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

[71 dB]

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

If people were exposed to Dittersdorf more they would keep him in much higher esteem, near Beethoven.

It's possible the history went so that Dittersdorf was the praised composer here and my "free thinker obligation" was to tell how good the String Quartets of this forgotten Beethoven are.   

[Josquin des Prez]

^ Impossible. Sorry, but you are wrong. Utterly so. Beethoven made history, not the other way around...

[71 dB]

^ Impossible. Sorry, but you are wrong. Utterly so...

Impossible only in your mind would Yoda say...

[Michel]

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

When did anyone say that he did not represent a pinnacle, of some kind.

(even it it is a pinnacle of overatedness)

[Don]

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.

I've heard plenty of Dittersdorf, Vanhal and Hofmann.  They are 2nd tier composers at best - they entertain and possess mastery of technique.  But their inspiration is limited, at least compared to the likes of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.  If I had to listen to steady diet of 2nd tier composers, I'd stop listening to classical music totally.

[Bunny]

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.

Okay, you admit that Beethoven is one of the greatest composers, but then insist that one of his greatest works is over-rated?  The 9th symphony may not be the absolute greatest symphony or musical work ever written but it is, without dispute, among the greatest musical works by Beethoven.  (Or perhaps you believe that the 9th Symphony is one of Beethoven's lesser works?)  If it is true that the symphony is one of the greatest works by one of the greatest composers, then the symphony is not over-rated, but properly recognized for its true worth, or perhaps even under-rated!  The fact that millions recognize its quality, and understand that others so value it also galls you, otherwise you would never have made its popularity a negating factor of its quality.  The only way you can support the statement that the symphony is over-rated is by positing that it is not one of the greater works of a composer you have conceded to be one of the greatest, or and here is where I have the most dificulty, that the majority of those who esteem it are not capable of making this judgment. 

I really am having great difficulty with your reasoning.  If you are not expressing this view, then please explain more fully exactly how the symphony is over-rated. 

[Larry Rinkel]

If people were exposed to Dittersdorf more they would keep him in much higher esteem, near Beethoven.

Don said it. I've heard plenty of Dittersdorf, Pleyel, Cimarosa, Paisiello and other 2nd-raters from the Classical era. They're not even close to Mozart or Beethoven. If you want to discuss this subject in a musically intelligent way, I strongly suggest a reading of Edward Lowinsky's superb essay, "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he analyzes the styles of Dittersdorf and Mozart and demonstrates why Mozart is a far more imaginative, less predictable musical mind. It's not "provable" in the sense of a mathematical theorem but it is demonstrable according to such aesthetic criteria as originality, balance, flexibility, and so forth.

Occasionally you do find a neglected, less-known composer. From that era, I'll defend passionately the Symphony in D by Vorisek, and perhaps less passionately some of the work of JM Kraus. But overall the judgments of history - that is, the cumulative assessments of generations of composers, performers, listeners, and musicologists - are harder to deny than you "free-thinkers" seem to realize.

[Michel]

To answer briefly, and succinctly, I think the following works by Beethoven supercede the 9th symphony:

3rd, 4th and 5th Piano Concertos
String Quartets
Piano Sonatas

I think these are more significant in the history of music than the 9th, most certainly. Beethoven's symphonic output was of course hugely significant for the development of the symphony, but there is probably more advancement and progression from what preceded him in his earlier symphonies, such as the 2nd or 3rd. They were amazing; the 9th was really just the last in a long string of amazing work. And that point, more so than the works I consider superior above, is really why I think it is over-rated; for even if you consider him the greatest symphonist of all time, there is nothing to say that the 9th is his best symphony.

[DavidW]

I notice that in this discussion an important ingredient has been completely neglected... I have to explain so, hold on...

The individual listener is biased, but so is the audience as a whole.

We, the contemporary audience, are not neutral receivers of classical music.  We do not listen to music unbiased.  To say that Beethoven is the most popular today is not to say that Beethoven has been and will always be the most popular.  The same goes for any well received composer today.

The reason that I say this is because that we have our own aesthetic taste.  I'm not talking about individual taste, I mean as a collective group what we desire in music is different from the audience in the past and the audience of future generations.

We see and remark here on gmg all the time how the aesthetic aims of composers is a moving target, but completely neglect the other side of music.  We, the audience, evolve in taste.  Bach is popular today, in the beginning of the 20th century he wasn't.  Why is that?  Why did Hindemith's popularity dwindle?  Why did Mahler's grow?

Why is the popularity of Beethoven today a measure of his greatness?  He might be forgotten later if the audience's tastes change!   If it happened to Bach it could happen to anybody.  You might say, no Beethoven will always be very popular, and I would say that is not a fact, that is a belief.

I also see from Larry a remark about Beethoven as a symbol of triumph = greatness.  Well his story, and what it stands for, is certainly infatuating, but doesn't seem to me to be dependent on his music.

[71 dB]

Don said it. I've heard plenty of Dittersdorf, Pleyel, Cimarosa, Paisiello and other 2nd-raters from the Classical era. They're not even close to Mozart or Beethoven. If you want to discuss this subject in a musically intelligent way, I strongly suggest a reading of Edward Lowinsky's superb essay, "On Mozart's Rhythm," where he analyzes the styles of Dittersdorf and Mozart and demonstrates why Mozart is a far more imaginative, less predictable musical mind. It's not "provable" in the sense of a mathematical theorem but it is demonstrable according to such aesthetic criteria as originality, balance, flexibility, and so forth.

Occasionally you do find a neglected, less-known composer. From that era, I'll defend passionately the Symphony in D by Vorisek, and perhaps less passionately some of the work of JM Kraus. But overall the judgments of history - that is, the cumulative assessments of generations of composers, performers, listeners, and musicologists - are harder to deny than you "free-thinkers" seem to realize.

Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are all in my top 10 of greatest composers. Dittersdorf isn't. The problem is almost all people know who Beethoven is even if they don't listen to classical music but Dittersdorf is known only by classical music enthusiast. This difference is too large. This is why Michel and I are telling Beethoven is overrated.

[Ten thumbs]

One thing one can say about Beethoven is that contemporary composers and musicians took notice of his works and, if they could, acquired the manuscripts. However, there was no orchestra in Berlin capable of performing his 9th symphony, so it could only be grasped from the written notes or playing at the piano from the full score. This is how Fanny Hensel learned it and did not hear it performed in concert until 1836 under the direction of her brother Felix. Her impressions are quite interesting:
"This colossal Ninth Symphony, so vast and, in places, so terrifying, was performed as though by one person. The subtlest nuances and most hidden meanings came to light; textures were differentiated and made comprehensible; and then it became on the whole sublimely beautiful. A gigantic tragedy, whose finale is intended to be exalted but capsizes at its climax and slides into the opposite extreme, into burlesque."
Could it represent a foretaste of Mahler?

[Bunny]

To answer briefly, and succinctly, I think the following works by Beethoven supercede the 9th symphony:

3rd, 4th and 5th Piano Concertos
String Quartets
Piano Sonatas

I think these are more significant in the history of music than the 9th, most certainly. Beethoven's symphonic output was of course hugely significant for the development of the symphony, but there is probably more advancement and progression from what preceded him in his earlier symphonies, such as the 2nd or 3rd. They were amazing; the 9th was really just the last in a long string of amazing work. And that point, more so than the works I consider superior above, is really why I think it is over-rated; for even if you consider him the greatest symphonist of all time, there is nothing to say that the 9th is his best symphony.

Clearly, by your own words, the 9th symphony is not over-rated.  It is a great symphony by a great composer, his last in a "long string of amazing work," which had a great role in the development of the symphony.   The fact that other of his works are in your opinion even greater, if less accessible to the ordinary man, than this symphony doesn't mean that the symphony is not also an incredible work of art.  It is mere quibbling to say that it's over-rated because it isn't in your personal opinion the greatest of his symphonies.  It doesn't have to be the absolute greatest of his symphonies or works to be judged as one of the greatest works of Western Music.  At this point you are arguing that the Mona Lisa is not as great as Leonardo's painting of St. John the Baptist.  The one does not negate the other.  Each individual listener must decide for himself which part of Beethoven's works he connects with most deeply.  When there is so much of uniformly high quality, the danger is that certain works will be taken for granted and under-valued, not that any of them are over-rated.

[Don]

Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are all in my top 10 of greatest composers. Dittersdorf isn't. The problem is almost all people know who Beethoven is even if they don't listen to classical music but Dittersdorf is known only by classical music enthusiast. This difference is too large. This is why Michel and I are telling Beethoven is overrated.

Haydn isn't in my top ten, but likely top 30.  Dittersdorf wouldn't make my top 100.  By the way, why all the talk about Dittersdorf? 

[Bunny]

Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are all in my top 10 of greatest composers. Dittersdorf isn't. The problem is almost all people know who Beethoven is even if they don't listen to classical music but Dittersdorf is known only by classical music enthusiast. This difference is too large. This is why Michel and I are telling Beethoven is overrated.

The reason Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are better known than Dittersdorf is because he's in no one's top 10 list.  He is of little interest to even many classical music enthusiasts.  This is not a matter of unfairness.  It's absolutely fair that greater artists receive more recognition.  They receive the greater recognition because they are greater artists.  What's so hard to understand about this?  If, for instance, someone told me that Hummel was the greatest composer for piano of the 19th century, then I would say that he's over-rated, and Beethoven, Schubert, and Chopin and so many other giants were in comparison under-rated.  Popularity or mass appeal cannot guarantee greatness, but it cannot negate it either.

[karlhenning]

If people were exposed to Dittersdorf more they would keep him in much higher esteem, near Beethoven.

No, exposure to an obscure composer by no means guarantees that the vegetable of a listener whom you posit, would therefore hold Dittersdorf in higher esteem.

And any notion of Dittersdorf enjoying esteem "near Beethoven," is the duller sort of science-fiction.

That's what I say, as a freethinker!

[karlhenning]

. . . Could it represent a foretaste of Mahler?

Gustav would have thought so 

[karlhenning]

And BTW, 71 dB, if you disagree with my ideas, it's because people like you have always been slow to accept the thoughts of freethinkers like me!  Hah!

[Don]

No, exposure to an obscure composer by no means guarantees that the vegetable of a listener whom you posit, would therefore hold Dittersdorf in higher esteem.

And any notion of Dittersdorf enjoying esteem "near Beethoven," is the duller sort of science-fiction.

That's what I say, as a freethinker!

My view is that increased exposure to 2nd rate composers only confirms why they're 2nd rate.

[Gurn Blanston]

Fortunately for me, and my free-thinking intellectual style, I don't subscribe to any rating system whatsoever. The preponderance of disks by Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn in my collection is a simple result of me really liking their music, not because of any perception of "greatness" on their part. A rating system implies a comparison of one to the other, so greatness is only relative. I prefer my composers sui generis. Each has his/her merits, and I enjoy them on that basis alone. If I want a race, I'll watch The Preakness Saturday...

[71 dB]

No, exposure to an obscure composer by no means guarantees that the vegetable of a listener whom you posit, would therefore hold Dittersdorf in higher esteem.

And any notion of Dittersdorf enjoying esteem "near Beethoven," is the duller sort of science-fiction.

That's what I say, as a freethinker!

Dittersdorf did enjoy very high esteem in his lifetime. Why? Perhaps because he was good? It's our ignorance he is ignored! I don't believe every note Mozart and Beethoven wrote are superior to those of Dittersdorf, Vanhal, Hofmann and others.

If Beethoven was so great why did any composer bother compose any new music? Isn't it kind of useless? Beethoven already wrote unbeatable music!