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

[Josquin des Prez]

I have nothing else to add to Karl's points, which I believe yet to be refuted.

They have yet to proved, as well...

[karlhenning]

They have yet to proved, as well...

Oh, now you're just being contentious! 

[Don]

Many composers will be declared the greatest one after another before the final truth: Elgar is the greatest.

He did compose the greatest Enigma Variations I've ever heard.

[Scriptavolant]

I guess no-one ever tried to challenge or doubt Beethoven's greatness. As I've said in the past, anyway, it would be very interesting to check who, amongst the apparaisers, knew his greatness directly to the source, or by experience (maybe Larry), and who just read a lot of books. Reading books has no correlation with alleged musical intelligence, in my opinion, because it's easy to be smart with someone else's brain.
In this world, if you show yourself a bit tired because of the sometime redundant and rethorical amount of legend built on that man, you're authomatically labeled as a "revisionist", "anarchist", "false free thinker" "there's a conspiracy going on" "modern relativism" and so on; maybe you've just acknowledged his greatness, but don't feel the need to repeat it recursively till the end of time. No? Maybe you're just looking somewhere else. Maybe you don't believe in heroes or "cases" and just go for the music.

[Larry Rinkel]

I guess no-one ever tried to challenge or doubt Beethoven's greatness. As I've said in the past, anyway, it would be very interesting to check who, amongst the apparaisers, knew his greatness directly to the source, or by experience (maybe Larry), and who just read a lot of books. Reading books has no correlation with alleged musical intelligence, in my opinion, because it's easy to be smart with someone else's brain.
In this world, if you show yourself a bit tired because of the sometime redundant and rethorical amount of legend built on that man, you're authomatically labeled as a "revisionist", "anarchist", "false free thinker" "there's a conspiracy going on" "modern relativism" and so on; maybe you've just acknowledged his greatness, but don't feel the need to repeat it recursively till the end of time. No? Maybe you're just looking somewhere else. Maybe you don't believe in heroes or "cases" and just go for the music.

I'm not sure I understand everything you're saying, but the phrase "Maybe you don't believe in heroes" may get to the core of the problem. Much of Beethoven's mythic status depends on his position as a "hero": the solitary deaf genius overcoming all kinds of physical, psychological, and social barriers to emerge triumphant and transcendent. But I think there's a lot more to Beethoven than that; there's more to his music than the tragedy-to-triumph arc we hear in the 5th and 9th symphonies, and one could toy with the idea of writing a book called "Beethoven Anti-Hero." Since words like profundity and greatness are getting tossed around a lot here, I find someone like Puccini falls short in those areas because I feel he's so endlessly manipulative of my reactions as a member of the audience; Puccini's goal seems so often to elicit a good cry, and his chosen subjects frequently emphasize sadism and self-pity. I find the emotion in Beethoven, for whatever reason, comes across as more authentic. I also love Puccini's work immensely.

[Josquin des Prez]

I guess no-one ever tried to challenge or doubt Beethoven's greatness. As I've said in the past, anyway, it would be very interesting to check who, amongst the apparaisers, knew his greatness directly to the source, or by experience (maybe Larry), and who just read a lot of books. Reading books has no correlation with alleged musical intelligence, in my opinion, because it's easy to be smart with someone else's brain.
In this world, if you show yourself a bit tired because of the sometime redundant and rethorical amount of legend built on that man, you're authomatically labeled as a "revisionist", "anarchist", "false free thinker" "there's a conspiracy going on" "modern relativism" and so on; maybe you've just acknowledged his greatness, but don't feel the need to repeat it recursively till the end of time. No? Maybe you're just looking somewhere else. Maybe you don't believe in heroes or "cases" and just go for the music.

Or maybe if those so called 'free thinkers' weren't so vehemently obsessed with shoving their anarchism down our throats or referring to anybody who doesn't accept their bias as 'brainwashed', we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

Modern relativism sounds about right to me. I see no indication of the contrary.

[71 dB]

I think they call that revisionism. It must be nice to rewrite history based on your own biases to substitute perceived biases.

I am not rewriting anything. I try to open the eyes of people so the rewiting could be done collectively.

It's good see you talk as if that's an absolute certainty. Maybe the reason those composers have been raised to a divine pedestal is self evident, and you just can't see it. Ever thought of that?

Typical words from a narrow-minded person. "We have believed in this for centuries so why should we believe something else?".

Makes perfect sense to me. If somebody is better then the rest (whether objectively or subjectively), why should i bother with the others? The whole point of listening to music is to enjoy it. If some artist wrote music which i enjoy more then the rest, it's only natural i'm going to focus on that artist above everybody else.

It's okay if you enjoy Beethoven more than others but "not bothering" the others is plain ignorance.

[Josquin des Prez]

I am not rewriting anything. I try to open the eyes of people so the rewiting could be done collectively.

You would make a great socialist. Ever thought of getting into politics?. I hear that kind of stuff is all the rage this days.

"We have believed in this for centuries so why should we believe something else?".

We believed in this for centuries for a reason, and that reason is self evident. According to you, one is narrow-minded unless he rejects the past completely. Tell me how that isn't revisionist.   

It's okay if you enjoy Beethoven more than others but "not bothering" the others is plain ignorance.

It depends. I like Brahms less then i do Beethoven, but i still love his music very much. On the other end, you'll understand if i never bother listening to a Boccherini symphony ever again...

[Bunny]

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?" 

You are the first person I have ever seen use the word "hierarchising."  Much easier and  more understandable to say "ranking."   Then the sentence begins to make sense.

I'm not ranking Beethoven above every other composer.  I am stating that Beethoven must be ranked as one of the greatest composers who ever lived, and to dispute that is to under-rate him.  To agree is not to over-rate him, but to recognize his place in the history of music.  The fact that zillions of people all over the world when asked who is the greatest composer who ever lived answer Beethoven is not proof that they are merely reflecting the "corporate line" of elitists with a "bent view" of musical composers (who ever these unnamed elitists might be).  It merely reflects the fact that more people like Beethoven than, say, Haydn; and more people feel emotionally connected to his music than another composer's works.  The fact that Beethoven appeals on this level to multitudes of people who know next to nothing about music and wouldn't know one of your elitists from a hobo does not negate the greatness of the music.  Stating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the Da Vinci Code.

[71 dB]

Stating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the Da Vinci Code.

It's not a conspiracy trying to brainwash people. It's what happen's in history. The importance of some composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, etc.) is emphasized while other composers are almost forgotten (Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann, etc.) It's about cumulative errors in musical literature. Perhaps Beethoven ja Mozart are colorful enough to become mystified? Perhaps Dittersdorf is hard to sell? Considering how respected Dittersdorf were in his time it's odd how forgotten and ignored he is these days. Am I the only one asking these questions?

Beethoven is played everywhere. The first symphonies people hear in their life is Beethoven, not Dittersdorf. No wonder people learn to think Beethoven's style is the right one. That is bullshit.

[Michel]

Or maybe if those so called 'free thinkers' weren't so vehemently obsessed with shoving their anarchism down our throats or referring to anybody who doesn't accept their bias as 'brainwashed', we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

Modern relativism sounds about right to me. I see no indication of the contrary.

What the hell does "modern relatvism" mean -- you are just using a phrase to sling mud.

There is nothing relativistic about what I am saying; I am merely making the point that I think Beethoven is over-rated, that is not implying nothing is better than anything else, that is relativistic. It is also interesting you use the word "modern"; that god awful thing we all wish the end of, and return back to "traditional" sensible opinions....what a load of tosh.

[Josquin des Prez]

Beethoven is played everywhere. The first symphonies people hear in their life is Beethoven, not Dittersdorf. No wonder people learn to think Beethoven's style is the right one. That is bullshit.

Fair enough. Name one single symphony by Dittersdorf (110 to chose from) that is as great as Beethoven's 9th.

[71 dB]

Fair enough. Name one single symphony by Dittersdorf (110 to chose from) that is as great as Beethoven's 9th.

Dittersdorf is lesser composer to Beethoven but not much. Perhaps Beethoven's best symphonies are better than Dittersdorf's best but on the other hand I find many Dittersdorf symphonies (Ovid) superior to Beethoven first 2.

Symphonies better than Beethoven's 9th were composed in the late romantic era.

[Michel]

You are the first person I have ever seen use the word "hierarchising."  Much easier and  more understandable to say "ranking."   Then the sentence begins to make sense.

I'm not ranking Beethoven above every other composer.  I am stating that Beethoven must be ranked as one of the greatest composers who ever lived, and to dispute that is to under-rate him.  To agree is not to over-rate him, but to recognize his place in the history of music.  The fact that zillions of people all over the world when asked who is the greatest composer who ever lived answer Beethoven is not proof that they are merely reflecting the "corporate line" of elitists with a "bent view" of musical composers (who ever these unnamed elitists might be).  It merely reflects the fact that more people like Beethoven than, say, Haydn; and more people feel emotionally connected to his music than another composer's works.  The fact that Beethoven appeals on this level to multitudes of people who know next to nothing about music and wouldn't know one of your elitists from a hobo does not negate the greatness of the music.  Stating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the Da Vinci Code.

I am not sure I have said in any of my points that Beethoven is not a great composer, and I haven't even said that he isn't one of the greatest. What I was actually originally saying, if you pay attention, is a comment not about him, but his 9th. And yes, I agree, Beethoven is one of the greatest - but who else is? Since it isn't obvious if we were to use new recording output as the yardstick. The very fact we can argue about everyone else being "truly great", but not Beethoven is absurd.

And if you want to be democratic and start asking people questions to judge artisitic merit, which you consider a strength of Beethoven, I refer back to my previous analogy; that is, given that the Eagles have the highest selling album of all time, then they should surely be considered the greatest pop act, or more contentious, the greatest act ever, across all genres. But I think we can both admit that is patently absurd.

Now, I certainly haven't suggested there is any intentional conspiracy theory to promote Beethoven, but I am saying we are misguided in our current view, however, through whatever historical circumstance caused it, in giving him the position he does within classical music. And I don't know why yet again, you also are slinging mud, by calling this view elitist, since I haven't really expressed my opinion on what the greatest could be considered as if I think Beethoven is not it; after all, my answer could be (though it isn't) Tchaikovsky.

[karlhenning]

Beethoven is played everywhere.

Love is in the air . . . .

The first symphonies people hear in their life is Beethoven, not Dittersdorf. No wonder people learn to think Beethoven's style is the right one. That is bullshit.

Actually, I think I heard Mozart and Dvorak symphonies before I'd heard any Beethoven. For sure, though, I heard Beethoven years before I'd heard any Elgar symphony! 

Do you really suppose that if people were simply exposed to Dittersdorf's music first, they would think Dittersdorf better than Beethoven?

To quote a Finn of my virtual acquaintance, that is bullshit    

[Papy Oli]

O FREUNDE !!!!!!!!!! 

A musically powerful piece that was a first step to discovering classical music... I don't necessary listen to it that often anymore, with all the pieces i have discovered since, but i still get shaken by those openings notes (and the rest) as much as the first time i heard them !!

[Scriptavolant]

Stating that Beethoven's popularity is a result of an elitist conspiracy to brainwash humanity into believing that Beethoven is more profound than Haydn or Vivaldi or Bach or even Elgar is probably the craziest theory I've heard since the Da Vinci Code.

Beethoven is (you say) the most popular composer for a serie of reasons, one of them the hegemony of Romantic poetics and principles in both elitist and - by osmosis - popular culture.

To say that a certain kind of cultivated/accademical criticism (most philosophical, I'm not talking about musical analysis) is responsible of imposing canons which in many cases are assimilated without previous reasoning by people is absolutely plausible. In this way I agree with the statement that Beethoven is over-rated; I mean: inflated.

All these considerations have nothing to do with music, the same way myths have nothing to do with it.
From a pure musical point of view, Beethoven represents a pinnacle (I'm waiting to verify this statement by acquiring the tools), but once again I see no reason in turning this objective observation into normative value to export or remind over and over again, since I believe art and music are - far beyond objective analysis - complete individual and personal experiences.

[karlhenning]

From a pure musical point of view, Beethoven represents a pinnacle

I'll buy that.  I just don't see him as the pinnacle, nor as necessarily the highest pinnacle.

[Josquin des Prez]

I'll buy that.  I just don't see him as the pinnacle, nor as necessarily the highest pinnacle.

I'm ok with that. My opposition is geared towards the idea he represents no pinnacle.

[Scriptavolant]

And Karl, I buy this one:

Every musical genius, is a unique genius.

Beethoven is not unique in that