethoven's importance, he was putting Beethoven back into perspective.  This whole every other composer struggled to find their voice after Beethoven is empty rhetoric because it is based on remarks from those composers about the symphony.  Take as an example songs.  Schubert is one of the greatest song writers that you could imagine.  His mastery of the form did not see him struggling in Beethoven's shadow.  And even though Beethoven was a pioneer of the piano sonata, Schumann and Chopin piano music far beyond where Beethoven was (don't think progress, think different), and they had a distinct voice completely unlike Beethoven.

Michel made the point that overly praising the great 9th is symphony-centric.  Bunny, you reinforced his point by saying that 19th century composers had to struggle to find their own voices.  Considering that you start by saying the he dismissed Beethoven's importance means that you simply misread his post.

I think that Beethoven should be appreciated for his superb compositions and his impact on musical culture.  I don't think that he should be appreciated for the Romantic image cast on him by his admirers.  I like to call this fuzzy thinking about Beethoven "Beethoven the Revolutionary" after the absurd marketing campaign.

That is what I think has happened here to an extent, some people have slipped from talking about Beethoven to talking about the Revolutionary.  That does Beethoven an injustice.

Great points David.

And Bunny, nowhere did I "dismiss Beethoven's importance". I have not downplayed his achievements at all. Saying something is over-rated does not mean it is not great, especailly since, as I say, people make out that it is not only great, but the greatest. As a result, I still think it is relatviely speaking, over-rated.

[DavidW]

No marketing campaign which succeeds in dominating a publishing industry, by insuring an average of three new complete symphony sets every year, can truly be dismissed as absurd 

Ah touche.

[greg]

Now, if music after Beethoven was different than it was before him, isn't this some kind of revolution? Just asking.

no, it just means Schoenberg traveled back in time and helped Beethoven to be more innovative, since he wanted music to "hurry up" by the time he started writing his own music.

[dtwilbanks]

Revolutionary

[JoshLilly]

It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise rational people can get into heated, even venemous debates, over matters of personal preference and taste. As if it is even possible to be right or wrong on this. People who slam each other over what is nothing more than vibrations in the air, completely intangible and devoid of all objectivity. Something you can't eat, or breathe, or drink.

Well, I suppose technically you're kind-of breathing it. I mean, if the air has these waves going through it, doesn't it go into your nose or mouth? I guess it could even reach the lungs. Or even go through your torso, if it's really deep bass. You know, how a lot of young people drive around with their cars vibrating, and you feel it in your chest, maybe even your lungs. But that's not really breathing it. How much do those sound systems cost? I should have invested in hearing aids 10 years ago, that industry is going to make a fortune when these kids get older. Have you ever seen a car vibrate from that? The glass, or the license plate can even shake. In North Carolina, they only have a license plate on the front. I think this is a stupid idea.

[karlhenning]

Wait! There's venom here, and I missed it? 

[DavidW]

Well, I suppose technically you're kind-of breathing it. I mean, if the air has these waves going through it, doesn't it go into your nose or mouth? I guess it could even reach the lungs. Or even go through your torso, if it's really deep bass. You know, how a lot of young people drive around with their cars vibrating, and you feel it in your chest, maybe even your lungs. But that's not really breathing it. How much do those sound systems cost? I should have invested in hearing aids 10 years ago, that industry is going to make a fortune when these kids get older. Have you ever seen a car vibrate from that? The glass, or the license plate can even shake. In North Carolina, they only have a license plate on the front. I think this is a stupid idea.

I didn't want to take Beethoven in the mouth, especially deep down the throat, but he was revolutionary!

[greg]

It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise rational people can get into heated, even venemous debates, over matters of personal preference and taste. As if it is even possible to be right or wrong on this. People who slam each other over what is nothing more than vibrations in the air, completely intangible and devoid of all objectivity. Something you can't eat, or breathe, or drink.

Well, I suppose technically you're kind-of breathing it. I mean, if the air has these waves going through it, doesn't it go into your nose or mouth? I guess it could even reach the lungs. Or even go through your torso, if it's really deep bass. You know, how a lot of young people drive around with their cars vibrating, and you feel it in your chest, maybe even your lungs. But that's not really breathing it. How much do those sound systems cost? I should have invested in hearing aids 10 years ago, that industry is going to make a fortune when these kids get older. Have you ever seen a car vibrate from that? The glass, or the license plate can even shake. In North Carolina, they only have a license plate on the front. I think this is a stupid idea.

so is what you're suggesting that many people find Beethoven tasty and delicious?

they should make Beethoven cereal then!

[karlhenning]

Beethoveenios

[71 dB]

Not as good as one of the Pomp and Circumstance Marches, eh?

Considering the place LvB's 9th has in classical music it means amazingly little to me meaning it does not blow me away. In fact I could say only the 6th symphony means something to me. Beethoven's use of orchestra is perfect for a "pastoral" symphony. It really works.

Elgar's marches are awesome! Elgar composed brilliant marches, not only "Pomp and Circumstances." I am always amazed by the quality when I listen to them. So energetic music! Good listening in the morning to get energy level up! For marches Elgar's marches mean amazingly much to me.