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

[Don]

I don't understand what you are saying here.  It is his very popularity that I am suggesting is what makes him over-rated; why does your comment negate it?

We don't seem to be on the same wavelength here.  I'm not commenting on the value of Beethoven's music, just that he's likely the most popular composer.  With that type of designation comes great exposure, one sign being a slew of recordings on a regular basis.

I don't appreciate Vivadi's music much, but I know he's a very popular composer.  So frequent recordings of his music don't surprise me.  Do I think Vivaldi is over-rated?  Sure, but that's not relevant.

[dtwilbanks]

Even when it's directed against Beethoven? (Not the case on this thread, mind you.)

Oh, no. Only overblown fervor in the positive.

[Don]

The key thing to note about Beethoven's popularity is that it is quite seperate from, for example, Puccini's; for people don't go about saying he is a genius on a level unmatched in history. I agree popularity itself doesn't equate to making something over-rated, but Beethoven's popularity does, for with it comes so-called objective arguments suggesting it is something profound and unique, whereas everyone admits they just like Puccini's tunz.

And that is the problem.

I think the common view is that Beethoven's music IS profound and Puccini's is not.  Again, this has nothing to do with my personal views, simply how I observe these matters.

[71 dB]

I like 71dB's overblown fervor. There should be more overblown fervor, I say.

Thank you David T. Wilbanks! 

I think the common view is that Beethoven's music IS profound and Puccini's is not.

Puccini not profound? 

[Bunny]

The former group. A good example would be Brahms.

It is one of the greatest symphonic works, not greatest works. You are yet again showing your symphonic centricity.

If universality of art is a benchmark of greatness, shouldn't the Eagles be considered be better than Beethoven?

Michel,

Is English not your first language?  I wrote:

His ninth symphony is recognized as one of the greatest works of one of the greatest composers, and this stands as an absolute which needs no qualifications. 

[Don]

Puccini not profound? 

If you feel he is profound, I have no problem with that.

[Bunny]

I don't understand what you are saying here.  It is his very popularity that I am suggesting is what makes him over-rated; why does your comment negate it?

The key thing to note about Beethoven's popularity is that it is quite seperate from, for example, Puccini's; for people don't go about saying he is a genius on a level unmatched in history. I agree popularity itself doesn't equate to making something over-rated, but Beethoven's popularity does, for with it comes so-called objective arguments suggesting it is something profound and unique, whereas everyone admits they just like Puccini's tunz.

And that is the problem.

Shakespeare is the most produced playwright in the English language.  Michelangelo's Creation of Man is one of the most reproduced paintings in the world.  Are you also going to suggest that these artists are over-rated?  One has nothing to do with the other.  You don't understand that popularity does not negate greatness.  Popularity doesn't equate to greatness either, otherwise groups like 'N Sync would be considered as great as Beethoven, and it's obvious that they aren't. 

It's looking like 71 dB has Elgar, and Bunny has Beethoven, Michel.

Each of us has favorites, and I don't think that Bunny shows the over-blown fervor for Beethoven that 71dB shows for Elgar - not even close. 

Thanks, Don!  Saves me the trouble of getting the fly swatter.

[Michel]

I think the common view is that Beethoven's music IS profound and Puccini's is not.  Again, this has nothing to do with my personal views, simply how I observe these matters.

But that doesn't make his music anymore legitimately popular, thats my point.

Although, and this is a seperate discussion, I hardly think Puccini is just a "decorative triviality".

If we take this logic further, that profound popularity is somehow more legitimate than farcicial popularity, then it follows that we must objectively consider Mozart better than Haydn, which many, including Prokofiev, would disagree with.

[Michel]

Bunny,

When have I in this thread suggested popularity ipso facto equates to over-rated?

[71 dB]

If you feel he is profound, I have no problem with that.

Puccini is a profound opera composer.
In fact he is my favorite opera composer of the romantic era.

[Josquin des Prez]

If we take this logic further, that profound popularity is somehow more legitimate than farcicial popularity, then it follows that we must objectively consider Mozart better than Haydn, which many, including Prokofiev, would disagree with.

Mozart IS objectively greater then Haydn, at least to my eyes  . He matured earlier, produced more masterpieces, and was as equally innovative, if not more (Haydn was a master of his own time until the end, but Mozart was already looking farther ahead). In most cases, he just out did Haydn in everything he touched, including the two genres in which Haydn excelled the most: the chamber music and symphonic works.

If he had lived longer, he would have eclipsed the older master beyond all doubt.

Also: Beethoven >>> Puccini. 

[karlhenning]

In most cases, he just out did Haydn in everything he touched, including the two genres in which Haydn excelled the most: the chamber music and symphonic works.

Thats not so cut-and-dried as you may think.

[karlhenning]

I am not a Beethoven ignorant.

No one said you are.

[karlhenning]

You can bash any composer. But when the bashing is over, Beethoven will be standing at the top of the heap, shaking his mighty fist at Michel and Karl.

I crack myself up.

[Edited for way bad grammar.]

I like that!

[karlhenning]

So you think, for example, that the volume of new recordings generated every year of Beethoven's music is not at all disproportionate in comparison to other composers?

No.

Thank you for demonstrating one method of overrating Beethoven.

(* retires fly-swatter *)

[BachQ]

Puccini is a profound opera composer.
In fact he is my favorite opera composer of the romantic era.

Elgar's The Spanish Lady is my favorite incomplete opera, and Elgar is my favorite incomplete opera composer . . . . . .

[Danny]

De Gustibus, as they say.  I love and cherish the Ninth, but quite frankly I also love the Sixth and think its just as fine of a masterpiece.

And I'm wondering how some can compare Puccini to Beethoven.  Mabye Puccini and Verdi instead?

[karlhenning]

And I'm wondering how some can compare Puccini to Beethoven.

Puccini was a more successful opera composer 

[Josquin des Prez]

Thats not so cut-and-dried as you may think.

It is if you compare either one during the time they actually crossed each other, mainly the 1780s. This is when both composers became more consistent in the works they produced but the older master could hardly keep up with the avalanche of masterpieces poured by his younger colleague. Haydn gained some ground during the 90s, but at that point Mozart was already six feet under.

I think what's really important is that both composers were pivotal in the development of the high classical style, something which is usually attributed to Haydn alone. Because of this, not many people realize just how revolutionary Mozart really was.

[Josquin des Prez]

Puccini was a more successful opera composer 

Where Beethoven was a more successful composer period.