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

[dtwilbanks]

Beethoven's 9th symphony means:

That's how I discovered it. 

[Don]

Exactly, my taste is profound. 

With that settled, let's just say that both Beethoven and Puccini wrote profound music.  Every composer's music is recorded just the right number of times, and popularity is nothing more than an indication of popularity.  Is everyone happy now?

[karlhenning]

Is everybody happy?

[SimonGodders]

Beethoven's 9th symphony means:

LOL!


Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well....

[Josquin des Prez]

I have this wicked fantasy of someone standing at Beethoven's elbow, after all the work and sweat he put into Fidelio, after all the years and turmoil, and saying in Beethoven's ear:  Pretty good.

Now, how about writing another?

Fidelio demonstrates Beethoven's concern in excelling in all forms, even those he had absolutely no interest in, such as opera. If this doesn't actually point to a competitive nature, i don't know what to say... 

[Don]

Is everybody happy?

Only for those not discontented.

[Xenophanes]

Indeed not.  I've sometimes thought that the chorus almost has to be in some kind of ecstasy to sing this properly.  Or ON ecstasy!

Of course, the instrumental parts aren't easy either.  When you get done with the Ninth, you know you've played a symphony!

For trained singers with the appropriate voice ranges, the choral parts of the Ninth are quite doable. For example, the soprano sections on the recordings I have seem to be able to sail through the most difficult parts.  And it's only about 11-12 minutes of singing for the chorus in a movement 22-26 minutes long. Once I learned the bass parts and figured out what to do with them vocally, the high E-flats, E-naturals and F-naturals gave me no difficulties, although at first I began to wonder if I weren't getting too old for this sort of thing.  It's just that I seldom have to stay up there that long singing several words.  Handel's "The Trumpet Shall Sound" will demand a high E on a single word like "sound" and "raised," which is rather less difficult than doing "Über Sternen muß er wohnen" on an E-flat and "Überm Ster-nen-zelt on a high F! But most in our group are not trained singers and it was a challenge to do it well.  But I think everyone felt it was just wonderful doing the Ninth. It's such an awe-inspiring work.

I didn't talk to many of the instrumentalists. The young lady who played the tympani allowed that the marvelous section with the drum rolls about 9 minutes into the first movement made her arms tired, and the flutist remarked how difficult he found one of the high flute parts  But I think the orchestra was quite pleased as well.

[Michel]

Excuse me, you have said that Beethoven's popularity is proof that he's over-rated:

I am merely trying to point out that while popularity is no way to assess the greatness of anything, the fact that something is "popular" does not mean that it is not great.  Frequently, great things are of such quality that great masses of people recognize the quality.  Your main reason for believing Beethoven is over-rated is his popularity, and that is a ridiculous premise.

I've seen Leonardo's Mona Lisa used as the basis for cartoons and jokes all over the world.  It is one or the most reproduced works of art around.  The fact that Leonardo's Last Supper is also one of the most reproduced paintings in the world, and was the basis for a specious novel, doesn't make it less than a masterpiece either.  You may not prefer to listen to Beethoven if given a choice between Beethoven and Brahms.  Don might prefer to listen to Bach and 71dB (formerly known as Elgar) would prefer to listen to Elgar.  That cannot change the fact that Beethoven was one of the greatest composers who ever lived and that his Choral Symphony is one of the greatest and most important works composed in the annals of Western muisic.  The work is not over-rated.  It is what it is.

You are not reading what I am writing. I never said popularity in general equates to being over-rated; I categorically explained that earlier. I am saying the nature of Beethoven's popularity is what makes him overated for, and here I repeat myself, it isn't a simple matter of liking his "tunes", as is the case of Puccini's popularity, but it is a popularity fuelled by the premise that there is something inherently special and profound to his music, and that is something that pretends to be objective in its hierarchising of what constitutes both  good music and what is a good composer.

Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better. And that is why he is over-rated.

And the simple fact is that Puccini fan's don't go about weilding a baseball bat claiming he had something special to say like Beethovians and Wagnerians do is why we have this problem; silly hierarchising of great compoers and great music which is entirely fruitless.

As Nigel once said, when discussing who was better, Mozart or Beethoven..."At that level, who cares?" 

[Scriptavolant]

You are not reading what I am writing. I never said popularity in general equates to being over-rated; I categorically explained that earlier. I am saying the nature of Beethoven's popularity is what makes him overated for, and here I repeat myself, it isn't a simple matter of liking his "tunes", as is the case of Puccini's popularity, but it is a popularity fuelled by the premise that there is something inherently special and profound to his music, and that is something that pretends to be objective in its hierarchising of what constitutes both  good music and what is a good composer.

Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better. And that is why he is over-rated.

And the simple fact is that Puccini fan's don't go about weilding a baseball bat claiming he had something special to say like Beethovians and Wagnerians do is why we have this problem; silly hierarchising of great compoers and great music which is entirely fruitless.

As Nigel once said, when discussing who was better, Mozart or Beethoven..."At that level, who cares?" 

Fully agreed, thank you.

The impression I get from a certain kind of criticism (and Beethoven is more or less always involved, even if it's not his fault) is a sort of worthless musical network way of thinking.
"Why do you like strawberries?"
"Because they're more red than bananas and not as salty as fried chips."
Does that make sense to you?

[karlhenning]

"Why do you like strawberries?"
"Because they're more red than bananas and not as salty as fried chips."

That's it in a nutshell!

Though I still reserve the right to quarrel with a fruit stall dedicated 30% to strawberries (Beethoven), 25% to bananas (Mozart), 15% to kiwis (Carmina burana), 15% to Red Delicious apples (The Planets) . . . and all other varieties of fruit vie for the remaining 15% of the shelf 

[karlhenning]

I guess the fried chips on the fruiterer's cart would be The Yo-Yo Ma Crossover Collection  

[Josquin des Prez]

but it is a popularity fuelled by the premise that there is something inherently special and profound to his music, and that is something that pretends to be objective in its hierarchising of what constitutes both  good music and what is a good composer.

I don't get what you are saying. There IS something special and profound about his music. You'd have to be stone death not to hear it.

Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better.

There's nothing elitist about it. It's the truth.

And the simple fact is that Puccini fan's don't go about weilding a baseball bat claiming he had something special to say like Beethovians and Wagnerians do is why we have this problem

Perhaps it's because there's nothing inherently as special about Puccini in the first place. 

[karlhenning]

Its not simple popularity; it is an elitist and bent view that Beethoven is more profound than, lets say, Haydn, which makes his works, particularly the 9th, better.

There's nothing elitist about it. It's the truth.

Artistic truth is generally nothing so flat-lined.  Remind me again exactly what "musical profundity" means?  And remind me again exactly why that is weightier in the evaluation of music than other factors?

[Josquin des Prez]

Remind me again exactly what "musical profundity" means? 

That's like trying to explain what it is to be in love. Certain things are beyond what mere words can express. This doesn't mean the feeling isn't there.

And remind me again exactly why that is weightier in the evaluation of music than other factors?

First, i'd like to know why Michel thinks there is no weight in that at all...

[71 dB]

I don't get what you are saying. There IS something special and profound about his music. You'd have to be stone death not to hear it.

You can't see it yourself but you have brainwashed yourself to think that way. You have teached yourself that Beethoven defines what is profound without realising there could be any other great composer instead of Beethoven. Beethoven is one of the greatest but he IS also overrated.

Puccini's popularity is based on his music. People really enjoy it.

[karlhenning]

That's like trying to explain what it is to be in love. Certain things are beyond what mere words can express. This doesn't mean the feeling isn't there.

Thank you for agreeing that, since we cannot quantify what musical profundity is, we can readily agree that Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is more profound than "Love Me Do," and that Tosca is more profound than Cats, but we cannot effectively argue that either of Beethoven or Puccini is necessarily more profound than the other.

[DavidW]

There's nothing elitist about it. It's the truth.


Artistic truth is generally nothing so flat-lined.  Remind me again exactly what "musical profundity" means?  And remind me again exactly why that is weightier in the evaluation of music than other factors?

Aesthetics!  Emotional sensitivity!  Worship Debussy's P&M!!

[karlhenning]

It all comes back to wubba-wubba!  

[Florestan]

Ah, how I miss the old forum... At least there the things were settled once and for all by "G-d" himself: Mendelssohn was the greatest composer ever, period.

Here reigns the anarchy.

Saul, brother, where art thou?

[Josquin des Prez]

You can't see it yourself but you have brainwashed yourself to think that way.

Precisely what i sensed Michel was getting at. Sorry for being crass, but you have to be out of your mind to truly believe that filth. Conspiracy theorists are so much fun.

You have teached yourself that Beethoven defines what is profound without realising there could be any other great composer instead of Beethoven.

Except i'm well aware there are other great composers besides Beethoven, i'm just confident enough about my feelings and what my hears can discern to be able to determine which i consider to be the greater artist. Why do you think that would prevent me from enjoying the music of other composers is beyond me.